This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Crossfirism - the tendency of articles to give the false appearance of NPOV by including a criticism section, but then proceeding to include a point->counter-point debunking of all the criticism in said section. Something really needs to be said about this practice on Wikipedia, because offering criticism than trying to debunk as its presented is not terribly POV. This seems to be fairly common. Another less common practice I've noticed is POV inclusionism. That is, people would rather keep inaccurate and very POV information in an article than have that information completely removed, even when they admit that it's blatantly POV. I'm not talking about when someone removes an entire paragraph because of a single bad sentence, I'm talking about selective removal of just POV sentences. Something about that has to do stop.

There's also a related tendency for POV pushers to assume an expiration date on NPOV tag notices. I've seen several people say things like "I don't like seeing that NPOV tag up there for so long, so I'll just remove it even though the situation hasn't been addressed." People do this acknowledging an unfixed POV issue. It should be emphasized that NPOV tags have no expiration date and remain indefinitely until the dispute is resolved.

Nathan J. Yoder 23:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I know what you mean about crossfireism, but I think wikipedia is ok having POVs as long as they are attributed to the people that hold them. "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the majors points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: (a) Who advocates the point of view (b)What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)." The question is how to stylistically lay these POVs out so that one POV doesn't get "the last word" thus implying that that POV is the one the reader should adopt. Perhaps there is a way to write a section conclusion that says, "despite these contrary views, there is no consensus at this time." MPS 14:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ok having POVs but only when facts can not be used in their place. See Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions. Bensaccount 14:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I know the criteria on including POVs (being notable and verfiable), but the problem is that the way it's presented in this case is inherently POV. There needs to be a section written in WP:NPOV addressing the issue on how people decide to write criticism, because this seems to be a common problem. Nathan J. Yoder 07:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

About the NPOV tag, I would like to know where is written the rule that says that removing a POV tag requires a consensus? Apparently, it is at the best only a folk rule in Wikipedia. -- Lumiere 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything sufficiently disputed requires consensus. If you have people oppposed to removing a tag, consensus wins. It's a fundamental building block of this entire project. DreamGuy 12:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I now notice that Bensaccount referred above to an apparent Wikipedia guideline that he alone wrote himself! . Very funny, and I actually like that article, but his referal to it without mentioning that fact is very misleading nevertheless. Harald88 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) page at the moment. At times, we are faced with quite a common view of what NLP is that doesn't seem to have any basis in what any NLP source (training/books) actually says. This means we're faced with a situation where we can genuinely say "Many people believe NLP to be XXXX", where XXXX is simply not mentioned. Now, how do we identify this kind of outside group without bias? If we say "NLP detractors" that really doesn't explain who they are (kind of like saying "Negative people have negative things to say"). "People who have heard of NLP but never done an NLP training or read a book on NLP believe..." might describe them, but also seems biased (and wordy). "People who misunderstand NLP"... well that group certainly wouldn't accept that label!, "The same people who criticise hypnosis criticise NLP" might be closer... but we are also making an association (this one happens to be a common one). How do we describe that kind of group fairly? Thanks GregA 23:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm new here so take my suggestion with loads of salt, but how about you treat the different views of what NPL is separately, and start off the article by defining the 'NPL' that will be discussed. Eg "There are differing views of what NPL is. This article will focus on the view of NPL according to references A,B,C... that NPL is XYZ... etc etc." and mention that the other views will be briefly reviewed afterwards. Then at the end review the other view(s) with whatever references exist if any? ant 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.

It's obvious what the need is. If you don't have a Scientific Point of View, misleading articles describing Astrology or conspiracy theories show up. The editors of these often use NPOV as a excuse for not including criticism and skeptical views. Also, articles like John Edward or Sylvia Browne have talk pages saying they can't just go out and say the truth: that they're frauds. Someone could come to Wikipedia and assume that astrology is widely accepted simply due to the biased nature of the article. Hell, the article on people who claim they don't need to eat or drink ( breatharianism) suggests this could be true when any school kid could point out how false it is. And, also, pseudoscientists aren't actually scientists, so they do not apply to the moronic 'minority point of view' rule. And that isn't a example of a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy as you there is a differance between actual scientists and pseudoscientists. -- RPGLand2000 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Thats true, and I agree. On the other hand.... there is a matching problem oddly enough too: FT2 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Your discussion is fascinating. I'd urge caution. I can think of a few noteworthy examples where the scientific community missed something significant for a while. One that comes to mind is the Victorian dismissal of indigenous herbal healers as witch doctors and superstition. Later on pharmacology discovers that some of those plants have medicinal value. Being right, though, does not make a non-scientist a scientist.

Nor does it mean that some claim advanced in the name of herbalism are right or even ethical. A whole industry of fringe medicine preys on desperate people with terminal conditions. It's easy to see the harm this causes when the subject is health. With other sciences - maybe it takes being part of the subculture to see their perspective. Most NASA scientists I've known will respond to a question about UFOs by suppressing a groan and leaving. Durova 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Majority view

The guideline states, "the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view". Apparently some editors are reading this as a way to justify writing the entire article from the majority's perspective. It should be known that the majority's view should not interfere with accurately depicting what the article's topic is really all about. For instance, astrology's article accurately identifies what the astrologers believe, without the critics' POV distorting this. Some editors might view the current phrase as saying the purpose of the article is to show the majority's view on the subject. You see how this can be bothersome? Instead of an article about pseuodoscience, we would end up with an article abotu what the majority thinks of pseudoscience. I believe this would interfere with the reader's ability to understand the topic. Imagine someone looking to write an essay on a certain topic, the way things can potentially end up would make wikipedia a bad source of information. Another problem with it is that the majority's view on a subject may change over time, but the original concept may not. glocks out 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What about non-scientific views that represent a majority point of view, such as religious beliefs? Applejuicefool 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I added this section to WP:NPOV between "Pseudoscience" and "Religion":

Science doesn't know everything, and in particular its results on this field are not representative of the field

This is the opposite problem to the concern above, that lack of scientific belief is not, of itself, proof of incorrectness. This would be a form of argument from ignorance, the idea that because something is not yet proven, or so far has not been found true, or is not yet believed by all, it cannot be so. Wikipedia must also strive to avoid this error. So there will be cases where a matter is clearly unscientific and this should be made clear; cases where a matter is supported or thrown in doubt so far as we know by science, and this should be made clear; and cases where it is possible that science has not yet made full enquiry, or has not yet developed appropriate methods of testing, or the test conclusions are strongly contradicted by other significant evidence, or the matter is outside the purview of science, and if so, this should be made clear.

Examples of the latter may include some aspects of the Arts, religion and spirituality, philosophy and psychology, and new, controversial or emotive topics such as child abuse, and medical and alternative medicine treatments, that have perhaps not yet been fully tested in the traditional scientific manner. It is important to remember that for decades, up till the 1950's at least, hypnotherapy (to take one example) was largely treated as pseudoscience, because it was not easy to design a suitable test for it that met traditional scientific replicability and double-blind subject-object type criteria. Now it is recognized as clinically legitimate, by virtually every major professional body involved, and studied and practiced worldwide. (Psychologically related topics in particular can be notoriously difficult to "prove" in a scientific style, and new approaches have often been received as pseudoscience for some decadesor even received poor results in controlled testing until a respectable basis of case-history and professional usage builds up to demonstrate its value)

Science has sometimes been defined as "that which is studied by scientists". It has immense value, but it is ultimately, also, a point of view. It too is capable of its own bias. Unavoidably, scientists must choose what they will study, how they will approach it, and what range of conclusions to consider. For some subjects and articles, this means it will have to be balanced with other points of view, rather than presumed to be the benchmark by which other views are measured, and each aproach described in an appropriate manner. Important though it is, relying upon science and its viewpoint as the only or main measure of value may at times be misleading. Sometimes the most that is known to be true is that the scientific view is one view of several and we cannot know yet which is ultimately "the right one" (if any). Admission of this uncertainty is appropriate for some articles. It is an important factor to be aware of.

Practically, this means that lack of scientific support, or even scientific dismissal, will usually be relevant to and clearly described in an article. However where there are other serious points of view that must be disclosed and included fully in a manner that presents them on their own terms, for neutrality purposes, then doing so is also an essential part of Wikipedia NPOV.

This was reverted with a request to explain here, and a comment as to length.

1/ The length is possibly an issue. However excessive length is an indicator to summarize (or for others to do so) - it is not a signal that a subject is incorrect. If the original text is too long, that is my flaw as a copy writer. Please edit and correct.

2/ The subject matter above, I argue, is a critical aspect of neutrality. Science is above all a methodology, conservative in nature. Its practitioners, whilst they attempt to be neutral, are human. Sometimes they fail. Sometimes their knowledge, or ability to test, or approach, is lacking. In some cases, formal scientific opinion is the consensus standard for a subject, and hence the one that guides the article. But crucially, for certain articles, there may be doubt whether science is in fact concluding appropriately, or representing other aspects of the matter fully. Of Plato's "the Beautiful, the Good and the True", only the latter, and only some aspects of it at that, can be tested for neutrality using formal scientific methodology, a methodology that itself must develop by trial and error when new fields become the subject of investigation. In others, the results found by science are disputed, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly.

My concern is to not give a back-door to pseudoscience. But there is a certain kind of editor to whom "what science says" is the only test of truth, much like a devout religionist. My contention is, there are articles where it is important to recognise that science has its own inherent point of view, and its own bias too. It is not always, merely by virtue of being scientific, the only important viewpoint, even if it dismisses other viewpoints. So there needs to be in WP:NPOV a reminder that whilst what is labelled as "scientific view" is important, it is not always the gold standard and last word just because it is a view by a scientist.

Science is unusual because it's the one point of view where many people (who might see POV in a religion or philosophy) view science as being by definition neutral. It isn't. As a result, some subjects where science at present condemns or is ignorant, or the subject is new or difficult to test in the usual ways, the counter point of view may be and at times is stifled badly as a result.

Examples and further detail provided upon request.

(Yes I know it's long. I'm sorry. Brevity did not come to me on this. Please read and consider, rather than critique length) FT2 17:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have recently created a wikipedia article titled ' wikipedia:POV selective fact suppression'. Read it, so that I don't have to take up much more space by copying it here (This page takes so long to load).

I recommend that it be mentioned in the main NPOV article, as it is a very common POV problem. --NPOVenforcer

Oh boy, seen that one. YES! FT2 00:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(I'm dealing with a POV warfare and suppression issue right now. FT2 19:21, 8 December 2005)

It seems to me that some articles themselves, by definition, express a point of view, in which case a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning. For example:

• An article on cosmology (study of the Universe) should provide a balance of the different types of cosmology, eg. Big Bang Cosmology, Steady state theory, Plasma cosmology, etc.
• But an article on, for example, the Big Bang Cosmology should present cosmology from the point of view the Big Bang theory? In which case, a NPOV might mention that there are other cosmologies, but the article would not need to balance each fact with counterpoints on each and every alternative cosmololgy?
• In other words, an article's inherent point of view, ie. the subject of the article, takes precedence over a more general neutral point of view?
• And using this particular example, the same point of view would apply to articles on Steady State theroy, and Plasma Cosmology.

-- Iantresman 13:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Your argument presumes that there is one, true, neutral point of view per article -- the editors share a goal of arriving at this singular true neutral point of view. I deny this.

I think articles where opinions matter more than facts -- i.e. politics, historical interpretation, etc. -- the goal is to make a presentation of all sides and let secondary sources (i.e., the advocates) be quoted to give the reader a summary of this subject in the non-Wiki world. I call this the principle of They debate, we report, you decide (with apologies to Fox News)

There are many poor articles where one or both sides didn't let the secondary sources do the heavy lifting but the editors declared themselves advocates and made their case in a debate in the article or its talk page. These articles becomes so long that one side yells bloat, and begun the edit wars have. You are left with a transcript of the wikipedian debate and not a useful article in many cases.

The worst articles are where one side won and in essence wrote or rewrote the article to present their side either totally supportive or totally antagonistic to their subject. patsw 16:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean, that for an article on totalitarianism, that I should discuss democracy? Surely a discussion on both totalitarianism and democracy is best placed in an article on politcal system, and an article on totalitarianism should be described from a totalitarianism point of view?

Surely the whole point of having an article on a specific subject, is to primarily to explain that subject, from the point of view of that subject? Otherwise we end up with the following:

Totalitarianism is a political system. Of course there are lots of other polical systems such as democracy, liberalism, convervatism, etc.

-- Iantresman 20:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ian- I looked through the various cosmology articles and their history. I noticed that there is a wikipedia user named 'Joke137' that has been extremely POV, having selectively deleted all sorts of objective facts that make his own POV look bad ( POV selective fact suppression). There are others also. My point is that cosmology is one of the most POV-ridden subjects on wikipedia. It definitely needs to be more NPOV. NPOVenforcer 03:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Iantresman. The main article should be the topic covered. Every POV should not, and can not, be shown in every article. It is true this isn't a paper encyclopedia, but in those the main article only tells what the specific theory/idea/eschatology/etc with a reference to related articles. For instance, the Wikipedia entry for flat earth more closely resembles an encycolpedia entry than the intelligent design article that looks more like a message board debate. (The ID article is particularly ridiculous). For the same reason I wouldn't want to read about democracy (a majority view) in an article about anarchy (a minority view), I don't want to read about opposing POVs from scientists, theologians, etc. glocks out 19:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Excellent point, Iantresman. An article on concept A should dwell on A and its sub-concepts and should not do much more than make reference to competing concepts B (majority view), C and D for the reader to lookup if interested. An article ostensibly on A but dwelling on B is going to be an unstable mess. If there is a lot of debate a comparison article A vs B may help to remove the debate from the articles on A and B. ant 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Based on the albeit limited consensus to date, how does one go about formalising this description, and seeing whether this point can be submitted for Wikipedi policy? -- Iantresman 19:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV fork is now a guideline.

The section POV selective fact suppression has just been added to the policy document. I submit that this has no consensus support. If there is no substantial objection that would show a consensus to make this part of official policy, I'll revert within a day or so.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no consensus for this. I'm moving it to the talk page so that we can decide before it becomes policy. -- Apyule 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI people, Saxifrage stalked me to this page from the page polyamory, in which said user and I conflicted, meaning that Saxifrage is harassing me. That is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. NPOVenforcer 04:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

POV selective fact suppression (from project page)

In wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the strict wikipedia NPOV policy is to selectively remove specific facts from an article so as to give a false impression of the truth.

To illustrate how POV selective fact suppression works:

Suppose that there is belief A and belief B. Some evidence favors belief A and other evidence favors belief B. The NPOV policy is to include all relevant facts in an article. In POV selective fact suppression, evidence that supports one or the other beliefs is deleted by the opposition.

An other variant of this behavior is to delete the details of why one's own evidence favors one's own position, when those details reveal that the evidence is in fact very weak.

Yet an other variant of this behavior is to delete any mention altogether of specific beliefs or ideals that oppose one's own, when those opposing beliefs or ideals are highly credible, yet other opposing beliefs or ideals have little credibility and thus make one's own beliefs or ideals look good by comparison.

(copy of POV selective fact suppression from project page, -- Apyule 11:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

I know why this user added this, it was because he could not introduce a neologism into the Objectivist philosophy Article, and change the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy, that she named as Objectivism. It turned into a personal attack barrage on his part. Dominick ^(????) 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There Dominick is accusing me of being a user that I am not (67.etcetera) because I agree with said user, so as to discredit my position. Dominick is thus violating the no personal attack policy and the no-lie policy. I verified in google that the so-called 'neologisms' -randist and randian, are not neologisms at all, but serve as objective alternative terms to the term 'objectivism' which assumes that laissez-faire capitalism is the objective ideal. In an RFC, the majority of users agreed to include the fact, and Dominick had to consent. If you look at the talk:ojectivist philosophy page, you can clearly see that Dominick has made numerous sly deceptive personal attacks on 67, and when 67 called him on it, Dominick accused 67 of making personal attacks. Dominick even deleted exposures of his behavior under the guise that he was deleting personal attacks. By the way, Dominick, like Saxifrage, stalked me to this page. That is another violation of wikipedia policy. Yet Dominick only started stalking me because the user Todfox notified Dominick that I called him on his selective fact suppression on my user page, which now makes Dominick perceive me as a threat to his continued POV-pushing. Such a personal attack on people for trying to make wikipedia a better place is yet another violation of wikipedia policy. NPOVenforcer 04:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the example that Dominick gave, but I have seen examples that show that such a paragraph may be useful - such as where people are actually encouraged to simply delete "non-orthodox" POV's! I trust that we want to counter the abuse of Wikipedia for propaganda. I find both the text and the examples good and crystal clear, and if that would also help to solve the conflict that Dominick mentions, that can only be good (of course, if he thinks that there is a weak point in the above formulation, he can propose an amendment to it and explain why). Harald88 13:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had some examples of this in some articles I've been editing. For example:

• In the article on Redshift, I've tried to add the "Wolf Effect" as a cause. Others have marginalised this for all sorts of reasons (see Redshift talk), but the worst example, is the denial that this can produce a "full spectrum Doppler like" redshift, despite my providing at least two peer-reviewed articles, and having the facts confirmed by at least three article authors.
• In the article on Plasma cosmology, I've had the basic fact that "99.9% of the volume of the universe is plasma" removed on the grounds that it is not relevant!
• In the article on the Electric Universe, I've had supporting evidence removed (from the section on Predictions), in which two items that are claimed to be failed predictions are left.

-- Iantresman 14:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• In neuro-lingusitic programming Ive seen POV suppression remove the founders actual and cited definition of the subject matter of the article, as being "POV" FT2 20:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I favor the addition of this policy. FT2 21:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Any article touching on Early Christianity will demonstrate struggles over suppressed facts too. -- Wetman 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to adding this section, because it's very unclear what it means. All articles have to conform to Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, which are both policy, as is NPOV. All material that conforms to these polices — i.e. that is directly relevant and well-sourced — is allowed, so this section about "suppressed facts" introduces an unnecessary complication. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder, how can you think it is "unclear" or even a "complication"? -- especially in the light that you are one of those who did not seem to care about my request to clarify another NPOV explanation that definitely was unclear to me. Thus, please explain what you don't understand. I would have agreed that the above paragraph is superfluous (it's indeed, as you seem to indicate, consistent with the existing rules) if I had not noticed that it pinpoints to common misbehaviour and that it has instructive aspects that surpass the function of a simple rule: it actually is a mini briefing to unsuspecting newcomers on propaganda tactics that every editor should be aware of. Harald88 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of specific artciles that specific editors may have been involved in, this seems a good policy. It clarifies an important point that is not clear to some editors in prcatice and which has caused editorial conflict in practice. This will probably help.

It is not enough that a fact is verifiable. A source must be fairly represented too. Any competent source will include views both ways, and thus a one-sided view is easy to form by selecting verified, reported, research, but not doing so in a balanced manner that is balanced and represents the source properly. This is an important counterweight, it says that verifiability and sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient, for neutrality.

As for allegations of sock-puppetry, Arbcom has on at least one occasion checked IP's if accusations got that far (Ciz/"DrBat", Jan 2005). I wouldn't worry right now. FT2 06:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this for a wording:

Misrepresentation of sources // selective suppression of fact

Credible sources often consider many different views, and often different views are considered or evidenced by different credible sources. Because of this, even verified credible sources can be cited in a non-neutral way, to give an impression which does not represent the opinion of one source, or credible sources as a whole, in a field. A citation from one source can be balanced by also representing opposing citations, or by giving an overview that puts it into fair perspective. Examples include:

• Reporting evidence from a source that supports one view whilst not citing credible evidence that suggests or supports opposing views.
• Explaining why evidence supports ones preferred view but minimizing or not indicating evidence which would tend to weaken it or bring it into question.
• Ignoring or deleting credible opposing views in order to make a view appear more mainstream or widely favored than in fact it is.
• Selectively citing sources or ignoring important caveats, to make them appear to represent a view or conclusion which is more extreme than the author appears to intend.

• Editing as if one given view is "the truth" and therefore others either have no substance, or nothing to criticise or defend themselves with. Even science is often only one point of view to discuss, although usually a significant one. [tentatively added later for discussion, see below]

FT2 06:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind this actually. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that it's not bad, but IMO the original (and now improved) paragraph above is still better and the easiest to comprehend. What do you think is less than perfect about it? Harald88 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Three things.

• NPOV policy is invariably cited most in a dispute. The harder the dispute, the more a clear NPOV policy helps. This one in clear unambiguous language better defines exactly what behavior is not OK, in tterms that nobody will be confused by/. The "Suppose that there is belief A and belief B. Some evidence favors belief A and other evidence favors belief B" type approach is less direct and in NPOV policy direct is good. By defining it unambiguously you leave less room for POV hedgers to try and worm a way out.
• Even if both work, its more immediate and obvious. Its easier to agree if its being breached, because it specifically and very carefully names the significance of POV supporession in a way that (to me) the original doesnt. The original's good, I supported NPOVenforcer on it. But refining "good" to "better" is never a problem. So it's not that it's "less than perfect". Everything is. But this to my mind will be more effective at the effect he is targetting.
• I have added one more. This is because there is (as reported elsewhere, some editors consider that "neutral view" means "the scientific view". It will help if it is made absolutely clear that although important, science is still only one POV. There will usually be others.

FT2 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's because of my scientific mind set, I don't know, but the most clear and direct example is for me exactly the first one that provides theories A and B, instead of the for me too hazy and abstract, lengthy sentences that you propose as replacement. On top of that, the text you provide starts with positive rules but then gives, without warning of a change, negative examples. OK I'll think about it, and see if I can provide another compact solution that will still be obvious as well as enlightening for people with my mind set and nevertheless be also obvious for people with yours. Comments of other people are welcome! Harald88 08:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The flow is, "These are explanation, things to to that will help avoid POV suppression, and how it can arise. These are your "don't do this!" rules list". Main reasons:

• It can be seen as "explanation of the issue" and "unacceptable action" limits.
• Some people respond more to positive injunctions to do a thing, some to negative injunctions NOT to do a thing, this catches and informs both types.

Its almost like this: People who can genuinely think scientifically, are less likely to be POV warriors. People who truly suppress POV are almost by definition, thinking they are being scientific but in fact seriously failing to be. So a scientific precise logical version by definition won't touch them, because if they could handle logic they wouldnt need this guideline. So a direct everyday english "These are POV suppression methods. Don't do them." is more effective, you're dealing with people who won't get subtle reason, they need a line drawn. Its a bit like how instruction manuals or leaflets switched years ago from precision technical terms, to simple english (even if less precise), because the average person got them. FT2 08:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, and I do agree with you that the paragraph has to be easily understandable by POV offenders. Nevertheless it was also meant to create awareness of manipulation by POV offenders to unaware bystanders, and for that purpose the first presentation was (although imperfect, I now notice) brilliant - I fully understood it immediately. It would be a pity if that got lost. On top of that, one point I tried to make clear to you but I don't know how to explain without wasting a lot of words that your text gives examples that are the inverse of the introducing sentences, which I find confusing. Anyway, "These are POV suppression methods. Don't do them.", is and was indeed the purpose of this paragraph. Note also that "Ignoring or deleting credible opposing views in order to make a view appear more mainstream or widely favored than in fact it is" shows lack of insight in the issue: views are often mainstream or widely favoured because alternative views are suppressed. For example when the president of Venezuela was kidnapped, the correct information was available on credible internet pages (and I thus knew the truth while BBC and CNN were spreading misinformation, long live internet!) but mainstream thinking was that he was kidnapped due to suppression of the correct information by the mass media. Here is my suggestion, trying to keep the "best of both" (and now that I start editing, I notice a lot of room for improvement and that you did not cover the same examples, and that the two subjects are not the same, misrepresentation of sources is only one kind of selective fact suppression):

selective fact suppression

In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to suppress specific facts that counter one's own opinion.

To illustrate how POV selective fact suppression works: Suppose that some reliable sources favor one opinion and other reliable sources disagree. The NPOV policy is to include all relevant facts in an article. We have a case of POV selective fact suppression if evidence that supports one opinion is deleted by the opposition.

Other examples of selective fact suppression:

* Explaining why evidence supports one's preferred view but minimizing or not indicating evidence that would tend to weaken it or bring it into question.

* Ignoring or deleting credible opposing views in order to make a view appear more accepted than in fact it is.

* Deleting all mention of a specific highly credible opinion that opposes one's own belief, yet allowing mention of other opposing opinions that have little credibility that thus make one's own belief look good by comparison.

* Editing as if one given view is "right" and therefore other views either have no substance, or nothing to defend themselves with. Even science is often only one point of view to discuss, although usually a significant one.

In summary: As different credible sources may have different views, even verified credible sources can be cited in a non-neutral way -- one could mislead the reader into thinking that consensus exists on a matter while this is not the case. Thus, if there is no consensus about a subject matter, a citation from one source should be balanced by also providing opposing citations, or by giving an overview that puts it into fair perspective.

BTW, I did not include the following examples for practical reasons:

• A more subtle variant is to report evidence that supports one view whilst omitting to mention credible evidence that suggests or supports opposing views.

-> Problem with this is that one can hardly blame any editor for not telling everything of relevance. Wikipedia is a group effort.

• Misrepresentation of sources. Selectively citing sources or ignoring important caveats, to make them appear to represent a view or conclusion that is more extreme than the author appears to intend.

-> The problem here is that if it is debatable "what the author appears to intend", then there may be a NOR issue. Thus to include this subject plus its caveats inside the above would complicate matters and make the subject less straightforward.

Cheers, Harald88 19:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems I have with this passage:

• It is very poorly written. (That's fixable.)
• It uses the word fact as if it's clear what qualifies and what doesn't. The reason the NPOV policy is necessary in the first place is that editors often dispute exactly what is a fact and what is simply an artefact of POV. That's why WP runs on verifiability and support by citation, not on "proof" of facts. (This might be fixable, but I doubt it wouldn't be redundant less this word.)
• It was introduced by a self-declared NPOV crusader with next-to-no experience at WP. I don't have any problem with this passage inspiring an examination of the clarity of the NPOV policy on the issue of information-suppression, but anything that results from this debate should be written from scratch to avoid tainting the most fundamental policy of the project with a disruptive crusader's agenda. (See the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer for evidence of the user's significant lack of understanding of relevant policy.)

 —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Some interesting ideas coming up. My thoughts on the above:

• First, Harald, I understand and appreciate the point you make. I think we have a relatively simple question here - "how should it best be worded", and we have got two styles we've developed. But we do agree in principle on the actual content. Let me have a go at trying to find a common wording. I'll look again at both, see if a balance can be struck. Can you let me know what qualities a good balance should have, or examples of "good" and "bad" in the sense you're thinking, so I know I'm aiming at a goal you'd be okay with too?

Hi again FT2, a main point for me is to keep the sentences short and uncomplicated, straight to-the-point as well as that the introduction should raise interest; and to let no doubt if what follows is about what should be done or about what should not be done. Another point is that it should be also informative for non-offenders, so that the unaware are enlightened about the sometimes subtle tricks of offenders. And now looking below where you restate your question: Your phrasing was for me a little too generalistic and complex, so that it didn't stand out clearly who does what and why in selective fact suppression. Apart of that, I think that there are now perhaps too many examples. The additional paragraph is certainly very useful, we agree on that, and it will be most effective if we keep it concise. Harald88 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Fact" isn't a problem per se. A "fact" in this sense means "Source X said Y". But Saxifrage has a point too. "Information" maybe? I'll look at what other NPOV standards say.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Check_your_facts -- but for me also "information" is fine. Then the title could be "POV selective information suppression". Harald88 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't agree that "The NPOV policy is to include all relevant facts in an article. We have a case of POV selective fact suppression if evidence that supports one opinion is deleted by the opposition". I worded mine deliberately so it could not be used to justify including major text on fringe or minor side-issues on the basis they were being "suppressed".

Fringe or minor side issues are not relevant. I also reworded yours deliberately for the reason I mentioned; my argument was that "mainstream" may be applied towards imposing a single, best known POV. Thus we have as yet not found a good phrasing for that. But perhaps we can borrow standard phrasing from somewhere else in this section, if we really need to include such a sentence. Harald88 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Aren't the sentences: 1/ [ways to create POV suppression include] "Ignoring or deleting credible opposing views in order to make a view appear more mainstream or widely favored than in fact it is" and 2/ "views are often mainstream or widely favoured because alternative views are suppressed", saying the same thing??

Certainly not! If after point 2 has occurred in a certain community, next your point 1 is applied in Wikipedia, it can only lead to over-emphasis of the mainstream POV. I agree however, that that problem must be balanced with that of over-emphasizing fringe or minor issues which leads to cluttered articles.

• I'd change the last one to make more the point that "Thus, using science to suppress other views, rather than to add extra insight into the subject of the article, is also POV suppression"
• Last, Sax, neither of the present people examining this are the kind you fear. Even a "disruptive crusader" can have a good idea - often it's people who cause ripples, who make us examine norms best. I don't have a problem using his work as a starting point to examine policy, and if his approach turns out best then I can assure you it will be after a lot of working over, and not just because Wikipedia wanted to go crusading :) I wouldn't worry. It seems Harald and I are both thinking similarly about the need, choosing best wording is just the means.

  Thanks for that thought. The way the discussion has progressing I'm reassured that you're giving this the thought it deserves. I'll check in periodically just to see how it's going, but otherwise I think my input isn't necessary. Happy consensus-ing!  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 21:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll get looking at wording again. If you can let me know what qualities a "good wording" should have, I'll try to find one that fits those goals. Qualities between us I am aware of:

• Must be direct and blunt so POV suppressors (who may not appreciate subtle wording except for the loopholes it gives them) can't avoid it easily
• Must also be immediately understandable by neutral editors and others so they see what it means. (can you clarify the way in which my 1st version was not?)
• We have a difference of view whether positive and negative approaches can be mixed; you found it confusing, I think it would be effective. We might need more input.
• Is the version I worded above, unclear to readers? I don't think it really can be. Can we have other opinions on the 2 styles of wording, and what others see as the respective strengths and weaknesses of each, if any?

FT2 10:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

See my comments of yesterday here above Harald88 10:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)