Misplaced Pages

talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:10, 21 December 2007 editStrider12 (talk | contribs)1,243 edits →Attempts to undermine this policy with incompatible Guidelines← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024 edit undoRemsense (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Template editors63,821 edits Undid revision 1263034059 by 73.181.151.189 (talk) rm non sequiturTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit App undo 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|WT:NPOV}}
{{Policy-talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 30
|algo = old(30d) |counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Notice|header=Are you in the right place? |For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the ] (any neutrality-related issue) or the ] (undue weight given to a minority view).}}
----
{{WikiProject banner shell|
'''The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.'''
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
----
}}
{{Press
| subject = policy
| author = Nishant Kauntia
| title = The Edit Wars: How Misplaced Pages earned the ire of the Hindu Right
| org = '']''
| url = https://caravanmagazine.in/media/wikipedia-earned-ire-hindu-right
| date = 30 November 2020
| quote =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 9 December 2020
| subject2 = policy
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/
| date2 = 29 May 2023
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023
| subject3 = policy
| author3 = Aaron Bandler
| title3 = Misplaced Pages Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376157/wikipedia-editors-place-a-near-total-ban-on-calling-gaza-health-ministry-hamas-run/
| date3 = 25 October 2024
| quote3 =
| archiveurl3 =
| archivedate3 =
| accessdate3 = 26 October 2024
}}
{{Archive box|search=no|box-width=250px|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive
break=yes
width=27
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}


{{shortcut|]}}

{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_1.ogg}}

{{sidebar|
;Archived discussions
: ] Discussions before October 2004 : ] Discussions before October 2004
: ] Closing out 2004 : ] Closing out 2004
: ] Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005 : ] Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
: ] July to November 4, 2005 : ] July to November 4, 2005
: ] to November 13, 2005 : ] to November 13, 2005
Line 33: Line 76:
: ] to April 09, 2006 : ] to April 09, 2006
---- ----
'''Note:''' Edit history of 001-017 is in 017. '''Note:''' Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.
---- ----
: ]: Apr 2006 : ]: Apr 2006
: ]: Apr 2006 - May 2006 : ]: Apr 2006 – May 2006
: ]: May 2006 - Jun 2006 : ]: May 2006 – Jun 2006
: ]: Jun 2006 : ]: Jun 2006
: ]: Jul 2006 : ]: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
: ]: Jul-Aug 4 2006 : ]: Jul–Aug 4 2006
: ]: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006 : ]: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
: ]: Sept 22 - Oct 2006 : ]: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
: ]: Nov - Dec 2006 : ]: Nov – Dec 2006
: ]: Jan - Feb 2007 : ]: Jan – Feb 2007
: ]: Mar - May 2007 : ]: Mar – May 2007
: ]: May - September 2007 : ]: May – Sep 2007
: ]: October 2007 - : ]: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
: ]: Feb – May 2008
: ]: May – July 2008
: ]: July 2008
: ]: July – Sep 2008
: ]: Sep 2008 – May 2009
: ]: April – Aug 2009
: ]: Aug – Nov 2009
: ]: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
: ]: Mar - Apr 2010
: ]: Apr 2010
: ]: May 2010
: ]: May - Jun 2010
: ]: Jun - Oct 2010
: ]: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
: ]: Apr - Nov 2011
: ]: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
: ]: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
: ]: Sep 2014 - May 2015
: ]: May 2015
: ]: May - Jun 2015
: ]: Jul - Nov 2015
: ]: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
: ]: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
: ]: Aug 2017
: ]: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
: ]: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
: ]: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
: ]: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
: ]: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
: ]: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
: ]: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
: ]: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023 – May 2024
: ]: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
: ]: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
: ]: Aug 2024 – present
}} }}


When starting a new topic, please add it to the '''bottom''' of this page, and please '''sign''' your comments with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.
__TOC__ __TOC__


== Clarification for known issues or criticism sections ==
== Evolution ==

if there ever was a biased article, that one was it. We should work on that. The accepted truth isn't the only one. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


If[REDACTED] is going to allow religious fundamentalists such as yourself who support ID/creationism to edit science, we might as well let hard-core atheists edit Christianity.
Why don't you give a nod to other theories of intelligent design, such as how mankind was designed by the Greek gods? And what about Norse, Chinese, Egyptian, etc creation and intelligent design ideas?

If not, then that is a testament to your hypocrisy.
] (]) 03:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


== What is a "tiny minority?" ==

I am involved in a debate as to whether a criticism-- one published as an op-ed in two generally notable publications (] and ])-- deserves mention in a proposed criticism section for a ]. (see ]) Other editors have complained that the criticism has not received serious attention in academic circles, and I'm sure they're right. However, I think all criticism in the public sphere is relevant to a person's notability, but I'm not sure where the "tiny minority" threshold for inclusion/non-inclusion is to be drawn. Would double-publication of the criticism as an op-ed alone be enough to bring it out of the tiny minority category? Thanks. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:It doesn't seem like it would. But I don't know the particulars. ] 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

===Another case===

Should sources acknowledged as extremists be given space on articles, even though they are popular?

For example, on the article ], should ] be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Judaism"? The publication is widely acknowledged as extremist and antisemitic.

Another example: on the article ], should ] be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Islam"? The publication and the author are acknowledged as extremist and Islamophobic.] 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. ] ] 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::One may replace ] with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.] 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::BTW, are you seriously suggesting that[REDACTED] should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?] 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. ] ] 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.] 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. ] ] 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
:Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret ] document, and this was later roundly discredited. ] (]) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== Creation Myth vs. Origin Belief ==

Currently, what I would consider to be the Creation Myth article, has the name "Origin Belief"

It's my understanding that one is actually used in conversation and academic channels, while the other is a semantic treatment of the term. A quick google search will reveal which term is more commonly used.

People who hold supernatural beliefs about the origins of the world are offended by the term "myth" which they believe denotes "false". But the dictionary definition of "myth" does not carry this connotation, nor does the term when used academically. To be fair, I think the word does sometimes carry this connotation in colloquial speech.

On the other hand, anyone searching for the article is going to be looking for "Creation Myth" not "Origin Belief". This is because "Origin Belief" is an invented term designed to assuage people's concern over the word "myth".

My first instinct is that it should be reverted to "Creation Myth" as any encyclopedia should be a collection of facts, and not some sort of blueprint for a more PC world. However, upon reading this article, it's unclear to me whether this is the desire of[REDACTED] or not.

Basically I'm looking for guidance here. I will ultimately defer to the conventions of wikipedia, even if I disagree with them.

] 19:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

:"It should be _reverted_" to the name that it had _when_? When did the article first start to have its current name?

:The 16:49, 8 Apr 2005 post on the article's talk page indicates that the article was renamed in some way around that time. Was it changed from "Creation Myth" then? If so, reverting it at this point seems late to me because it appears that:
:*1. There was discussion about this issue on the talk page before the renaming happened.
:*2. Others haven't reverted it the 2+ years since it was given the current name.
:*3. The 15:31, 30 October 2007 post on the article's talk page hasn't rallied support for renaming the article.
:And ] redirects there. --] (]) 20:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

== Attempts to undermine this policy with incompatible Guidelines ==

I just noticed in a relatively new guideline the phrase '''"Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion"'''.

I cannot interpret this as anything else but an attempt to undermine (or re-negotiate) our NPOV policy, according to which Misplaced Pages must not be biased towards any party. "Mainstream"
(or majority) opinion is fairly given most space; it is not permitted to let Misplaced Pages be transformed into a propaganda outlet of majority opinion.

Evidently, Misplaced Pages must be actively protected from being hijacked by the opinion of any party. What shall we do about it?

] (]) 12:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

:I agree that the wording, found in ] is questionable. Mainstream doesn't define NPOV, and in fact it often is far from NPOV. This doesn't mean I'm all for ] or any other strict notion of what constitutes NPOV, but the word ] unfortunately carries connotations of e.g. underinformed masses, of emotional rather than educated judgment. To jump directly to ]: Mainstream opinion in the Third Reich was that the white race is superior. If Misplaced Pages had existed at that time in Germany, would that mainstream opinion be NPOV then? Likewise, can ] generally be considered to be unbiased just because they are the mainstream media? We should however take this to ].|]trottel |] 14:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::You could try [[
:: Indeed I do intend to correct that sentence at that place. However, I first brought it up here by way of bad example. It appears that there is a natural push against ] simply by the law of majority opinion; and I vaguely think to remember that one of the founders has written about the constant fight against such forces that try to take over.
:: To use your example (thanks): Indeed, had the Third Reich taken world power, Misplaced Pages would have had to give much space to the opinion that the white race is superior and the Jews "Untermenschen". At the same time, there would have been an intense struggle (even risking death) by some editors who try to give alternative opinions appropriate weight. Usually it's much less dramatical, but on many topics Misplaced Pages is no dou¨bt under attack by people who try to suppress minority opinions in any possible way.
:: At one point in time there has been an uncontrolled growth of crank articles. I have the impression that this has been properly dealt with, in part thanks to the effectiveness of majority opinion. Thus that was more of an annoyance; the suppresion of notable minority opinions is a much greater danger for NPOV, and, with that, Misplaced Pages itself.
:: Perhaps this needs to be discussed at an even higher level, such as the Misplaced Pages Signpost, but I don't know where. I was hoping that someone of the more regular editors of NPOV has an idea.
:: ] (]) 16:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::You could try the ] ], or the ], but don't get upset if the responses are not overwhelmingly welcoming. WP has a huge inertia, and few are willing to risk any part of the so-so working status quo. |]trottel |] 17:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
This issue is a highly significant bottleneck to the quality of Misplaced Pages. I suggest the NPOV policy has a serious flaw since it can't cope with the implications mentioned here. Please give your opinion here:] ] (]) 18:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

: This is a very funny assertion: '''"Misplaced Pages self-identifies primarily with mainstream opinion"''' Afer all, nearly everyone (on opposing sides) believes their opinions relfect the mainstream! Anyone who writes this as "policy" is just looking for an excuse to push their own "mainstream opinion." --] (]) 22:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

::While people may ''believe'' whatever they wish about their views, mainstream opinion is typically easily ], at least on scientific topics, through the statements of major medical/scientific bodies. For instance, statements from the NIH, CDC, Surgeon General, WHO, major European health agencies, and major professional organizations (ACOG/RCOG, ACP, APA, etc) are clearly verifiable indications of where mainstream opinion lies. Where such analyses are unavailable, the task of determining mainstream opinion may be a bit more difficult. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 19:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

:::But statements from people associated with agencies and groups should also be carefully evaluated to see if they represent an official, vetted opinion of that group or are just private opinions. Even the citation of an individual researchers claim that "this is a majority view" by a major organization, such as WHO, does not necessarily mean that WHO has officialy examined a question and come to the same conclusion...unless the document clearly states that this is WHO's official position.

:::To use examples MastCell is very familiar with, let's consider a 1989 peer reviewed literature review by a group of six members of the family planning and population control subgroup of the APA concluding with their opinion that there is no substantial evidence of serious mental health effects of abortion. (Ignore for the moment that this review was prompted by political questions raised about abortion at that time, and the fact that the APA has lobbied for abortion as a civil right--not a medical benefit--a civil right) While all are APA members, this literture review was never officially adopted by the APA governing body as its "official" conclusions regarding the literature. And, as there is no evidence that the six person team's opinions necessarily represents the majority opinion of the APA, much less psychologists in general, it should not be given undue weight. Certainly it should be cited and included, but not given precedence over subsequent material. But POV-pushers will frequently use such sources as a way to borrow the authority of a larger group, such as the APA, to imply that it has more weight than it really does.

::: Similarly, when the Surgeon General issues a statement, in 1989, that methodological problems in research done to that date make it impossible to draw an definitive conclusions about abortion's mental health effects, it seems evident that this official refusal to issue a conclusion should be portrayed as evidence that the weight of evidence (or opinion) is that there are not mental health effects. Moreover, as these two sources are over 18 years old, and much more research has been done since then, should they really dominate the WEIGHT of an article on post-abortion syndrome? Just because these, and a commentary in JAMA by a single author, are the best (and only) resources those pushing a POV have, they should not be pushed as the determiners of WEIGHT of medical opinion.

:::In short, when critically examined, these examples, which MastCell frequently relies on at ] are really not very substantive examples of where "mainstream opinion" lies because there has been no research really done on what constitute the mainstream opinion of physicians and academics.

:::Also, contrary to MastCell's assertion, it is not always easy to interpret mainstream opinion because even official statements are frequently nuanced. In the case of the post-abortion syndrome controversy, for example, even the experts on the pro-choice side will generally make nuanced statements which say less than they appear. For example, the statement "MOST women do not experience significant emotional" is designed to shift attention away from the implicit admission that some women, a minority, may experience emotional problems. Similarly, the deniers argument that there is "no proof of a CAUSAL connection" is designed to shift attention from the fact that there is abundance evidence of a connection between abortion and mental health problems but a dispute over the causal pathways. So even these sources if carefully read, actually admit that the weight of evidence is that some post-abortion problems do occur. So, citing these sources as proof of the WEIGHT of opinion can actually be misleading if one fails to also report the nuanced statements within these sources and instead concentrates on the broad conclusions which reflect policy recommendations rather than the bare scientific facts.--] (]) 21:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] ==

<s>How about renaming this page to ] (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on ''issues of relative coverage'' other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;05:18,&nbsp;],&nbsp;2007</s>

:Nevermind. I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;] I&nbsp;05:27,&nbsp;],&nbsp;2007

== Good summary quote ==

I found this in ]'s ''Philosophical Explanations'':
:"If a person is wondering whether or not to believe ''p'', can't we offer him reason to believe it as ''help''?" Yes, if your help is neutral. But do you also offer reasons for not believing ''p''? Do you pursue with further reasons for ''p'' if the first fail to convince?

Maybe it could be added somewhere in WP:NPOV? &mdash; <small>]] &bull; 2007-11-26 13:57Z</small>

== stopped ==

why am i getting in trouble when im trying to make my own article? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Demons cause disease ==

"Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases" Is there a source for this? :) ] (]) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

== When referencing distorts NPOV ==

I ran into an interesting issue while looking over ] and the "Anti-Americanism in Australia" subsection. It's pretty mediocre so I went to work trying to to draft a "balanced" overview, and I began reference hunting.

But the references providing "evidence of anti-americanism" vastly outnumber the references indicating that it really isn't a major issue. I have endless media reports of protests at visiting US diplomats, numerous major media editorials which criticise individual American decisions and even the Deputy Prime Minister making a sweeping statement in 2005 that "there is a very strong anti-American feeling in Australia" (no I'm not kidding - ). I even have a top 20 song by ] called "US Forces" which opens with the lyric ''US Forces give the nod, it's a setback for your country''. (Which I confess to singing along with as a teenager).

So the majority of references I can find make it appear that anti-Americanism is utterly rabid here and that we are one step away from gunning down American tourists in the streets,. But as someone living here, I can assure you this simply isn't true. Unfortunately the references that say ''"although we make snide remarks about Americans every now and then, we basically don't mind them"'' just don't seem to be out there. It's almost like our media and academia are implying ''"we all know this, so no-one really needs to says it"''.

Now my comment here isn't about addressing this specific situation as such, and I'm not asking for anyone to find the references that prove me wrong (although I'll gladly accept them). But I'm curious as to whether there are other "squeaky wheel" type situations where the very act of referencing seems to create POV distortions, and how the community has dealt with them. ] 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
:Re. the concrete issue: "" (my translation of this sentence from a ] new bulletin: "], a faithful ally of the United States, has been in power for eleven years in Australia"). Even if we, simplistic Belgians, can find out that a pro-American leader of a government has been in power for 11 years in Australia (well, he scored with the pro-American view in previous elections didn't he? - arguably something had changed in the period after the last "victorious" election...), it shouldn't be too difficult to find an English speaking political analyst that comes to that conclusion, isn't it?
:Re. general issue: I wondered about this in the past (most recently when working on the ] article: the most contested sentence of that article uses five references - the article currently has a total of seven references), but somehow got convinced there isn't a real problem. As with the Australian example above: maybe the sources you're looking for are just so big you don't see them, or never considered using them. Also, a contention needing many references usually needs to start with something in the vein of ''according to some sources'' ("Depending on source,..." in the ] case), which automatically, virtually for any reader, has the look and feel of a less certain issue (implying: NPOV isn't distorted). And FYI (regarding the Sejny debate leading to the 5-reference sentence), one of the few cases here at Misplaced Pages where a Polish-Lithuanian disagreement was settled amicably (compare previous tensions resulting in ]): what I want to say is that ''this'' time both the Lithuanian and Polish contributors involved (and both groups were involved) could settle for the 5-references sentence after some edgy debate. I even received a nice invitation afterwards .
:Hope this helps --] 12:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

::See ] discussion page for massive examples of selective POV pushing with the "undue weight" argument.--] (]) 22:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:::While you're at it, Strider12, please see ] and ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

== Views ==

I changed a wording of "...views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Misplaced Pages at all" because I found a talk page comment where someone stated that in an article which was about a minority view that view doesn't need to be presented because it's a minority view, and that sounded absurd. I wasn't sure if I should edit this policy with my main account or this, but because I found that talk page related to an arbitration case which I'm uninvolved but made a statement I felt I should use the same account. I have a legitimate main account and I can tell it to someone who isn't involved with that arbitration. I certainly did not plan to get into policy editing with this account. :-) I'm still hoping that I could keep my main account out of these controversies, even though I wanted to make that brief note on an arbitration case and found this a little bit unclear part on this policy. As I understand this is that if a minority view is so extreme that it doesn't even have an article, then it's not presented anywhere. ] 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Because this page is so clear about these things in general maybe that one sentence gets understood right here. There's no problem that views which are so extreme that there's no article about them or people advocating them are presented nowhere. And what I tried to add, the same thing is on the page elsewhere. I found a sentence about another matter which I'll comment, it was written 4 July 2007 as a part of a big change which was discussed on the talk page, but I didn't see discussion of that sentence. "A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is." ] Many sources assume that the reader has basic information, and often a size of some group would have to be found from another source. I'm leaving this message here hoping that someone who has been developing the wordings of the policy gets to this later. ] 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

== ] - in DRASTIC need of an update ==

I surfed on in to the NPOV page to look up a specific detail and randomly noticed the link to ]. You can imagine my enormous surprise at finding that this page is essentially unchanged since the day I first posted it back in October 2001. (see ).

While I am deeply flattered that something I wrote so long ago is still being referenced, it is fair to say our collective perspective is (ahem)
"a tad more sophisticated now". We should either archive it as historical, or subject it to a complete re-write. ] 13:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

== NPOV Noticeboard proposal ==

A proposal concerning the creation of a new Admin noticeboard has developed into the suggestion/proposal to create ]. See ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)



== Weight of sources for "factual" statements in Misplaced Pages ==

:''(Reposting here, was originally on ] by mistake, and I was directed here instead)''
Hi, I'm sure this will be a Misplaced Pages 101 question, but please review for me? On ], a rather spirited debate is raging for whether it is acceptable to say essentially, "Waterboarding is torture" as a statement. It had gone in quite a few circles, and then I finally asked people to simply list all the sources that say it isn't torture, versus those that say it is.

.

A large variety of sources and notable opinions that indicate, yes, it's torture, and on the other side, '''two''' pundits. One basically saying, "Kick it back to the legislature to decide," which is largely irrelevant, as the United States legislature mentioned in her source of course doesn't decide this globally, and the other pundit simply saying he doesn't think it's torture. My take is that, based on the overwhelming weight of opinion and sourced information, we can only go with what we have at this time: Waterboarding is a form of torture, and we can mention in a subsection or later that some may disagree. As apparently only one sourced person disagrees, I wouldn't mention it in the lead, but down below in the text/discussion of waterboarding and the United States.

Am I analyzing this correctly? <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">]</font></span> 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

== One view will never be neutral: introduce MPOV to replace NPOV? ==

The NPOV policy was never meant to cope with the limits of interpretation. To start with, what could be neutral to ''any'' point of view?

A well known strategy of experienced POV pushers is to push out all views they oppose to from an article, on the pretext that those other views are not significant enough. These so-called "insignificant" views easily include published scholarly points of view. Somehow this wrong-doers are free to present those other views as contradicting some kind of "mainstream" popular view, by law of nature identified as "neutral". However, the neutrality of such a "neutral" point of view is irreconcilable to the ''personal'' point of view of those that seek to give ] attention to their own opinion, maybe even at the cost of criticism and the results of other investigations.

All of this is possible for those that intent to abuse NPOV policy at the limits of its applicability. Sure, theoretically some kind of "neutrality" could (and should) be achieved by ''verifiability'' and ''objectivity'': however, ''authority'' and ''general acceptance'' will rarely contribute to such a neutrality, not even being a scholarly point of view, and certainly never as a rule of thumb. How "neutral" was the once generally accepted autocratic dogma of the earth being flat? So, if "neutrality" of any point of view is disputable by definition, why not better stop the abuse of NPOV by hard to dethrone ]s and drop NPOV policy altogether. To make an article truely neutral and encyclopedical, Misplaced Pages should rather adhere to a policy of Multiple Points Of View (MPOV) instead. ] (]) 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:I fully agree with your assessment of what many POV-pushers' tactics are - it amounts to ostracisation tactics being used to endorse one pet hypotheses and pretend all others don't exist or don't count, and I have seen this too many times. But surely there are already more effective ways to combat this kind of pov-pushing than changing the name of the NPOV policy; since the policy already requires MPOV in effect, it would be nothing more than a ceremonial and probably highly contentious (thus impractical) name change. ] (]) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
In defense of MPOV I argue that POV pushers would have a hard time to push out significant scholarly points of views by abusing ''MPOV'' policy. Yes, to replace the misnomer of one of the three very pillars of WP policy by a better equivalent could be cumbersome. Still, anything that would contribute to balance, quality and above all, peace, would be worth some consideration - no matter how symbolic. ] (]) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
:As written now, it already demands multiple points of view adequately enough... Perhaps "MPOV" should be more fully described as a crucial pillar of NPOV, something that is within NPOV. ] (]) 18:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, please explain why you deem an official emphasis to multiple views contentious? Won't it be rather the contrary, that people will have to waist less time in ] to advertise their personal point of view as the one and only that would be the "most neutral and significant"? ] (]) 18:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:Oh no, I am in agreement with you! I think if MPOV were made a subsection of NPOV, it would satisfy your aims, then such pov pushers could be directed to the MPOV subsection of the NPOV page. ] (]) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:::NPOV is already MPOV. All editors and all sources are biased, the key to NPOV is to ''describe'' the POVs, rather than ''asserting'' them, as in, 'Expert A says X. Expert B says Y. Group C teaches Z.' The policy is clear on this. Some editors choose not to understand the policy, changing the policy won't make any difference to those editors. ] (]) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

:::The problem isn't the wording of the policy, the problem is enforcement. Although NPOV is '''the''' core policy of WP, there seems to be much more enforcement of behavioral violations such as violations of ], ], etc. ] avoids NPOV disputes, making excuses like:
:::*Decline. I believe this is fundamentally a content problem of the sort which we are notoriously bad at fixing... ] Co., ] 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
:::*Decline. Agree it seems largely to be a content issue. - ] 14:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::The result of this attitude towards enforcement of ] is that a POV pusher can succeed as long as he is 'polite'. ] (]) 20:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

::See below for one recommendation that tries to bridge NPOV while ensuring that "undue weight" does not kill MPOV. In essence, I'm arguing that while there is a reasonable argument for limiting inclusion of references to an unlimited number of non-peer reviewed articles which may distort weight, a different rule should apply to peer reviewed work. In short, summaries of peer reviewed articles should never be subject to purging because that prevents the true weight of academic work from ever being presented. The way to show the weight of facts is to let all peer reviewed material be presented. This also allows the wieght of an article to organically shift as new research is conducted and published, especially in controversial areas.--] (]) 22:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

:::Actually, this is well-covered by ]. There are dozens if not hundreds to thousands of peer-reviewed articles on any serious scientific subject. Nothing magical happens through peer-review that makes a source suddenly inviolable. The idea is not to include as many sources as possible, but to provide an accurate overview of a topic. On scientific topics, where expert bodies have synthesized the available literature, the opinions of these expert bodies should guide the ''scientific'' coverage of the topic. But again, this is an attempt to win a content dispute (where Strider12 is a lone and tendentious voice) by moving the policy goalposts. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

== Policy enforcement is in it's interpretation ==

Policy is a wonderful thing. Every CEO will tell you "ït is meant to be interpreted liberallÿ". If ''Neutral'' is supposed to be a policy, then all one can do is watch, shuffle and delete paper, and most bureaucrat do, in line with what they see as "policy".

E.g. '''This talk is is respnse to the deletion of an article, signed by Misplaced Pages's founder''', for copyright violation by Hut 8.5. See deletion log ] 19:25, 8 December 2007 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Open Education Declaration" ‎ (copyvio of http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/front-page/read-the-declaration)

Yes, I know Misplaced Pages is soon going to be migrating to a Creative Commons license, but until that happens the text can't be included in Misplaced Pages. Even if that wasn't the case, the text would have been deleted through some other mechanism since it wasn't any kind of encyclopedia article and Misplaced Pages is not the place for any kind of campaigning, as I'm sure Jimmy Wales will know. Hut 8.5 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


It seems like known issues or criticism sections are not allowed in Misplaced Pages acording to @] see ]. I am deply worried on this agresion on the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Many articles have similar sections and discussions in the past settled these sections as valid. See ] Could someone clarify? ] (]) 14:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Hut,
:This user is beating a ]. It has already been explained to them that a section for "known issues" is (1) unencyclopedic and contravenes ], being an indiscriminate list of trivial matters that belong on a help center or ], not Misplaced Pages; (2) non-neutral, as it directly goes against ] and ] by having a section dedicated to non-notable software bugs, which also has issues with ]; and (3) unnecessary, as any major controversies can and will be integrated in existing sections, as it is currently being done. I'll once again remind the user that (1) ]; (2) ]; and (3) they should ] by simply repeating their arguments. ] (]) 16:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
:A more neutral framing is "Reception", which makes room for the full range of opinions. Calling the section "criticism" is non-neutral because the heading naturally excludes positive comments. Yes, you can find articles from the past that fail ]. But they should be tagged and fixed, not used as examples of why we ignore ]. ] (]) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::OK, thanks. I will move the issues under the Reception section. ] (]) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::84.78, you need to do ''three'' things here:
:::# Use neutral language, like "Reception". "Reception", by the way, implies that it's about what relevant experts think.
:::# Don't put any criticism in a separate section if it could be reasonably placed in an existing one. It's better to have something like "It has 12345 GB, which has been criticized as too little storage" than to have "It has 12345 GB" in one section and "It has been criticized for having too little storage" in another.
:::# Don't include every single known or suspected problem. Only include the problems that multiple independent reliable sources believe are significant. For example, if ''multiple'' computer magazines say "This device only has a foo, and it really ought to have a baz", then that's probably fine, but you probably shouldn't include anything that can only be sourced to a single source. If it's a significant problem, then you should be able to find multiple reports. If you can only find one website (especially if it's largely driven by sales commissions, customer reviews, or social media), then you shouldn't include it.
:::] (]) 21:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::What the others said. Plus such section headings tend to towards including things that would otherwise not merit inclusion.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ec}}#3 is the key point. Not every software bug is notable — in fact, most of them aren't. Only if they have attracted widespread coverage from reliable sources, of if they have special significance/relevance, do they warrant a mention. ] (]) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


The later part of this thread focused on neutrality issues but another might be the primary one here. The guidelines / policies that others are referring to (with WP:Not at the core of them) are in essence emphasizing that we are an enclyclopedia covering topics in enclyclopedia-type articles. So this is not "all information" and so you might be seeking to include information that is not enclyclopedia article type information. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 21:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Let me get this right. Even if, in the meantime, I get the guys at to put a link to the GNU Free Documentation License, the founder of Misplaced Pages doesn't have the right to put a document (article) he has signed, whose core aim it is to further the Foundation's aims, on the site he set up?--Simonfj (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


:Do you mean that notable issues with a product should not be allowed in[REDACTED] and thus be removed? Please, calrify and I will start removing any notable issue from any product page in Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
If they license the text under the GFDL then it will not be deleted straight away as a copyright violation. However, Misplaced Pages is a neutral encyclopedia, and including text campaigning for anything is a violation of WP:SOAP, and this would likely result in the page being deleted in an articles for deletion discussion. Note that Misplaced Pages's policy of neutrality was strongly championed by Jimmy Wales, and I seriously doubt he is going to break it. There are other websites the Wikimedia Foundation can use to express support for the petition other than Misplaced Pages. Hut 8.5 21:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
::No, that is not at all what North meant… ''notable'' (or perhaps noteworthy) issues with a product (ie those widely reported on) ''should'' be mentioned. However, we don’t mention EVERY issue with a product. Trivial issues can be (and usually are) omitted. An examination of the sources, discussion and consensus determines whether a specific issue is noteworthy or trivial. ] (]) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------
:::OK, thanks. All the issues that @] is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Misplaced Pages notability definition). ] (]) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual ] that I am making Misplaced Pages non-neutral, {{tqq|trying to hide}} information, or {{tqq|seem like a Google employee}}. ] (]) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I assume that 90.167 means ] instead of ]. ''Notability'' is Misplaced Pages's jargon for whether a subject deserves at ], and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. ] (]) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. ] (]) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::The page Misplaced Pages:Notability ], but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Misplaced Pages article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that ], so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at ]. ] (]) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered ]. I think Misplaced Pages needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. ] (]) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::The first issue was added like this:
:::::::::* Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.
:::::::::The source added for this issue was:
:::::::::*
:::::::::That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. ''Each'' complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? ] (]) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Sure, I will add more sources. ] (]) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Either the IP user is ] or ], as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates ] and ]. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.{{pb}}The "sources" that ] are not reliable (]). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should ] at this point. ] (]) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? ] (]) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, ''The Verge'', ''Wired'', ''The New York Times'', Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult ] and see ] for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, ], ], and ]. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and ], because ] on Misplaced Pages, and you must be willing to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. ] (]) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@], I think this is what the ] processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from ] all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? ] (]) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a ''de facto'' 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... ]! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but ] and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. ] (]) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::We could stop the edit warring at ], but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" ] (]) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to ], there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at ] — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. ] (]) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. ] (]) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@] These news outlets are being used for references in many Misplaced Pages articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Misplaced Pages wide. ] (]) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of[REDACTED] ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* ] (]) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)


:So, there are two policy issues related to this:
Now one can't blame Hut 8.5 for doing a good gatekeeping job. But let's consider if we want to let our founder break his own policy; or is this the kind of outcome he meant to encourage by the NPOV policy?--] (]) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
:1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
:2- establishing that Misplaced Pages should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.
:Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. ] (]) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.
::In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.
::Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. ] (]) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.] (]) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)


Publishing the declaration is ''engaging in the debate'', specifically forbidden by WP:NPOV. However, there is nothing at all preventing one from creating an article ''describing the debate'', which is exactly what WP is intended for. ] (]) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. ] (]) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


:I agree in theory, and I think this particular example hinges on whether you recognize these websites as "journalist written, mainstream corporate media" vs just some websites. ] (]) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
== Yay. Yet ''another'' Persian gulf question ==


== Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality ==
A question has come up in ] regarding the controversial usage of the alternative (and controversial) name the 'Arabian Gulf' in the Lead. A great many there feel that the addition of the controversial alternative name is an ] violation. I am not as sure of this, as the naming controversy of the alternate name usage appears within the article, there is an actual ] about the name, there are cited references to the usage of the name (both historically and contemporarily) and that a sizable percentage of people in the area refer to it as such. the debate seems to be a perennial issue of debate, and it would be nice to specifically address this so as to resolve the usage question. <br>
For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?
I've suggested that the matter be rfC'd or even ArbCom'd but the first led nowhere and the second seems like more of a nuclear option, as an AN/I on one of the more uncivil users has served to leaven out the incivility that was brewing there. ArbCom is usually to resolve issues of user condict, not content disputes. the only reason why i still think it might eventually be valid/needed is that it does seem like a policy interpretation dispute.
The matter is insoluble to both sides. My own observations of the discussion are that, while it might seem unfair to characterize it as such, this is another cultural-type dispute, similar to the ArbCom Persian Naming Dispute thing from this past summer. Some inpute would be extremely helpful. - ] ] 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:Alternate name of a subject certainly belong in the lead, but perhaps a footnote would be adequate? -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
::No, they don't want it mentioned ''anywhere'' in the article. Besides, as an alternative name, it does belong in the Lead (perhaps in parentheses, afterthe more widely known name). - ] ] 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


The guidelines that come to mind are:
== Abuse of WEIGHT argument ==


0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.
I propose that Wikipeida policy on WEIGHT should include a note along the following lines


1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. ].
::====POV should not be smuggled in via WEIGHT arguments====


1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.
::On occassion, especially in controversial areas, editors who are proponents of one position may argue for the exclusion of peer reviewed studies supporting a competing perspective on the grounds that including such material will give a "minority view" undue weight. For example, abortion is highly controversial and arguments over the scientific evidence for or against ] enjoys heated debate in both the secular and acedemic community. In such cases, the inclusion or exclusion of facts drawn from peer reviewed research for or against post-abortion syndrome may substantially affect the tone of the article and reader's conclusions surrounding this controversy. For this reason some editors may be tempted to exclude studies which they perceive as undermining their own preferred viewpoint and to offer the "undue weight" argument as a basis for deleting contributions made by editors of the opposing view.


2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the ] article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.
::As general policy, research published in peer reviewed journals should be always be accepted as facts published in a reliable source. Rather than risking a POV slant based on the judgment of Misplaced Pages editors, the weight of such information should be kept in balance by including information from other peer reviewed journal articles which may present counterbalancing facts and interpretations of facts. Moreover, the weight of peer reviewed articles that are older should not be given preference over newer research, as it is possible that trends in new research may be indicative of a shift in weight from an older view to a newer view. The guiding principle should be inclusion rather than exclusion of all peer reviewed materials.


2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.
::Similarly, especially in controversial areas, the claim of an individual expert or groups of experts have written or issued statements to the effect that "most experts agree with this position" should not be treated an objective measure of the weight of expert opnion. Unless it is supported with empirical evidence, such as polling data which supports such a claim, such claims should be included in the article with a reference in the text identifying the individuals or groups making the claim of majority support for their conclusions.


2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following ]. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.
::In general, and especially in controversial areas, it is preferable that Wikipeida editors should not seek to determine which side of the controvery has the most WEIGHT to support their arguments. Instead, the editors should seek to retain information from all peer reviewed articles cited by contributors as this will allow the articles weight to be adjust naturally with the publication of new research.


Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. ] and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?
This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.


:(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on ] had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) ] (]) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Policy recommendation made by --] (]) 21:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


== the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles ==
:Holy cow - that seems like an awful lot of ], which I am of course against. Is this really a problem? Shouldn't we use the Keep It Simple, Stupid approach in policies? ] (]) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere.
"the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/]/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively.
] (])
*This is done to establish notability. ] (]) 22:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*Is it accurate? If so, then I don't think it's a problem, especially if it's just one or two claims per article. I'd rather read "First pizza joint in the ]" than "It's a pizza joint in the ]". It's not ] to report 'favorable' facts.{{pb}} Also, Blueboar is correct. Our notion of a ] pretty much demands that editors add some sort of information along these lines, so we can't complain too much when they do what we insist they do. ] (]) 22:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing ] as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy ] journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. ] (]) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. ] (]) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of ] on ], it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. ] (]) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. ] (]) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. ] (]) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local ], or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
:::In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. ] (]) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
::::Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. ] (]) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
:::::Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because ], the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
:::::Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. ] (]) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
::::::I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in ], I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. ] (]) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
: I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the ] hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). ] (]) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Comedy is subjective ==
::Yes, less is better here. ] (]) 20:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those '''not''' offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? ] (]) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm all for making it shorter, but offer a long detailed version to this discussion page to see if there is agreement people support the general principle I'm suggesting? All the details listed revolve around a real problems where some editors are aggressivley deleting verifiable material offering only feeble WEIGHT argument as their excuse for POV-pushing. (See the discussion page at ] as a great example.) So do you agree with the principle, if not the length of the principle?--] (]) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


:@] I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? ] (]) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The context here is that Strider12 is a single-purpose account on ]. This is a case where scientific consensus is clear and documented; Strider12's edits have focused on highlighting a small number of peer-reviewed studies which have reached conclusions disparate with the consensus, out of proportion to the weight assigned these articles by expert panels and national medical/scientific organizations. Having failed to convince other editors on the article talk page, he appears to be forum-shopping this on policy pages. As to the proposal, the idea of balancing one peer-reviewed article with another reaching a different conclusion, rather than synthesizing an overview based on proportional representation of viewpoints, is unworkable and would have the (intended?) consequence of obscuring scientific consensus where it exists and creating the appearance of scientific debate where none exists. It also relies on individual editors' judgement to select specific articles and their "rebuttal" articles, rather than reflecting the weight given these articles by experts in the field. Which is a recipe for disaster. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
::Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::] edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get ]-y? ] (]) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed ], as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I have notified ]. ] (]) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


== How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ? ==
:::::As further context, as seen on the discussion pages of ], MastCell, has defended the purging of at least 22 studies published in the last eight years from that article. Even though these are the majority of studies published in recent years, MastCell cotinues to insist that these recent studies have no weight in light of a 1992 commentary by one psychiatrist and 1989 paper by six APA members (all advocates for abortion) which asserts that abortion has no mental health effects and that "most experts" agree with them. She repeatedly cites the same handful of same "experts" who claim thier view is the majority position (which is not supported by any polls or other measure of opinion) as the argument for deleting dozens of studies and references to peer reviewed literature that does not support the "majority view" claimed by these "experts." Yes, it is MastCell's POV slanted views on undue weight, and her refusal to discuss objective terms for judging WEIGHT on the post-abortion syndrome discussion page, which has led me to this page. I welcome MastCell's involvement here and hope he will contribute to this discussion of how WEIGHT should actually be measured.--] (]) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::: Given the context described above, this appears to be a case of wanting to rewrite NPOV in order to allow ].
:::::: Without looking at ], I suggest that WEIGHT would best be determined by medical reviews. Independent studies should have little or no weight at all in comparison, and any selection and analysis of such studies by[REDACTED] editors would be WP:OR. --] (]) 20:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix ] (]) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
== Prominence and undue weight ==


:Generally, we should ]. That said, follow the ] policy. —] (]) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Given a number of alternate names which are not widely accepted and are in dispute, would it give the alternate names "undue weight" if they were mentioned in the lead? This is the issue we're trying to sort out over at the ] mediation case, and input from the wider community would be welcome. ] (]) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:I would add to this that the alternate names are cited and are a long-standing dispute in the region as per the ]. - ] ] 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
::Further, the particular question is with regard to providing additional ''prominence'', as related to Undue Weight, to a name used by a small minority in the lead where it is already included in the article itself. ] (]) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
:::"Small minority". lol, okay. That isn't really cited, and appears to be a part of the issue of neutrality. :) - ] ] 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:35, 14 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neutral point of view page.
Shortcut
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis policy has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Archiving icon
Archives

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004
Archive_002 Closing out 2004
Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005
Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005
Archive 005 to November 13, 2005
Archive 006 to December 4, 2005
Archive 007 to December 30, 2005
Archive 008 to December 27, 2005
Archive 009 to January 16, 2006
Archive 010 to January 23, 2006
Archive 011 to January 25, 2006
Archive 012 to January 26, 2006
Archive 013 to January 29, 2006
Archive 014 to January 29, 2006
Archive 015 to March 8, 2006
Archive 016 to March 10, 2006
Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006
Archive 019: Apr 2006 – May 2006
Archive 020: May 2006 – Jun 2006
Archive 021: Jun 2006
Archive 022: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
Archive 023: Jul–Aug 4 2006
Archive 024: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
Archive 025: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
Archive 26: Nov – Dec 2006
Archive 27: Jan – Feb 2007
Archive 28: Mar – May 2007
Archive 29: May – Sep 2007
Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
Archive 31: Feb – May 2008
Archive 32: May – July 2008
Archive 33: July 2008
Archive 34: July – Sep 2008
Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009
Archive 36: April – Aug 2009
Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009
Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
Archive 39: Mar - Apr 2010
Archive 40: Apr 2010
Archive 41: May 2010
Archive 42: May - Jun 2010
Archive 43: Jun - Oct 2010
Archive 44: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
Archive 45: Apr - Nov 2011
Archive 46: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
Archive 47: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
Archive 48: Sep 2014 - May 2015
Archive 49: May 2015
Archive 50: May - Jun 2015
Archive 51: Jul - Nov 2015
Archive 52: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
Archive 53: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
Archive 54: Aug 2017
Archive 55: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
Archive 56: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
Archive 57: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
Archive 58: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
Archive 59: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
Archive 60: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
Archive 61: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
Archive 62: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
Archive 63: Aug 2023
Archive 64: Aug 2023 – May 2024
Archive 65: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
Archive 66: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
Archive 67: Aug 2024 – present
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Clarification for known issues or criticism sections

It seems like known issues or criticism sections are not allowed in Misplaced Pages acording to @InfiniteNexus see Talk:Pixel_9#Known issues section and neutrality. I am deply worried on this agresion on the neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Many articles have similar sections and discussions in the past settled these sections as valid. See Talk:Pixel 5#Known issues section blanking Could someone clarify? 90.167.218.96 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

This user is beating a WP:DEADHORSE. It has already been explained to them that a section for "known issues" is (1) unencyclopedic and contravenes WP:NOTCHANGELOG, being an indiscriminate list of trivial matters that belong on a help center or issue tracking system, not Misplaced Pages; (2) non-neutral, as it directly goes against WP:CSECTION and WP:TRIVIA by having a section dedicated to non-notable software bugs, which also has issues with WP:UNDUE; and (3) unnecessary, as any major controversies can and will be integrated in existing sections, as it is currently being done. I'll once again remind the user that (1) two wrongs don't make a right; (2) consensus is not determined by the number of raw votes but by the strength of the arguments presented; and (3) they should stop going around in circles by simply repeating their arguments. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
A more neutral framing is "Reception", which makes room for the full range of opinions. Calling the section "criticism" is non-neutral because the heading naturally excludes positive comments. Yes, you can find articles from the past that fail WP:NPOV. But they should be tagged and fixed, not used as examples of why we ignore WP:NPOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will move the issues under the Reception section. 84.78.243.26 (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
84.78, you need to do three things here:
  1. Use neutral language, like "Reception". "Reception", by the way, implies that it's about what relevant experts think.
  2. Don't put any criticism in a separate section if it could be reasonably placed in an existing one. It's better to have something like "It has 12345 GB, which has been criticized as too little storage" than to have "It has 12345 GB" in one section and "It has been criticized for having too little storage" in another.
  3. Don't include every single known or suspected problem. Only include the problems that multiple independent reliable sources believe are significant. For example, if multiple computer magazines say "This device only has a foo, and it really ought to have a baz", then that's probably fine, but you probably shouldn't include anything that can only be sourced to a single source. If it's a significant problem, then you should be able to find multiple reports. If you can only find one website (especially if it's largely driven by sales commissions, customer reviews, or social media), then you shouldn't include it.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
What the others said. Plus such section headings tend to towards including things that would otherwise not merit inclusion.North8000 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)#3 is the key point. Not every software bug is notable — in fact, most of them aren't. Only if they have attracted widespread coverage from reliable sources, of if they have special significance/relevance, do they warrant a mention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The later part of this thread focused on neutrality issues but another might be the primary one here. The guidelines / policies that others are referring to (with WP:Not at the core of them) are in essence emphasizing that we are an enclyclopedia covering topics in enclyclopedia-type articles. So this is not "all information" and so you might be seeking to include information that is not enclyclopedia article type information. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean that notable issues with a product should not be allowed in[REDACTED] and thus be removed? Please, calrify and I will start removing any notable issue from any product page in Misplaced Pages. 80.103.136.237 (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
No, that is not at all what North meant… notable (or perhaps noteworthy) issues with a product (ie those widely reported on) should be mentioned. However, we don’t mention EVERY issue with a product. Trivial issues can be (and usually are) omitted. An examination of the sources, discussion and consensus determines whether a specific issue is noteworthy or trivial. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks. All the issues that @InfiniteNexus is trying to hide are notable (accoding to Misplaced Pages notability definition). 90.167.219.84 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
... No they are not. Please substantiate your arguments rather than simply continue to make claims like this. What "definition" are you referring to, and how so? I also don't appreciate your continual bad-faith assertions that I am making Misplaced Pages non-neutral, trying to hide information, or seem like a Google employee. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I assume that 90.167 means WP:Due weight instead of Misplaced Pages:Notability. Notability is Misplaced Pages's jargon for whether a subject deserves at WP:Separate, stand-alone article, and I don't think they mean to say that each of these consumer complaints deserves a completely separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Good point… DUE vs UNDUE (which is determined by coverage in sources) is the criteria here, not Notability. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The page Misplaced Pages:Notability does not apply to content within articles, but "notable" is often used generically as a synonym of "noteworthy", i.e. worthy of inclusion on a Misplaced Pages article. It's important for the IP user to recognize that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, so just because they can find a source for something doesn't mean it is not trivial and interests a general audience. This is discussed at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
These issues are supported by multiple sources. So, they are considered WP:Due weight. I think Misplaced Pages needs to clarify if these are allowed or not as there are many similar articles. 80.103.137.123 (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
The first issue was added like this:
  • Some owners are reporting a camera tilt issue. Google has not made any comments yet.
The source added for this issue was:
That's one (1) issue with one (1) source. One source ≠ multiple sources. Each complaint needs coverage in multiple sources. How else are we to know whether that's a widespread problem, or just something that a couple of people complained about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I will add more sources. 90.167.218.158 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Either the IP user is intentionally being disruptive or unable to understand the relevant policies and guidelines, as they have once again restored the list of known issues despite being told multiple times that it violates WP:NOT and WP:CSECTION. They have also ignored repeated requests not to edit-war and wait for consensus to fully develop before altering the status quo, so I can no longer assume good faith.

The "sources" that the IP has just added are not reliable (WP:RS). Virtually all of them are newsblogs, and at most two can be considered marginally reliable. The absence of significant coverage from reputable sources is an indicator that these software bugs are not noteworthy for inclusion, and the IP user should WP:DROPTHESTICK at this point. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

All of the sources in the page are either from other weblogs or the primary source. Sould we remove the whole article altogether for lack of reliable sources? 90.167.203.206 (talk) 07:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not true. The article cites the Associated Press, The Verge, Wired, The New York Times, Bloomberg News, and more. If you're not sure what constitutes a reliable source, please consult WP:RS and see WP:RSPS for a list of common sources. Your tone here is combative, and you seem to avoid addressing the issues at hand, namely, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CSECTION. Editors have explained to you that an indiscriminate list of software bugs is unencyclopedic and does not belong on Misplaced Pages, and only if a particular issue has contextual significance and has received significant coverage from reliable sources can it be integrated into other sections in the article. If you are unable to understand this, or simply refuse to work with Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, then let's close this discussion and move on, because competence is required on Misplaced Pages, and you must be willing to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines and work with other editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus, I think this is what the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes are for. I doubt the IP has enough experience to know how it works, but they do seem to be trying to comply with all the rules. Would you be willing to show the IP how it's done, by starting a discussion on the talk page, and marching through the list, from Misplaced Pages:Third opinion all the way to RFC if necessary, addressing each individual item at a time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Although I have tried to assume good faith, it no longer seems to me that the IP user is trying to follow our PAGs. They have been asked several times, "Please don't edit-war, please don't restore your edit until consensus is reached", yet they continue to do so. They have also been told (by at least four editors), "A standalone list section dedicated to software bugs is unencyclopedic, please don't add it", yet they continue to do so. This discussion has been a de facto 3O request, so I am not optimistic additional discussion will be any more productive. I'm also not sure what an RfC would look like — a question along the lines of "should a list of software bugs be included" would likely yield the response I summarized above: "no, but if a particular issue is noteworthy they can be discussed in other sections" ... which is what I've told the IP since the beginning! I also recognize there may be a language barrier (the IPs geolocate to Spain), but competence is still required and this is not an excuse for disruptive behavior. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We could stop the edit warring at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection, but I think the open question (i.e., the point upon which you and the IP differ) is whether the sources provided indicate that the material is DUE. An RFC question could look like "Shall we include <this sentence>, using <these sources>?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I would say it seems pretty clear that newsblogs are generally unreliable, especially if they lack meaningful editorial oversight, have a poor track record, tend to publish anything for clicks, and are rarely cited by other reputable sources. I think to justify an exemption to WP:NOTCHANGELOG, there would need to be stronger sources like the ones listed at WP:RSPS — at the very least, it should be reputable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. But what are your thoughts? As I said, this discussion is essentially an informal 3O/RfC/DRN. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the subject area to know what the usual sourcing standards are. For all I know, these could be highly reputable websites. Alternatively, they could all be AI-generated fakes. I don't have the background information to be able to tell them apart. I find it much easier to evaluate academic sources than news-ish websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus These news outlets are being used for references in many Misplaced Pages articles if you want to challenge them then you should challenge them Misplaced Pages wide. 85.48.187.242 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting up a new observation, I have an interest in a particular article, see my log. I'm seeking an analogy to the exception about hearsay evidence - that you can in fact establish that somebody said something - a speech act - while refusing to say that in any sense the truth of what they say is established. So, rather than focusing on the truth of a claim, whether that claim has been stated by a reputable source, that it could be established that a given claim is "out there", which to my way of seeking would involve a lower threshold to establish that - as compared to the truth of what is being claimed. If the current set of[REDACTED] ideas do not allow for this, I suggest that be a modification. If that is not possible, well, *groan* JohnAugust (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So, there are two policy issues related to this:
1- verifying that the person said it, and that Misplaced Pages is quoting them accurately. This is covered in WP:V and WP:RS.
2- establishing that Misplaced Pages should mention the quote in the first place. This is covered at WP:NPOV, and specifically by WP:UNDUE.
Essentially, we want to cite the original (primary) source for Verifiability purposes, but want to cite Secondary sources for DUE Weight purposes. Thus, best practice is to cite both. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The challenge is that saying "So-and-so said ____" implies that ____ is not only true but also relevant/important.
In some areas, we can move to a higher class of sources (e.g., replace social media posts about politician's hairstyles with scholarly sources that look at the same politician's policy stances). In other areas, that's not possible.
Editors will always have to use their judgment to determine whether a given point actually belongs in an encyclopedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that. I'll see how I go applying this in the next few days.JohnAugust (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Well sourced, journalist written, mainstream corporate media based critical contents is nowhere near as problematic as Awards & Accolades section citing the award granting group, other .org, trade groups. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in theory, and I think this particular example hinges on whether you recognize these websites as "journalist written, mainstream corporate media" vs just some websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality

For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?

The guidelines that come to mind are:

0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.

1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. Biblical_inerrancy.

1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.

2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the Essence–energies_distinction article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.

2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.

2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.

Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. Biblical_inspiration and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?

This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.

(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on Priesthood of all believers had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles

How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere. "the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/Bay Area/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively. Graywalls (talk)

I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing Yuri Gagarin as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy listicle journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of Outrage journalism on WP:RECENTISM, it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local plastic straw ban, or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because George Washington Slept Here, the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in Metal Injection, I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the WP:N hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comedy is subjective

I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those not offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? SmolBrane (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? SmolBrane (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:Bold edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get WP:TABLOID-y? SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed the classic pattern, as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I have notified Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comedy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ?

My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix Nicholasjosey (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should assume good faith. That said, follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions Add topic