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.

Selective information suppression (also known as "POV suppression") - version 2

Harald: your comment was, "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."

This is a reworking of both the proposals above that might be a starting point for that. It is slightly too long in the examples section, still, so feel free to suggest shortcuts or combine examples to shorten it. But I think it captures it all.

In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst suppressing or trivializing other information that opposes it, and describing sources in a way that gives an undue positive or negative impression of their value. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent the range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The main ways that editors can accidentally or deliberately misrepresent a subject are:

• Selective representation [or: biased information selection], eg:
  • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that support alternative views or call it into question.
  • Under-representing opposing views in order to make a view appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.
  • Selecting citations or ignoring important caveats and limitations, to make a source support a view or conclusion which is more extreme than the plain reading of the source seems to intend.
  • Concealing or misrepresenting relevant information about sources or their credentials that is needed to judge their value.
• Variable standards, eg:
  • Allowing evidence for one side but rejecting credible opposing evidence as inadequate.
  • Minimizing credible sources that oppose one's own belief, whilst including lower quality sources that 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, and using this as a reason to under-represent it.
  • Ignoring an opposing view on the basis those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.
  • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Note that science, religion (or any other system of knowledge), when used to suppress other views rather than to add extra insight into the subject of the article, is also POV suppression.

In summary, credible sources often cover many points of view, and even verified credible sources can be cited in a non-neutral way and used to mislead a reader. So verifiability and proper citation are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that information must be not only verifiable and cited, but that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and to support a balanced overview.

FT2 21:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Selective information suppression (also known as "POV suppression") - editable version 3

OK, I copy it once more with some changes. Next you may modify the below text just as if it's on the main page, that saves space and anyway it's now really a matter of details. A number of little changes that I made (such as sometimes "opinion" where you had "view") is a matter of taste, and I won't insist if you disagree and change it back; just make sure about grammar, some sentences were logically erroneous.

About the Intro sentence: I put "deleting" instead of "suppressed" because that describes together with "trivializing" both kinds of "suppression"; I deleted "and describing sources in a way that gives an undue positive or negative impression of their value" because that made the intro sentence unnecessary long and inconsistent (1 main point), while it is mostly covered by one of the following examples anyway. BTW, I don't know what a "detractor" is, and more readers may have that problem; and I don't understand the function of the square brackets around "[or: biased information selection]".

Also, do you really intend to try to give examples for everything? That's nearly impossble, so why even suggest that?

As you put "Minimizing credible sources that oppose one's own belief, whilst including lower quality sources that make one's own belief look good by comparison" under "variable standards", evidently you understood the original phrasing differently from the way I understood it! The way you phrased it more or less doubled with another example in selective presentation. I now reinserted the strawman tactics that IMO were originally meant, and included the link. As a result, I also rearranged the examples a bit.

Two points that I left, but propose to change:

- I wonder if the phrase "Note that science, religion (or any other system of knowledge), when used to suppress other views rather than to add extra insight into the subject of the article, is also POV suppression", isn't superfluous: anything that is used to suppress POV is POV suppression - right?

- Your last two concluding sentences state more or less the same! I suggest that instead you cut that to one concluding sentence.

Best regards, Harald88 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

>>>> DRAFT 3 BEGINS <<<<

In Wikipedia, one of the most common forms of violating the NPOV policy is to selectively cite some information that supports one view whilst deleting or trivializing other information that opposes it. In this manner, one can completely misrepresent or conceal the full range of views on a subject whilst still complying with Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Some examples of how editors can accidentally or deliberately misrepresent a subject:

• Selective representation [or: biased information selection], eg:
  • Explaining why evidence supports one view, but under-representing (even deleting) opposing views in order to make an opinion appear more accepted/rejected than it really is.
  • Making one's own opinion look superior by omitting points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POV's ( strawman tactics), or not presenting the other as best it can be.
  • Selectively citing a source or ignoring important caveats and limitations, in order to make a source appear to support a view or conclusion that is more extreme than what the source evidently intended.
• Variable standards, eg:
  • Citing lower quality evidence for one side but rejecting credible opposing evidence as inadequate.
  • Minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question or that support alternative views.
• Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions either have no substance, or nothing to defend themselves with, and using this as a reason to under-represent it:
  • Generalizing an opinion held by "some" or "many" as if it is held by "all" (or "all credible") sources, while treating an opposing view as not being held by anyone credible.
  • Ignoring an opposing view on the basis that those upholding it are claimed to be misinformed.
  • Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
  • Concealing or misrepresenting relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to judge their value.

Note that science, religion (or any other system of knowledge), when used to emasculate other views rather than to add extra insight into the subject of the article, is also POV suppression.

In summary, credible sources often cover many points of view, and even recognized credible sources can be cited in a non-neutral way. So verifiability and proper citation are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to its best ability. This is because neutrality requires much more than simply citing verifiable sources or proving a point -- it requires using credible sources to accurately represent a broad range of views and a balanced overview.

>>>> DRAFT 3 ENDS <<<<

Not bad. My minor edits are mostly because having seen POV suppression in action, I'm thinking ahead to "write for the enemy" -- how POV suppressors think about it, and therefore how one has to explain it to get the point across. For example, if you honestly believe a point is redundant, unsupported, outdated, unproved, or wrong, you don't think of it as "deleting". You tend to think of it as complying with policies on giving more space to major views and little or no space to minor (or "wrong") ones. So thats the mindset this policy has to be understood by, too. hence a few edits to try and ensure that mindset is addressed too. FT2 14:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My edits:

• I've added one very important one (might need condensing down but its important) - the way that "some" is assumed to mean "all", in POV suppression. VERY common.
• I think an important measure is that each side is presented to its best ability. That doesn't encourage hype, but does say that they must be presented as best they can be, in their own space.

OK -- what about the two remaining points that I proposed to change? Harald88 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Still working on it, its a work day today for me! :) Will review later! Meantime what do you think of my comment below about "flat earth / round earth", as a way to explain how to write a balanced article? FT2 16:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow you are speedy in replying! I'll reflect on that, but also later Harald88 16:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's now one week later -- I guess that it's now up for others to comment on what we came up with here above! Harald88 23:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've done a draft for discussion, it's at: User:FT2/SUPPRESS. It took some time because I've also been thinking about NPOV policy as a whole, seeing as other sections of the NPOV policy page have been discussed below, as well. Can you let me know if you think our efforts are getting somewhere good? Or at least good enough to present as a possible policy for discussion by others? FT2 17:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that some articles are more debate than facts on what the topic really is. There is so much debate within the article that makes it unnecessarily long. I'm of the mind set that an article should tell what something is, not what it is, what it isn't, what people think about it, criticisms, et al. Certainly, some articles should fully feature criticisms, like event articles, but articles about an idea (escatology, theory, et al) should (in my most humble opinion) simply state what that opinion is. As most of these ideas are really just an opinion, or a point of view, to begin with. When there is an article about one's point of view, shouldn't that article simply show that point of view? The countering points of view should have their own articles (and most do anyway), and they can certainly be linked to each other. Just a thought glocks out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Kippel ( talk • contribs) 14:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone investigate this and let me know if it makes sense? [1] In my interpretation, the top and middle sections of the Talk:race and intelligence page will show the article is fundamentally disputed (the recently added bottom discussions on the talk page seem [intentially?] tangential to me, they certainly aren't fundamental criticisms). The reasons the article is disputed include: apparent utilization of false and misleading dichotomies, use of the potentially loaded word "score" instead of "results", framing the issue in racial terms apparently to inducing racism and IQ based classism in others, and unscientific methodologies. A group of editors seem rather intent on excluding any fundamental criticism from the race and intelligence article. zen master T 02:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? It's an undeniable fact that relations between race and intelligence are disputed; that fact itself is therefore not disputed.

Did you raise bias issues on the Talk page, and try improving the phrasing? Harald88 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've discussed my criticisms in detail on the talk page. One major point of dispute is the potentially loaded word "score" instead of "results" (or another alternative). Other points of dispute include the apparently highly biasing dichotomy that is "race and intelligence" and the fact that IQ testing itself is highly disputed. In my interpretation a coordinated handful of editors have used every trick in the book to deny the inclusion of fundamental criticisms from the article. How do I go about adding the {npov} or {totallydisputed} header to an article if others disagree that there is even a dispute (which doesn't actually make sense but here we are)? zen master T 17:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Your trouble seems to be a matter of content dispute. I would suggest that you'd have more success sorting this out by listing this article at Requests for comment and generally using the dispute-resolution resources of Wikipedia, than by soliciting help from the few people active here.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 23:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Clearly adding {npov} is a content dispute. However, I was under the impression that it was effectively wikipedia policy that a dispute header is allowed to be added to an article if an in good faith dispute exists? It seems like proponents of race and intelligence don't even want readers to become aware of any controversy surrounding the article, the top and middle sections of the talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed. I think it's time to propose just such a policy, for an admin to use rollback privs to revert the addition of a {npov} header without any explanation strikes me as censorship. Also: I did post race and intelligence to RFC a couple of days ago with no results either way so far. zen master T 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If and RfC on the article isn't working, consider moving to other steps in the dispute resolution process. Even if there is a need for a policy like you describe, it's not going to be in place and enforceable soon enough for it to help this case.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What is your opinion on this case? Are you at all concerned there is a wikipedia article that seems to utilize a racism inducing method of presentation? zen master T 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've been trying to gently say that this isn't the place for such a discussion. If you like, I have a Talk page. Alternatively, you might like to discuss this in a wider forum at Wikipedia:Village pump.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 10:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a policy page and I am quite obviously requesting clarification on exactly how and when the policy applies in a specific situation. RFCs and the village pump have brought in few if any random uninvolved third parties into an issue based on my experience. zen master T 17:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you could clarify what exactly is your question on policy I'd be happy to help. I just don't want to discuss a matter of content dispute here. By disputed headers, do you mean templates like {{npov}} and {{totallydisputed}}? I don't know of any policy on the use of those per se ,as any disagreement on their use is typically an issue of content or is a matter of objectionable behaviour on the part of an other user.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

An admin, David Gerard, used his rollback privs to revert the addition of {totallydisputed} and then {npov} to the race and intelligence article after he had previously reverted my attempt at making the intro NPOV. So my question is: shouldn't the criteria for removing the {npov} template be whether an in good faith neutrality dispute exists or not? Isn't that basically the rule of thumb for {npov}? The talk page will show that the article is fundamentally disputed on numerous points. Also, shouldn't an admin be required to explain his rationale for using his rollback privs to censor the existence of controversy? David Gerard has repeatedly and intentionally mischaracterized my edits as "disruptive" when I was only trying to follow NPOV policy. Wasn't NPOV designed to protect the minority or critical view? Before I seek an RFC on David Gerard (or some other action) I thought I'd try to clarify the mechanics of NPOV policy here first. zen master T 03:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any real "mechanics" to the NPOV policy. It says "do this stuff and that other stuff for these reasons", but it doesn't provide for enforcement. You have to understand that everything here works by building consensus. Currently, the consensus at Race and intelligence seems to be that the article is already NPOV (or something like that—I haven't investigated the details). Unless someone is violating specific points of policy (again, which I haven't investigated), the only way that consensus will change is by either changing people's minds or by injecting more people into the consensus-making group.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Is "existence of an in good faith dispute" a good criteria perhaps? A very quick look at the Race and intelligence talk page will show the article is fundamentally disputed. Most everywhere I go to try to get people to investigate the article has yet to generate much interest, could you take a look? zen master T 04:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure for what you are asking if it would be a good criteria. Do you mean for using the {{npov}} template? Assuming that's what you mean, then you still need consensus that there actually is a dispute so that the consensus will keep the template in against a minority. It seems that there isn't even consensus that there is a dispute beyond the fundamental controversial nature of the subject.

I do see that there is dispute at Talk:Race and intelligence, but it seems to be one person against the consensus. At that point my previous response stands: if people aren't violating policy to influence an article, then the only way to effect change is to change the consensus. The implication is that if you can't change the consensus, then the article is "correct" as far as Wikipedia, as a project, is concerned.

(As for getting into it, it's not a battle I'm interested in fighting on either side, nor currently have the resources to engage in. I do think that the concept of IQ is flawed, but I won't have the chance to investigate the APA reports cited in support of IQ for a while yet, let alone the research required to get up-to-date on the IQ literature done 1995-2005. On the other hand, I think an argument about the validity of IQ really belongs in Intelligence Quotient, and it is treated on there.)  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 07:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have killed off the redirect for Neutral point of view, which pointed to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NPOV should really get it's own article, obviously written using our existing site policies. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding, or finding information clarifying, a NPOV policy. It seems to me that NPOV applies well to general articles, but is unclear on articles which describe as specific point of view.

For example. Cosmology is the study of the origins of the Universe; most people are familiar with the Big Bang theory (or Big Bang cosmology). People are less familiar with Plasma Cosmology, which is considered by relatively few scientists, and considered quite contentious. But I would expect THREE articles:

1. Cosmology (a general article) which mainly explains the Big Bang, but to be neutral acknowledges and describes that there are other cosmology therories, and compares them to Big Bang cosmology.
2. Big Bang theory (a specific article) which mainly explains the Big Bang, but to be neutral acknowledges that there are other cosmology therories, but not in as much details at the Cosmology article since this is an article on the Big Bang, not on Cosmology in general.
3. Plasma cosmology which mainly explains plasma cosmology, but to be neutral, acknowledges that there are other cosmology therories such as the Big Bang, but not in as much details as either the general cosmology article, nor the Big Bang article.

It seems to me that:

1. All articles must be neutral in the presentation of their facts.
2. General articles must fairly present all points of view, but giving the most space to the most popular/accepted points of view.
3. But that articles that describe a specific point of view (eg Big Bang theory, and, Plasma Cosmology), would be written from the "baised point of view" of the subject of the article (in order to describe it). But to be neutral, they would acknowledge different points of view. However, they would not discuss all issues from all points of view, which would go into a more general article, or in an article describing the issue in question.
   • For example, if an article on the Big Bang mentioned (hypothetically of course!) that "Big Bang cosmology suggests the the Moon is made of green cheese because it is full of holes", then there would be no need to discuss, qualify, or counterpoint this issue. If we did, then potentially every statement would become a discussion?

-- Iantresman 13:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

All articles, especially those dealing with a specific theory that may constitute at particular point of view in some other debate, should be written such that they don't state things are true, but present the arguments and evidence that can be found "out in the wild". In this way, an article about Plasma cosmology should start by introducing the theory as a competitor to the mainstream theory of X, and its largest proponents are so-and-so. It should then go on to describe the theory as it is claimed by its proponents, being careful not to endorse it. The reader is then not only acquainted with the topic itself, but with the fact that it is a particular point of view and its context in the larger debate.  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 23:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is brilliantly clear and really helped me. Until now things were a bit vague in terms of repesenting mainstream views "as the majority view and thus required by NPOV to be the majority of the article" on a minority view article. Is there any way we can preserve the above comment by Saxifrage on the NPOV page? ant 14:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

It's important also that each view is presented in its strongest light, rather than minimized. So for example, even if we discuss "flat earth", we present flat earth as best a flat earth person would (subject to appropriate space use), and round earth as best its proponents would (subject to appropriate space use. Then the facts will speak for themselves. FT2 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Right. Now what about the question of antandcharmi, is this indeed not clearly described and if so, wouldn't be be useful to include such comments, especially the clear text above by Saxifrage? Harald88 16:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with being careful not to endorse it. I don't understand what it means in practice. Just as an exmaple, does it means that every sentence should start with something like "Proponent of view X, says ...". I guess that it doesn't mean that, but what does it mean? -- Lumiere 05:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

As bits and pieces have been added, the policy page as a whole has become rambling and awkward.

Just to put something out there, a very rough proposal:

• Intro:

Articles should be written without bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.

The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.

Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. Writing unbiased text requires practice. Contributors who have mastered the art of NPOV are invited to help develop the neutrality tutorial.

• Original formulation.
• Specific things to do or not to do: a few sentences on each and perhaps a quick "right" and "wrong" example if appropriate:
  • Characterize disputes, don't engage in them

Note: One can say, this means, explain the nature of the dispute, how each side sees it, and why each side feels their view is more accurate, rather than arguing for or against one of them. FT2 13:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Present views fairly and sympathetically
  • Don't give undue weight to fringe views

Note: This is commonly misunderstood. It does not mean ridicule them, or denigrate them. Even fringe views are treated with respect and allowed to describe themselves as best they can. What this rule means is, the actual space allocation for fringe views may be limited. But what is said in that space, is still their presentation as the proponents see it. If the proponents are wrong, then that is a separate issue and there will separately be citable opinions by opponents to expain why. FT2 13:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Beware unconscious bias
  • Cite basis for facts, cite prominent adherents for opinions
  • Don't POV fork
• Objections: a few sentences and a link elsewhere.
• "See also", "ext links", etc.

Fool 19:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it is presently cluttered and not clear. I like your approach. I'll have a go at building on it. See you in a day or two :) FT2 13:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've done a draft for discussion, it's at: User:FT2/NPOV. It took some time because I've also been thinking about POV suppression too (see above) as well as an arbcom matter that's taken up time. It's the 1st time I've tried to clean up and restructure an entire major policy page. I've done the best I know how, to try and describe NPOV policy and its operation helpfully, I'm hoping others won't flame the attempt too badly, because I do agree with those who said above that WP:NPOV has got a bit out of hand or unfocussed. What do you think of it overall, as one possible approach to cleaning up the NPOV policy page? The rough line I have taken is:

• A decent introduction rather than just a "one liner"
• What is NPOV, and the core concepts "notability" and "bias" that are so integral to the policy.
• How to write neutrally, covering common NPOV approaches
• Common situations and NPOV disputes, and how to resolve them
• Discussion points relevant to an understanding of some aspects of NPOV

I have tried to keep it clean as a policy statement that explains and directs, for both new users who are learning about wikipedia, as well as making sure it is clear and concise about POV dispute issues, rather than a more loose "discussion" format. I have also made sure there are clear but brief illustrative examples of whats okay and whats not in each section, and brief explanation why.

FT2 18:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems an important principle for WP:NPOV. It explains exactly what we are doing when people argue over what views to present and whether a article under or over representing a viewpoint:

NPOV does not mean that one view is reported and another ignored or ridiculed. It means that (allowing for fair use of space) each view is represented fairly and to the best of its proponents ability, ie "best foot forward", and that enough information is then given to allow an uninformed reader to judge why some views are viewed as they are, and their strengths, weaknesses and respective criticisms.

Possible addition to "Why should Wikipedia be unbiased?":

There are many reasons for this but perhaps one of the important ones is, many times theories are re-studied or reviewed again in later times, or new light is shed on them. So it is often important not to understate less preferred views or disputed theories while that information could still be interesting to someone.

Is something like this in WP:NPOV? Should it be? It seems at one short stroke to explain exactly what wikipedia is trying to achieve on articles where there are hotly debated different points of view, the difference between stating and advocating, and why even views that are not preferred by some get their proponents view included. FT2 16:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I have seen many articles on Wikipedia that stick strictly to the official story as spilled out by government-controlled media, and will not allow popular alternative theories to find their place in the article (the word conspiracy theory is not accurate, unless there is no actual conspiracy involved. When the official story is talking about something totally unbelievable, I think it is poor form to suggest that the alternative, far more believable theory is a conspiracy). So why is this? Most encyclopaedias will list popular conspiracy theories, or alternatives, that do not agree with the official version of events.

For example, when I first started editing the Peter Falconio disappearance article, I saw something which was titled "Conspiracy theories" and suggested that the notion that Joanne Lees killed her boyfriend was a conspiracy! How is that a conspiracy? It could very easily be true, and was widely believed to be true until 2 years ago as the most popular explanation for what had happened in the case (until they found Bradley John Murdoch). On top of that, that article had listed that the judge had ordered the jury to dismiss the conspiracy theories and pay them no attention. They were not conspiracy theories. They were defence theories as to what may have alternatively happened. They *HAVE* to be considered by the jury when making their decision.

This is a case in point in a trial in progress where the neutral point of view policy was not adhered to by sticking to the official story. The official story, of course, was that Bradley John Murdoch killed Peter Falconio as a random attack because he wanted to rape Joanne Lees, who he didn't know. That he had sat waiting in ambush by the side of the road for 2 hours, on a stretch of the road where on average 5 cars go past per day, in perhaps the most remote area of the country, and then hoped for a car to come, and to stop, and then hope that there was a woman on board to rape her. And that he did this for a laugh, then allowed her to escape, yet in 5 hours of searching for her, failing to fire a shot, had no footprints in the area, and did not use his car to run her over, and she survived - yet in the same 5 hours was somehow unable to get her ties off, which she could have taken off when by herself in about 5 minutes.

Now, in that case, the official story is absolute nonsense. Since the trial began, the official story has been ridiculed in 98% of newspapers and reports that have been following the trial. And yet, it was pushed as the official story, and any alternative was suggested on Wikipedia as a conspiracy theory, with suggestions that we should ignore it as nonsense!

In completed trials, there are many examples where the official story is nonsense. The backpacker murders was a case where 32 people went missing yet only 8 bodies were found, each with a different MO, as if they were each killed by different people - with no similarity between any two of them. Police were looking for 8 killers. Yet we ended up nicely wrapping it all up saying that Ivan Milat did it and that he was a serial killer and he only killed 8 people and the other 24 had nothing to do with him. What absolute nonsense! To fail to put in to an article like that about the facts of the different MOs, the other suspects, and the alternative (far more believable) theories doesn't conform to the neutral point of view, in my opinion.

This kind of thing seems to be prolific in wikipedia, yet in most published encyclopaedias, things like this would not exist. Most published encyclopaedias would include all alternative theories, at least all notable alternative theories. If a theory is only pushed by 1 person, they might not include it. But if it is pushed by 98% of the population, I dare say that they would.

Why is Wikipedia failing to conform to NPOV with these kinds of cases? Zordrac 05:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a process, not a finished product, so it is not uncommon for esoteric articles to be far from neutral. It sounds as if (with no investigation by myself, however) that those articles require NPOVing. There's a bunch of dispute resolution process and lots of policies and guidelines to help editors shape articles into an acceptable form that meets Wikipedia standards. Have you had difficulty in applying those in these cases?  —  Saxifrage |  ☎ 06:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we propagate the term "alternative theories" rather than "conspiracy theories" in wikipedia as a neutral term for such situations?

I think that "alternate theories" is a much more neutral sounding term. "Conspiracy theories" implies that its a fanciful lie that is not believable but rational people. So unless there is an actual conspiracy, then I think that something like "alternative theories" should be used. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

How can an article like "Criticism of christianity" have a neutral point of view?

The article is suppose to be about arguements put forth by critics attacking the teaching of christianity. Surely such arguements must bias against christianity? Surely such arguement are the point of view of the critic(s).

For example: An arguement that says the teachings of Christianity are anti-homosexual in nature. Is this a neutral point of view? Ohanian 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, and I'm struggling with a similar article that groups in a kind of blacklists all theories that are not considered mainstream by mainstream (it's a real junk yard of everything else) and I'm not able to explain to the editors there that there is something yakkie about it! List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories Harald88 07:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• It is neutral for Wikipedia to present an opinion if it ascribes the opinion to the specific person who espouses it, rather than stating it as if it were Wikipedia's own. The neutral point of view isn't about ensuring that things are never criticised, or about ensuring that there is an even balance between opinions about a subject. These are commonly believed fallacies. The neutral point of view is about ensuring that Wikipedia itself has no opinion and advocates no point of view. It is quite neutral for Wikipedia to say that

  Ohanian, writing in the Washington Post in 2005^citation, said that "Christianity is like a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys", explaining that this was because xe thought that both smelled really rank.

• What is not neutral, and thus unacceptable here, is to not properly attribute that opinion to the specific person who holds it, but to instead report it as if it were Wikipedia's own opinion:

  Christianity is like a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys, because it smells really rank.

• Wikipedia has no opinion, and does not advocate Ohanian's opinion. That is what the neutral point of view is about.

  There are plenty of non-neutral examples like that in the current version of the actual article, some of which editors have attempted to obscure with weasel terms.

  And, as per Wikipedia:Content forking, the fundamental problem with Criticism of Christianity (and Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism) may be that its overall scope is non-neutral, since it implies that all of the discussion of the subject is negative. However, the answer is not to turn the article into a back-and-forth pro and con list. Pro and con lists are based upon the erroneous notion that neutrality equates to exact balance, and are fragmentary, simplistic, false representations, and original research magnets. The answer is to refactor the scope of the article to be either about all discussion of the subject, not just the negative, or to be about specific fields of discussion of the subject, including all discussion within the field. See how Criticism of Objectivism is not separate from Objectivist philosophy. Uncle G 13:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; I proposed to change the scope of the scientific junk yard list to that of a list (kind of extended index) about scientific theories (physics theories would even be better). After I debunked the claim that then the list would be "too long", I got silence. BTW, I didn't notice what you write here above somewhere indicated in a policy. Harald88 17:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The article title is itself perhaps not neutral. Try considering a rename to something like "Non-christians views of Christianity" or "Critical views of Christianity" and making it more general. Who says what, and how do involved parties such as Christians, critical scholars, skeptics, historians, see those same issues. Thats how you make it neutral. FT2 14:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been suggested in a pending Arbcom case that we should discuss the issue of "nested criticisms" in relation to the NPOV policy. A nested criticism is when a critic of a critic is added to an article's criticisms section. For example, if the criticisms section of an article about Congressman Smith read "The American Values Coalition says Congressman Smith's bill to increase funding for zoos is wasteful" it would be an inappropriate nested criticism to add "The American Values Coalition, which political commentator Robert Jones calls a "cabal of scoundrels," says Congressman Smith's bill to increase funding for zoos is wasteful." This sort of thing often becomes a slippery slope in articles where it happens, and pretty soon you get critics of critics of critics ala: "The American Values Coalition, which the political commentator Robert Jones, who is accused of supporting fascism, calls a "cabal of scoundrels," says Congressman Smith's bill to increase funding for zoos is wasteful." This sort of criticism stacking is clearly detrimental to article content and distracts away from the article's main focus. While it might be appropriate to add "political commentator Robert Jones'" critique of the "American Values Coalition" in an article about them, or charges made by Jones' critics in an article about him, it would be inappropriate and POV to stack these criticisms every single time one of them is used as a source in another article. Clear exceptions to this type of thing may be when the subject of the original criticism responded to his critics. For example you could say "The American Values Coalition says Congressman Smith's bill to increase funding for zoos is wasteful. Congressman Smith responded to the charge by stating "the American Values Coalition supports extremist positions, and this is one of them."" But throwing in nested criticisms from off-topic sources is inappropriate and I propose NPOV be changed to clarify this. Rangerdude 22:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In your example, is any characterization of the "American Values Coalition" permitted? Can we say they are a "paleo-conservative"/"liberal"/"fascist" think tank? A non-profit? That they are really just one person with a website? What type of chareacterization of critics would be possible under your proposal? - Willmcw 00:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that a proper description of them should be in a sympathetic tone. For example, if the "American Values Coalition" in my example referred to itself as "liberal" or was universally acknowledged to be a "liberal" group, it would be proper to describe them that way. It would not be proper to use a pejorative description like "fascist" on a group that does not espouse its views as being "fascist" and is not universally acknowledged as "fascist." Rangerdude 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Added it to the draft I'm trying to polish up. Its not so much a neutrality issue because it doesnt inherently make an article biased. But it does imply doubt and confuse readers so its a neutrality style issue, a way to avoid writiing non-neutrally. FT2 02:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This is also a way to discourage fully contextualizing sources. Someone may use a dubious source to support an assertion, then insist that that source be retained. Beyond edit warring, what can another good faith editor do beyond insert a neutralizing characterization of this source, or pertinent context? It becomes problematic when an editor is willing to edit war to retain his dubious sources. In the absence of simply excising them, the answer often is to add extra context about them. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ my ridiculous poll 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with Katefan0's argument here because "contextualizing" sources can mean just about anything unless that term is supported. Critics of a critic should only be permitted where the criticism is directly and immediately pertinent to the article's subject. For example, it would not be appropriate in an article about forest conservation to change a statement saying "Congressman Smith says forrest conservation is key to ensuring the survival of several endangered species" to read "Congressman Smith, who takes money from big tobacco and reportedly had an extramarital affair with his office secretary, says forrest conservation is key to ensuring the survival of several endangered species." That's an ad hominem attack on Congressman Smith as a source and has nothing to do with his views on forest conservation. That said, it would be proper to put sourced and credible material about Congressman Smith's tobacco money and extramarital affairs on the article about Congressman Smith itself. It would also be valid to wikilink to that article. That way it's left up to the reader to decide whether Congressman Smith is a credible source on forest conservation or not. Otherwise if you get into this business of criticizing sources by nested critics of critics of critics you will inevitably slant the article, as well as make for poor writing. Rangerdude 22:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that under this proposal, the subject of the article, or those loosley affiliated with the subject or with the subject's field, would be able to use the ad hominem. To follow your example, "Congressman Smith says forest conservation is key to ensuring the survival of several endangered species. Conservationists respond by pointing out that Smith takes money from big tobacco and reportedly had an extramarital affair with his office secretary." I don't see why the source of the criticism matters so much. If we want to keep a sympathetic tone, then it shouldn't matter where the criticism comes from.

Also, the differencebetween "factual, neutral" descriptions and "pejorative epithets" isn't clear. For example, is "self-styled" pejorative or neutral? - Willmcw 00:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually will, that example is a type of nested criticism that would be inappropriate. The source of the criticism matters because it keeps the article on topic. If you're using a source to post criticisms for something that's completely unrelated to the article, most likely your criticisms are inappropriate. Rangerdude 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

For contextualizing comments, I think that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If an article quotes Congressman Smith arguing against closing a military base or ending a government program that provides massive numbers of jobs in his district, then his interest in the matter would have to be mentioned. Mentioning donations he's received would be a harder call, since mentioning them implies that they're what's driving his position, and (no matter how obvious it may seem) that requires more evidence than just the fact of the donation. One solution might be to say something along the lines of "Congressman Smith, who has historically aligned himself with Group X...", which makes it clear where he is coming from without necessarily implying that that group has influenced his decisions. -- Aquillion 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an important point. If the criticism is relevant to the topic, it shouldn't matter who the speaker is. So, if Rep. Smith is the subject and the TVC is criticiszing him on defense spending then it is appropriate to say that TVC is allegedly funded by defense contractors, even if it is a third party unrelated to Smith who makes makes the allegation. The problem with Aquillion's suggestion is that calling somebody "historically aligned to" could be considered a criticism, and could require an attribution. Then the source of that attribution could in turn be subject to characterizations. - Willmcw 05:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to include a group that is funded by defense contractors, that belongs on that group's article and the appropriate way to make it accessible from the Smith article is by wikiliking to that group. Otherwise you're way off topic from the original article. Rangerdude 06:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that pointing out that a critic is a corporate flack is appropriate. You might think that pointing out a critic is a "self-styled expert" is appropriate. Others might think that calling a critic "right wing" or "liberal" is relevant. I think that this is a difficult line to draw. - Willmcw 07:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The other problem is that this would allow an editor to add a 1000 words of criticism from the critic, without a single word of rebuttal. That wouldn't be NPOV. - Willmcw 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Will, you say "I think that pointing out that a critic is a corporate flack is appropriate." Yet that would be an ad hominem attack on the critic's motives, and IIRC you are also complaining below that ad hominems shouldn't be permitted in this policy. So exactly what is it you want? Your fear about restricting rebuttal is unfounded as we are not talking about simple on-topic rebuttals. We are talking about rebuttals of rebuttals of rebuttals that have nothing to do with the original argument. Rangerdude 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)