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.

The introduction states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This is further clarified as all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one, that readers are left to form their own opinions, that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each, and that we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone.

This is in direct conflict with what follows under the Pseudoscience heading:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false... The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view.

There are two problems here:

1. The entire subsection is written from a scientific point of view, which is by definition cannot be NPOV.

2. The article supposes that the scientific point of view represents the majority, which cleary may not generally be true.

I would suggest a serious NPOV reword, including the title, which in itself is POV. Aquirata 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Most scientific articles appear to be written (a) from a scientific point of view (b) Not only dismiss all tiny/extreme minority views, but won't even describe significant minority views. -- Iantresman 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also mention, this is not referring to just Pseudoscientific articles, but articles on peer-reviewed science, describing peer-reviewed minority views. -- Iantresman 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line regarding pseudoscience & the NPOV policy appears to be (at least it appears thus to me) that wikipedia recommends to describe pseudoscience as ... ehm... err... pseudoscience. Do you have a problem with that? -- Francis Schonken 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I have quoted from the policy to support my argument. I would like to see that you do the same so we can have an intelligent discussion and not just voicing opinions. Aquirata 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is also that "significant minority" views are often claimed to be "extremely small / tiny /extreme" views, and excluded completely. -- Iantresman 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, @Aquirata:) Well, about your second point, I think in fact you are right, example:

• Karl Popper describes Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis as pseudoscience. [1]
• Despite the criticism, I suppose the validity of psychoanalysis is still a "majority view" (at least, the psychoanalysis article does not make one suspect that to be otherwise).

So maybe the paragraph could be changed to

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their scientific/pseudoscientific validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in reliable sources. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

But I don't completely agree with your first point. You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a POV assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself. It shouldn't, in the same way that Popper's demarcation criterion (i.e. falsifiability - [2]), is itself not "scientific" according to its own criterion. The criterion is philosophical (duh! - Popper was a philosopher). In the same way Wikipedia's NPOV policy describes, among other wikipedia policies and guidelines, how (and/or "what selection of") human knowledge Wikipedia attempts to contain (see also wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not) - that is never Point Of View-free, see also wikipedia:neutral point of view#The neutral point of view, second paragraph: "[..] the neutral point of view is a point of view [...]". -- Francis Schonken 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The current language gives editors writing from the SPOV the right to declare anything they don't believe/like/etc. to be pseudoscience and therefore a minority view even if it is well documented and eminently sourcable (I concede in advance that it may well be well-documented and eminently sourcable pseudoscience). Regardless, NPOV would allow editors to juxtapose both views and give both space in proportion to the impact these views have. If the SPOV has sufficient quotes to demolish the opposition's assertions, it's OK. But if it doesn't, and other editors are still expected to accept the "pseudoscience" verdict where all they have is the personal opinion of editors that happen to be academics/doctors/chemists/etc., the NPOV is being ignored and that is a bad thing. AvB ÷  talk 23:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Do any of you whose POV's are, well, anti-"SPOV", have any idea how ridiculous this is? First, being upset that an article on say, special relativity, would be written from a "scientific" POV (actually it's written from a scientific perspective as physics is, after all science) is absurd in the extreme and a willful misuse and misreading of the NPOV policy. Additionally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is, I believe, to provide knowledge (scientia in Latin) and in the case of science articles, one would assume that they would be written from a scientific persperctive in order to fulfill that requirement.

Second, pseudoscience does in fact have a defintion and the only time there can be a true dispute is between pseudo- and protoscience, and that diuspute resolves itsaelf relatively quickly.

Third, Aquirata, et al, are significantly (and one assumes consciuosly) oversimplifying and misrepresenting the processes of how a topic is determined to be pseudoscience.

Fourth, this petition, for want of a better word, to needlesly rewrite the NPOV policy wouldn't have anything to do with some of the sciences that appear to contradict a religious, supernatural or paranormal POV would it?

Finally, before anyone points out any Wiki policies to me, save your time -- This is one of those instances where failing to put all of one's cards on the table will ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia. •Jim62sch• 08:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim, I do not recognize my contributions (or myself) in your words. For example, I am not proposing any rewrites. Could you please remove my user name from the above? AvB ÷  talk 20:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The point stands as a QED with this cite: "The current language gives editors writing from the SPOV the right to declare anything they don't believe/like/etc". •Jim62sch• 21:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That was not the point I tried to make. It seems you responded out of context, probably because you joined this part of the discussion after it had been concluded. If you want to judge me and my contributions, it would help to read the remainder, from Francis' response to here. AvB ÷  talk 23:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(refactored, see diff AvB ÷  talk 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't know whether you see my proposed rewrite of the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Pseudoscience as a solution to that problem?

Currently that section reads:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

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.

Inserting the paragraph rewrite I proposed above, the new version would be:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their scientific/pseudoscientific validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in reliable sources. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

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. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on view: for example the neo-positivist views of the Wiener Kreis on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, Karl Popper's unique demarcation criterion, falsifiability. Note that Wikipedia is not equipped to test the scientific validity of a theory (see wikipedia:no original research), but can only record and summarize what reliable sources have contended regarding the topic at hand.

(applying some other tweaks too) - Is this better, or isn't it? -- Francis Schonken 07:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll second Francis Schonken on that - there is a line between NPOV and being so inclusive of minority points of view that you repeat their own framing of an issue, which is an inherently biased point of view again - in other words, some points of view are opposed to the official Wikipedia point of view of using a neutral point of view. Minority points of view often go farther than advocating that their position is equally valid or equally scientific, but declare Opposite Day and characterize the mainstream or consensus point of view or scientific paradigm to be fringe and pseudoscientific - for example, as Cardinal Schönborn did in his NYTimes op-ed characterizing "intelligent design" as the only scientifically valid theory for the origin of species and organic evolution as pseudoscience, or this guy advocating that it is unscientific to believe that the Apollo missions actually landed on the Moon. At some point, choosing objective facts over arbitrary impressions is taking a point of view. Otherwise, we're reduced to the sort of "he said she said" that allows all arbitrary opinions to share equal billing with observable reality. There is no way to please the ubiquitous segment of the population that thinks reality has a well-known liberal bias, nor should we try. Rather, if we make discerning selections from reputably referenced sources to accurately characterize mainstream and minority points of view as such, we'll be in good shape. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl) 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read but not truly digested this proposal as yet. First impression: it is an improvement. First question: in an article on a specific subject deemed pseudoscientific, does this version also allow editors to draw on other, "non-scientific" sources to describe the "pseudoscience"? Given a well-researched subject that is not at all controversial in the opinion of experts in the field, where the media have widely reported an opposing view deemed pseudoscientific because "it's obviously pseudoscience, no better than patent nonsense" or due to the lack of publications in peer-reviewed magazines, especially in the area of double-blind etc. research, successful replication of results, etc... The old version allows editors to present as the majority view (in my book >51%) the SPOV based on peer-reviewed publications. My main point is that reliable sources for a mainstream SPOV are peer-reviewed publications, while reliable sources for other POVs/social phenomena are e.g. media like newspapers, radio, tv, books. The language should make it clear whether or not the latter are acceptable when describing (pseudo)science not sufficiently described in peer-reviewed publications. I think they are.

Many expert editors seem to have a strong tendency, when dealing with (pseudo)science, to only allow peer-reviewed sources, apparently based on this very policy section. Even when describing a POV or subject practically ignored by mainstream science. A number of them are unwilling to allow the inclusion of descriptions of such alternative views and some actively work towards their removal from the encyclopedia (judging from their user pages). I believe that this is not a good thing. It leaves blind spots and assumes blind trust of the reader in the SPOV instead of the wish to avail oneself of sufficient information to be able to decide. As any GP will be able to confirm, blind trust in science is disappearing fast in the real world.

Anyway - even if this version would allow non-scientific sources, it still seems to declares the SPOV the majority view, even in cases where many lay people happen to believe differently, if it disallows the use of lay sources. I'm not against preferential treatment for the SPOV in cases where it is not the only POV, but shouldn't the size of the default majority be limited, instead of assigning a majority theoretically approaching 100%? I would prefer to declare the SPOV, say, a 60% majority by default and allow the remaining space to be based on notability as normally assessed by Wikipedians (impact/notability in general, not limited to mainstream scientists: number of propopents/adherents, media attention, books sold, political clout, etc.). This, in fact, describes a fair number of existing articles, but in other cases would make it easier to describe what's happening in the world without being kept from doing so by a consensus based on this part of the policy. Sometimes taken as evidence for the very conspiracy theories used to help define pseudoscience... AvB ÷  talk 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tx for your comments. Taking a quick glance at them, I'd say (and that is also the thrust I tried to put in my update proposal) that these things have to be sorted out at wikipedia:reliable sources (or, before changing that guideline, best at wikipedia talk:reliable sources)

Now, that page is a guideline and not a policy. IMHO that is logical, while when one starts to define what makes a source "reliable" there shure are a lot of practical principles, but they don't apply in such absolute terms as the NPOV policy ("non-negotiable"). Weighing reliability of sources is a tricky business, with a lot of casuistics, and indeed: exceptions.

To give an example of that: There's this resource, "self-published" by a guy named Niclas Fogwall, http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/satie.html where, for instance, some original research by Satie scholars, not published elsewhere, is contained (e.g. this "updated" list of Satie compositions contains original research results by Robert Orledge, one of such scholars: http://www.af.lu.se/~fogwall/list.html )... Taking wikipedia:reliable sources to the letter would mean this website can not be used as a "source" on Satie-related topics. Nonetheless, that is precisely what I did in several Satie-related articles (usually, along with printed material), without a second thought, because every major living Satie-scholar one way or another contributed to or otherwise approved of that website (... however without a formal "peer review" procedure being described on the site).

That's why a guideline is so much more convenient for sorting out reliability of sources, than a policy page.

Further, I don't think NPOV can make too strict distinctions between "SPOV/scientific" type of topics and "POVs/social phenomena" like you seem to propose, again while "demarcation" of what is "scientific" is as yet an unresolved issue, with many differing points of view... Is "history" scientific? To some it is, others merely see it as an extension of something to do with literature... Without needing to make that discussion, NPOV can be applied to all these topics, and also what qualifies a source as "reliable" has no fundamental distinction (although there may be some practical ones) for all these fields of human knowledge. To me, that has alway been the *genius* of wikipedia, while the NPOV/Verifiability/NOR system allows to achieve quality in all fields of knowledge, without fundamental difference in the approach for how to achieve that.

So, no, I'm not too fond of SPOV factionalists. But, quite naturally, on most topics the "scientifically qualified" sources are considered the most reliable. Whether the "scientist" producing/describing the data is a historian, or whatever. No harm to underline that in the NPOV policy. No use to cause false expectations to the "scientifically extatic" (or whatever) in the NPOV policy. Marginal POV's will be thrown out in the future, as they were in the past, by the available procedures & guidance (e.g. XfD, or wikipedia:dispute resolution, etc) -- Francis Schonken 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Thanks for once again sharing your WP knowledge/insights. Very helpful for editors who are, like me, on the road from Wikipedia newbie to veteran.

Just to clarify one point (which I agree should be discussed at wikipedia:reliable sources) - I am not in favor of any special treatment for the SPOV. I feel the current policy is, as argued by Aquirata at the top of this section. The 60% was just an idea aiming to lower the ceiling from almost 100% since outright removal will not reach consensus for a long time to come, if ever. IMO, science does not need this special position and application of NPOV without it will not change the fact that the SPOV is a pretty good POV to include in an article on a (pseudo)scientific subject. But it is not the only POV. Readers will be better informed by also describing POV(s) of notable groups/people/etc. - peer-reviewed sources are great, but we do not have to exclude (or give minimal coverage to) non-SPOV sources. <stepping off soapbox now> AvB ÷  talk 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I generally like the direction you are heading to. I would propose further tweaks as follows:

How are we to write articles about alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscientific' topics)?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we will be describing alternative views without asserting whether they are true or false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, alternative views were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their scientific/alternative validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in reliable sources. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

The existence of alternative bodies of knowledge can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, alternative views should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

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 alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience') can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of those alternative views. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on view: for example the neo-positivist views of the Wiener Kreis on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, Karl Popper's unique demarcation criterion, falsifiability. Note that Wikipedia is not equipped to test the scientific validity of a theory (see wikipedia:no original research), but can only record and summarize what reliable sources have contended regarding the topic at hand.

Proposed changes

Proposed changes:

1. Title: changed to NPOV wording, deleted second part (which unecessarily narrows the subject)

2.First paragraph: neutralized first sentence, deleted second, replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative' in third

3. Second paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views', prefaced it with 'The existence of'

4. Third paragraph: replaced 'pseudoscience' with 'alternative bodies of knowledge' and 'alternative views' in second sentence

In general, I feel that this version preserves the original intent of this policy but uses language that is neutral and not offending to people representing alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience'). After all, Wikipedia is not written for scientists only. :) Aquirata 14:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned: no way - not withstanding embellishing (not "NPOV") phrases, this reads like a pseudo-science POV-pusher's pamphlet. I think that above I've made clear what I'd think an improvement. If this is how that is understood, I'd prefer to keep the version that is currently on the project page. Even with its possible internal contradiction (depening on which philosophy of science one is adhering to), at least it makes more or less clear where it draws the line w.r.t. to pseudo-science (and with regard to SPOV). -- Francis Schonken 16:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The current wording advocates SPOV. Wikipedia is NPOV. The contradiction is clear. Why would making the description neutral offend anyone if we are advocating NPOV? Aquirata 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you didn't even read what I wrote?

You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a POV assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself.

Clear? -- Francis Schonken 17:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One thinks it should be. Sorry AvB Aquirata, but Francis is correct -- what you wrote reads like a pseudoscientist's bible. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Except that I didn't write it. You're wrong here Jim. I have no difference of opinion with Francis at this point. I think you're confusing what I wrote with someone else's contributions. We've met before on WP so you might have had some idea that I am not anti-SPOV (I'm anti- WP:SPOV - the unimplemented policy, not the scientific viewpoint). And if you don't remember me, it would help if you looked over my editing record before coming up with accusations. AvB ÷  talk 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

(ri) Yep, and I apologize. I struck out your name and added the correct one. Sorry. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This would be hilarious is it weren't an attempt at being serious, "alternative bodies of knowledge", which I guess means that my children's belief in Santa is knowledge, not folklore. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fraud

Some of the relevant content is being pushed to support fraud. This will increase as WP looks like a credible reference, and if it is unchecked (for instance by prefacing such articles "This is a fraud") WP's credibility as a reference will decline again as it slumps into a mass of spam. Conversely, in respect of some of these frauds, quackeries etc, such as Rife "science", multiplication of websites and therefore Google hits is a part of the multi-level marketing or other apparatus of the fraud. To take it that if there are some number of Google hits this indicates a level of belief that requires aWP appear credulous is not a good idea. The suggestion above that a scientific attitude to (scientific) topics excludes all but the mainstream view is not born out by experience, however, if someone persists in claiming that vibrations of th right frequency can explode bacteria and cure disease, for instance, this is not material which should be placed in a WP article, unless it is clearly labelled, and moreover labelled where it will show in the minimal snippet that Google shows for hits, that it is untrue/bad data/a health fraud/scam etc. Explain what is without weight, but not what is not Midgley 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Royal Rife is a good example. I believe it should be treated like any other subjects per NPOV. Pseudoscience is to be disproved, not to be ridiculed. Both true believers and those about to become true believers respond characteristically to ridicule. They walk away where at least the latter might have been convinced. You are left preaching to the converted. Science-pseudoscience 0-1. AvB ÷  talk 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I think you make a good point regarding the Google snippets. But it doesn't always work like that. This search shows that Rife fraudsters have found ways to drive the first Wikipedia hit down. An important phenomenon in need of good coverage. AvB ÷  talk 20:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK then, let's go to an imaginary land called Imagia, where science is treated as follows:

Pseudoreligion (sometimes called ‘science’) is a term applied to a body of alleged faith that is portrayed as religious but diverges substantially from the required standards for religious belief or is unsupported by sufficient religious authority.

Now, imagine you are writing a policy about science in Imagedia. How would you like a wording such as this:

How are we to write articles about pseudoreligious (also called by some ‘scientific’) topics, about which majority religious opinion is that the pseudoreligious opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing beliefs repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoreligion were on a par with religion; rather, the task is to represent the majority (religious) belief as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoreligious) belief as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how religists have received pseudoreligious theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Pseudoreligion can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoreligion should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.

There is a minority of Imagedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Imagedia should adopt a "religious 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 religists' view of pseudoreligion can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoreligion.

Now, this is all fun and games - I am not trying to draw parallels with religion, just using an image to make a point. Does this make my position any clearer? And yes, of course, an NPOV policy cannot be anything else than NPOV. Unless we want to advocate hypocrisy. Aquirata 20:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Aquirata, all fun and games. Your analogy works if there is a religious method comparable to the scientific method which provides a systematic and historically accurate reference point. Your under a weird impression that people only use the word "science" to disprove people who are "fringe." Well, no. People use science to describe everything from a boiling kettle to the period of Neptune's orbit. Read the wording again carefully; "SPOV" is not rejected because it is opposed to "NPOV" but because "NPOV" broadly already includes it (the majority scientific viewpoint will be allowed due weight, as it should be) but less rigidly. Put more simply, the Wikipedia is generally written from a "Scientific Point of View" but there's no didactic mechanism to demand it from people. This is properly flexible--not "repeat the research paper as it stands" but "accept scientific consensus as the base referent."

Your argument here is a semantic shell-game, similar to your arguments on astrology and related, to force people to hold arguments not accepted by mainstream science equal to those that are. This policy (at least in this regard) is just fine. Marskell 22:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

SPOV is not the same as NPOV (S comes a few places after N :)); anything other than NPOV is POV - I suggest you read and reread the policies and guidelines. Aquirata 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you are attempting to establish the ne plus ultra definition of "neutral"; one that no human, given that humans are inherently subjective, can ever reach. The irony, of course, is that what you are actually attempting to do is contravert the NPOV policies to suit your own POVs. Sorry, but "what's your sign?" is not an NPOV question.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is also a POV, that of N. There's no such thing as an observerless observation; choosing to try a neutral POV is also a choice, one that is much rarer in actual practice than its adoption as a label for something else.

The definition of science incorporates the best method known to humanity for actually neutralizing the endless potential arbitrariness of points of view to which human thought tends. Stick with me here. Here is the legendary physicist Richard Feynman's take (comparing science to " Cargo Cult Science", or pseudoscience):

"But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in Cargo Cult Science... It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty - a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked - to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

"Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can - if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong - to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. ...

"In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another."

Scientific point of view therefore dovetails nicely with neutral point of view: we present all references, including their sources, and go out of our way to present and source potentially conflicting points of view. We go out of our way to present references and evidence that potentially conflict with the minority points of view, as well as with the mainstream points of view. Who could argue with that? - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ wp:space) 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A great example, no doubt. Feynman was a uniquely gifted individual, and science can be grateful that it had such a wonderful person contribute to it. Whether scientists in practice follow his guidance is another question. All too often, peer pressure and competition force everyday scientists to bend the rules here and there.

The main point, however, is not whether the SPOV is the right POV to use. Wikipedia is a factual representation of humanity at this point in time. Why are we ashamed of presenting 'pseudoscience'? Our job is not to prove that 'pseudoscience' is wrong and science is right; but it is the proportional presentation (i.e. reporting) of both in a factual manner. Let science and 'pseudoscience' speak for themselves, and let the reader make up his own mind. Otherwise, one might think that the more scientifically minded feel threatened by 'pseudoscience'. Aquirata 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately theory and practice of scientific epistemology are distinguishable. As for your advice, I cannot find anything in it that is inconsistent with my own. Going out of our way to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another, does not contemplate being ashamed of presenting pseudoscience or proving it wrong; it is precisely to present all the facts and let them speak for themselves. - Reaverdrop ( talk/ nl/ wp:space) 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Let the facts speak for themselves is in fact one of the examples on the policy page. In that light, I have trouble with the following expressions:

• Majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention: Presupposes what majority opinion is; assumes scientific opinion is the arbiter
• We must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us: Assumes description is done from the SPOV; those representing 'pseuodoscience' surely won't have to concede anything, and their own views will not be repugnant to them
• Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds: Again, from a scientific perspective
• Majority (scientific) view: Same
• Minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view: Same

I can see that some editors below assume that I am arguing for pseudoscience, which is far from being the case. All I'm arguing for is NPOV, which means 'describing a dispute fairly', i.e. without scientific bias. Let the facts speak for themselves! Anything else is a misrepresentation and bias. Aquirata 10:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Assumes scientific opinion is the arbiter". Yes, broadly this page does—or, as Reaverdrop put it, it assumes NPOV will generally "dovetail" with the SPOV because the scientific method and the modern system of scientific peer review strive for exactly the presentation of information NPOV demands. "But that's a viewpoint." Having had a hand in drafting the sentence, I'd point you to this early on the page: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints."

What you're really targetting here is Undue weight. Reduce science to an "equal perspective" position alongside "alternatives" and then give them each equal weight in articles; in letter and spirit that is not what NPOV is. "Chemists say X", "Alchemists say Y" is not on. You can post massive missives all you like, but it isn't going to change. Marskell 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• The neutral point of view is ... not the absence or elimination of viewpoints: Correct. Now apply it in an NPOV manner, and do not try to eliminate something that exists. SPOV will never, by definition, become NPOV no matter how much it strives for it.
• What you're really targetting here is Undue weight: This is a misrepresentation. Let me then quote myself: 'Our job is not to prove that 'pseudoscience' is wrong and science is right; but it is the proportional presentation (i.e. reporting) of both in a factual manner.'

Aquirata 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The section you quoted only gives pseudoscience as an example. The point is that majority views be represented as such, and as a matter of fact, that will tend to be the scientific view. I don't see a problem with the wording as it stands. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I see the arguments by the pseudoscience crowd to rewrite our bedrock policy have been resurrected. In fact, it all looks very familiar. Almost as if I've read this before. FeloniousMonk 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It does sound familiar. Which part of non-negotiable don't they understand? — Dunc| ☺ 08:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

All 13 letters of the word. Of course, it would be nice if they would be upfront about why they find science to be scary and bad, but, I suppose that's asking too much, eh? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 08:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

— Dunc| ☺ 11:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk, (a) you can't possible know whether those who present such an argument are part of the "pseudoscience crowd", even though are are entitled to your opinion (b) However, labelling such editors as such apears to be an example of an ad hominem, as described in Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attacks.

I will also point out that Wikipedia policy is not your bedrock policy, but the policy of all who contribute to Wikipedia. I suspect that such arguments will be raised time and time again, until a more contructive solution can be found that doesn't involve name-calling. -- Iantresman 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone here made these exact same arguments in the exact same manner ad nauseum several months ago disrupting this page to no end. Trying to force the issue, they instead ended up the subject of an RFC. Now I see the same arguments and methods being used here again. It simply looks very suspicious. FeloniousMonk 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, your comment that certain groups find "science to be scary and bad" seems similar to the counterpart, why do scientists find "neutrally describing minority views, to be scary and bad" -- Iantresman 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I just think they find them to be stupid. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me put the argument in a clear form:

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV

• The term 'pseudoscience' is SPOV
• This is a contradiction
• Therefore, the term 'pseudoscience' must be replaced so it becomes NPOV

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV

• The Pseudoscience section within the policy is SPOV
• This is a contradiction
• Therefore, the Pseudoscience section must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV

Which statement above is not factual? Which part of the above contains a fault in reasoning? Which part of the above do you not agree with, and why? Which part of the above implies to you 'pseudoscience crowd'? Which part of this is negotiable? Which part implies that I (or anybody else) would 'find science to be scary and bad'?

I believe the above is absolutely crucial to Wikipedia lest we become hypocrites in our own land. It has nothing to do with the validity of 'pseudoscience'. Aquirata 12:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the term " pseudoscience" is not Neutral Point of View (NPOV), but I don't think it is Scientific Point of View either. Reading through the definition of pseudoscience, I see a strong corrlation suggesting that the use of the term "pseudoscience" is pseudoscience, and there is a term to describe this: Pseudoskepticism. But you're right, "pseudoscience" is a judgemental term that has no place in an NPOV policy statement. -- Iantresman 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV

• SPOV conforms to NPOV

• Pseudoscience is a large and difficult category on the Wikipedia

• The NPOV page should directly address it.

I'm not seeing any fundamental contradictions. Marskell 14:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at great length previously. Read the archives. There is no contradiction and the policy is fine as it stands. You're going to have to sooner or later accept that there's little to no support for what you propose and drop the matter. If it's sooner, good for you; if its later, then you may well be viewed as disruptively trying to force the issue and the community takes a very dim view of that. Especially from someone who's been contributing to the project barely 1 month. I suggest becoming more familiar with the project and it's foundations before trying to rewrite its most fundamental policy. FeloniousMonk 15:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's unhelpful for people to try to rewrite one of the most important policies without having much editing experience. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

To Marskell, FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin: Please try to address the issue at hand. You have no idea what experience other people are bringing to the project, so I'd stay clear of discussing length of stay. The implication that only one person on Earth out of the 6 billion or so can argue this point this way is a great leap of faith. The fact that this issue keeps coming up may be indicative that there is a bigger problem here than you realize. Please address directly articulated objections and questions directly. Saying that there is no contradiction and the policy is fine as it stands; you're going to have to sooner or later accept that there's little to no support for what you propose and drop the matter and I'm not seeing any fundamental contradictions without any further explanation adds no value to the argument and doesn't support your position. I have shown using deductive reasoning that there is contradiction. I'd like to see your counter-argument using a similar (scientific) method.

Iantresman: Agreed, the term 'pseudoscience' being SPOV can be argued, but it is clearly not NPOV. Aquirata 16:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing of value in the objection (which has already been raised and settled here previously, again: WP:RTA), so there's nothing to be gained by addressing it again now. It was a specious and expedient objection then, and it's just as specious and expedient now. There are ample reasons given in past dicussions as to why your objection to the policy is a misbegotten notion. FeloniousMonk 17:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's logical to raise a person's Wikipedia experience when they are seeking to change a bedrock policy. Obviously, I object to these sorts of changes, as I have in the past. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble) 17:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A point many agree with but rejected out-of-hand by Aquirata and his predecessor. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of what experience people bring to the project, Aquirata, but of what Wikipedia editing experience they bring to this policy page. People who haven't edited much often have difficulty seeing how the policies work in practise and how they interact with each other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You would think that those who have this "experience" would have no problem in explaining the whys and wherefores behind policy. Yet I continually see patronising comments about "experienced editors", to go and "read the archives", to claim that no changes are required, the removal of dialogue from the discussion pages, and criticisms editors having the cheek to try and engage in discussion. What I don't see, is a common courtesy to directly answer the questions. -- Iantresman 18:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is, for Wikipedia's purposes, at best an extreme minority opinion. The sources for pseudoscience do not qualify as reliable sources, so excluding them from pages about science is not a violation of the NPOV policy. Hutton Gibson may promote a pseudoscientific geocentric view of the solar system, but since he is not a reliable source, and his views are extreme minority opinions, this viewpoint does not belong in the Solar System article. Of course, it can be (and is discussed) in the Modern geocentrism article, which is an article specifically about this pseudo-scientific theory. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually pseudoscience, and examples of pseudosceince, are not necessarily minority opinions, some views are shared by million of people (incorrectly). I suspect that more people "believe" astrology than there have ever been astronomers. That means it's a majority view, that deserves description (all views are described fairly and without bias). -- Iantresman 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By "majority" we do not mean we take a poll of everyone in the world, and vote based on that. It's actually impossible to know what a "majority" of people believe on any particular subject; nor are the opinions of almost all of them relevant. Rather, a majority point of view is, in fact, a majority of what reliable sources have to say on the matter. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, attempting to describe verifiable, cited information from reliable sources. It's not a giant polling service showing world opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a one-sentence addition

To be fair, Aquirata is doing what newbies are expected to do: going to talk rather than revert warring.

Maybe the verbiage can have a salutatory affect. Add: "Insofar as an SPOV implies giving prominence to reliable, peer and editorially reviewed work, it accords with the broader aim of presenting neutral information" before "However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" (perhaps also add: "or change to the name of this policy").

This doesn't answer Aquirata's concern (sorry) but it more clearly explains why the supposed contradiction does not exist. Marskell 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, (a) policy is not clear enough (b) Although "Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other " (my emphasis) [3]... fobbing off newbies does not seem to be in the spirit of policy. -- Iantresman 18:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this very issue was the subject of a very disruptive campaign by User:-Lumière, aka User:Lumiere, aka User:Étincelle and conducted in exactly the same manner and resulted in a user conduct RFC where there was nearly zero credible community support for both the objection and the method.

So this issue was just settled and to have it resurrected in the same form by an editor who arrived here within the last month (during the time of the RFC) is a bit improbable. Not too mention that it's the height of hubris to think that you can dictate changes to the project's bedrock policy to editors who've been here years when you've been editing barely 4 weeks. FeloniousMonk 19:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

More side-stepping. -- Iantresman 20:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not "side-stepping" to say that the earnest longterm contributors to the policy consider the objection to be DOA and the issue long-settled. You're free to disagree, but a one-sided discussion between two or three like-minded editors does not community consensus make. FeloniousMonk 20:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Look. Pseudoscience is plainly an ideological slur. Is creationism pseudoscience? Some would say yes. Others no. Somehow, creationism rises above this SPOV/NPOV fray because it is seems to have powerful and notable adherents, despite the sheer number of Darwinians who discard it out of hand.

Creationism and flat earth are prime examples of what exactly NPOV is. You point out the belief, and you point out the antitheses of the belief. You don't make assertions or content exclusions based on which one you like best, or even which one most people like best. MPOV is not NPOV.

An encyclopedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Even false knowledge, duly opposed by the presentation of contrary knowledge. And more to the point, vice versa.

SPOV changes over time. NPOV doesn't. We look back at the work of Galileo and realize he was right. But his opinion was not the SPOV of the time. It was, rather, the pseudoscience of the time. The question becomes: would the 1600s Wikipedia have included Galileo's solarcentric nonsense? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The term 'pseudoscience' is well-defined and commonly used both by the public and the scientific community. That it is simply an ideological slur is neither plain nor widely accepted, except by those who's pet beliefs happen to be considered pseuoscience. In other words, it is itself a POV. FeloniousMonk 19:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a comment on the suggested sentence? I agree with Felonious' general direction but I don't see the harm in clarifying wording or, more precisely, admitting that scientific empiricism is central to what we're doing (it is). "Pseudoscience" is not commonly "well-defined (and) used by the public." Not at all. But in the absence of a clear defence of empirical science versus pseudoscience we can't clearly write the Wiki. The above OK? Marskell 21:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it improves the policy. Wikipedia's existing policies already require all content to be neutral, verifiable and from reliable sources. Couching it as "Insofar as SPOV implies giving prominence to reliable, peer and editorially reviewed work, it accords with the broader aim of presenting neutral information" merely muddles an already clear issue by introducing SPOV. This goes back to SV's point that the 3 foundational policies must be viewed together which is something the unseasoned often fail to do. FeloniousMonk 22:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

But SPOV has already been introduced. And Aquirata is using its mention as a wedge. An SPOV (or more precisely an SPOV methodology) either accords with NPOV and the other content policies or it does not. It does, so say so. Marskell 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You do know that the scientific method didn't really exist as we know it in the 1600s, and as such there was no such thing as science or pseudoscience in Galileo's time? — Saxifrage ✎ 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The heart of the matter

Even though I'm not a psychologist, it is interesting to observe how a logical argument about the core of Wikipedia disintegrates into a political debate. Looking at the discussion, it is clear to me that no consensus exists with respect to this matter. What we have yet to see is a logical argument addressing the original issue at hand (i.e. contradiction within NPOV policies). As far as I'm concerned, all other questions that have been raised so far are secondary in nature, and so must take a back seat. If we cannot resolve an internal contradiction in logic, how are we to credibly write about anything at all? Granted, some of you may not care too much about my point of view, which is fine. A self-contradictory policy is also fine as long as we recognize the situation and take steps to correct it.

In summary, I look forward to your logical arguments directly addressing the original matter. Aquirata 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't expect many of the credible, longterm contributors here to engage in debating the matter again; your predecessor, Lumiere, used up any good will the community may have had on the topic of pseudoscience v. WP:NPOV. FeloniousMonk 20:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And that pretty well sums it up! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In summary, the policy reflects existing practices of the community, and that currently means that science is given credibility and non-scientific-method things (sometimes called "pseudoscience") are not. Thus you can't use a claim of inconsistency in the policy to change the policy. Rather, you have to go out there and get nearly everyone to change current practices. Once that's done? Then the policy page gets updated. What so many people trying to change the page don't seem to understand is that WP:NPOV does not dictate policy, it documents the policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• And the Wikipedia page on Policy and Guideliness, tells us to: "Respect other contributors .. a key to collaborating effectively .. and discussing matters with each other", and the Wiki page on Etiquette tells us: "Don't ignore questions" (my emphasis).
• Instead I see disrespectful, arogant and patronising replies, from editors who claim to be experienced with policy, who either ignore the basics, or (surely not!) don't know the basics. -- Iantresman 08:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for logical arguments to prove that the following statements of fact, deductions and lines of reasoning are faulty in some way.

The term 'pseudoscience' must be replaced with a suitable alternative so it becomes NPOV

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV (statement)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is used for categorization and description of policies (statement)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is not NPOV (statement)
• This is a contradiction (deduction)
• Therefore, the term 'pseudoscience' must be replaced with a suitable alternative so it becomes NPOV (deduction)

The Pseudoscience section must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV (statement)
• The Pseudoscience section within the policy is not NPOV (statement)
• This is a contradiction (deduction)
• Therefore, the Pseudoscience section must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV (deduction)

Unless somebody comes up with a reasoned reply expressly pointing out the fault in the above line of reasoning, we will have no choice but to conclude that Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory in nature. So I may add:

Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory

• The Wikipedia community is responsible for defining its own policies (statement)
• The Wikipedia community is capable of logical reasoning (statement)
• Self-contradiction in Wikipedia NPOV policies have been shown to exist (statement)
• No refutation of self-contradiction has been put forth by the Wikipedia community (statement)
• Therefore, Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory (deduction)

And even worse:

The Wikipedia community is practicing hypocrisy

• Wikipedia's official policy is NPOV (statement)
• Wikipedia's policies are representative of the Wikipedia community (statement)
• Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory (statement)
• The Wikipedia community represents something that it is not (deduction)
• Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have morals or virtues that one does not truly possess or practice (statement)
• Therefore, the Wikipedia community is practicing hypocrisy (deduction)

I see very serious issues here that have not been properly addressed. You can talk about secondary questions all you like, but that won't make the problems highlighted here go away. Aquirata 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. Aquirata 11:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you why this has been settled, thus answering why no one is willing to go on this merry go round with you. Put simply, articles must follow NPOV. The policy itself doesn't need to so there is no contradiction. In fact the policy isn't NPOV because it promotes a view that NPOV is useful in writing an encyclopedia. Hence your argument is a nonstarter. - Taxman ^Talk 13:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You might see Set of all sets and related (sorry all, if this feeding a troll). The neutral point of view can't be neutral insofar as it advocates a neutral point of view. More formally, it cannot be a member of itself. Marskell 22:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see some logical arguments. :)

Taxman, I believe you are referring to my second statement, namely that The Pseudoscience section must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV. You accept the first two bullets but are arguing that the third bullet (This is a contradiction) is an incorrect deduction. In reality, you are taking issue with the first bullet, which is not explicit enough: it should state that Wikipedia articles must be NPOV but policies do not. Do I understand your opinion correctly?

Marskell, if I understand properly, you are also arguing that policies do not have to be NPOV. Correct?

Aquirata 02:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "the neutral point of view is a point of view." So for that matter is WP:V and WP:OR. Marskell 07:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not this nonsense again... What you seek to change in the policy has been roundly rejected by the community, many, many times. Resurrecting it yet once again is becoming disruptive. Time to drop it. FeloniousMonk 02:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, better articles are our goal, not better policies. Wikipedia exists to create and publish articles. Our policies exist only to expedite that process. [4] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. KISS is an important underlying philosophy of Wikipedia. The WP:NPOV policy is clear to most editors, perfect wording is not important (or even possible.) FloNight ^talk 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No response has been received for the first statement, but I have rephrased it more succinctly:

The category 'pseudoscience' must be replaced with a suitable alternative so it becomes NPOV

• Wikipedia's official policy is that articles must reflect NPOV (statement)
• Wikipedia doesn't have an official NPOV policy for categories (statement)
• However, categorization within Wikipedia is like chapter headings in a book of articles (statement)
• Therefore Wikipedia categorization must follow NPOV policies (deduction)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is not NPOV (statement)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is used for categorization (statement)
• This is a contradiction (deduction)
• Therefore, the category 'pseudoscience' must be replaced with a suitable alternative so it becomes NPOV (deduction)

The second statement was challenged by Taxman and Marskell, and has now been rewritten to reflect this:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV

• Wikipedia's official policy is that articles must reflect NPOV (statement)
• Wikipedia doesn't have an official NPOV policy for its own policies (statement)
• However, the NPOV policy is a Wikipedia article (it looks like it, it feels like it, so it is) (statement)
• Therefore, Wikipedia's NPOV policy must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV (deduction)

Please point out any fault in the above reasoning. Aquirata 10:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Again - but this time I'll be less subtle ~:-O

The first item is not a contradiction. It adds deductions where none are needed (use in practice) and leaves out an important step: the consensus process. This is how things go in practice:

• Wikipedia NPOV policy is non-negotiable and applies to all encyclopedic content (i.e. article pages) (statement)
• The deciding factor is a consensus whether or not content (including categories and templates) conforms to the NPOV policy (statement)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is a point of view (statement)
• The term 'pseudoscience' is used for categorization (statement)
• The 'pseudoscience' category contains articles where a consensus has been reached that the assigned category is in accordance with the NPOV policy.

Options are:

• If you feel the policy does not reflect practical use, be bold, and where reverted, don't edit war but work towards consensus on the talk page. You tried, you failed. End of story. As you have seen, consensus regarding the text of the NPOV policy is based on years of practice and on the original version. In the unlikely case that editors (at some future point) reach a consensus to change "bedrock policies", they will once again discover that "non-negotiable" also means Jimbo and the Foundation have the last word here.
• If you see articles where you feel a consensus to remove the article from a category is in the cards, be bold, and where reverted, do not edit war but work towards consensus.

The second item: Wikipedia NPOV policy is non-negotiable and therefore not subject to the NPOV policy.

Only option:

• If you feel the policy does not reflect practical use, be bold, and where reverted, don't edit war but work towards consensus on the talk page. You tried, you failed. End of story. As you have seen, consensus regarding the text of the NPOV policy is based on years of practice and on the original version. In the unlikely case that editors (at some future point) reach a consensus to change "bedrock policies", they will once again discover that "non-negotiable" also means Jimbo and the Foundation have the last word here.

AvB ÷  talk 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend no further replies. Aquirata is going to continue to ignore the more important points that people are making and focus on whatever can continue this argument that has already been shown to not be useful. - Taxman ^Talk 11:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused now whether or not I can reply to AvB. :) Aquirata 14:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The term 'pseudoscience'

AvB, Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out. Let me try to paraphrase your post to see whether I understand it correctly:

• The term 'pseudoscience' reflects a non-neutral point of view
• This term is used for categorization within Wikipedia
• This is not contradicting the NPOV policy because:

• No Wikipedia policy or guideline covers terminology for categories; and
• The assigned categories reflect consensus opinion in accordance with the NPOV policy

Is this correct?

As for the options:

• If you feel the policy does not reflect practical use, be bold, and where reverted, don't edit war but work towards consensus on the talk page. You tried, you failed.: I can't agree with this completely because I saw no consensus opinion regarding this issue at all. Certainly, there was no consensus to change the term, if that's what you meant.

• If you see articles where you feel a consensus to remove the article from a category is in the cards,: This is a secondary issue to me with regards to the term. The primary question is whether the term is appropriate for categorization. Categories must be appropriate (i.e. NPOV) before the question of assigning articles to them can be answered.

Aquirata 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy

Again, let me paraphrase:

• Wikipedia NPOV policy doesn't have to reflect neutral point of view itself because:

• The NPOV policy is non-negotiable therefore not subject to any policy or guideline

Is this correct?

• You tried, you failed: Again, no consensus was showing through apart from the lack of it to change things.

Please bear with me as this is leading to the basis for Wikipedia's existence. Aquirata 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Has what has been said at your user-conduct RFC meant nothing to you? This topic was settled long ago your constantly harping on it is becoming disruptive. FeloniousMonk 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, FeloniousMonk, those who oppose progress will try any means whatsoever to achieve their objective, including maiming adherents of opposing views. A cursory look at history will give you ample examples. Lack of counter-arguments to the point only underlines the validity of the original argument. Aquirata 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"The NPOV policy does not have to reflect the neutral point of view itself" (more simply, NPOV is itself a point of a view). Yes. This has been stated in various ways to you at least eight times in the above discussion. Read here. Marskell 16:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line

With no direct response from AvB, I have to conclude that my assumptions above are correct. Essentially:

1. Wikipedia categories don't have to reflect a neutral point of view
2. Wikipedia NPOV policy doesn't have to be written from a neutral point of view

Moreover, it was asserted that this represents consensus opinion.

The first point is in direct contradiction to the WP:CG guideline, in which it is stated under 4.1 Category naming: "Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles", and also: "make sure [categories] do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy". It also implicitly contradicts Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people: "Use the most neutral and/or generic name", and Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality: "Terminology must be neutral".

Furthermore, WP:NPOV states:

"This policy in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." Please note the word categories.

• Conclusion: The naming of the Pseudoscience category is in direct contradiction to WP:NPOV and several guidelines.

With respect to the Pseudoscience section within WP:NPOV, the current wording has essentially been in existence since the second draft. The Pseudoscience section has only been seriously debated in Archive_005. The non-neutral wording never came into question, although one attempt by User:FT2 was made to amend the text with four paragraphs, starting with Science doesn't know everything. This change was reverted and never debated.

The assertion that the neutrality of the Pseudoscience section of WP:NPOV has been debated at length doesn't appear to be supported in the archives.

Furthermore, the first line of the second draft reads as follows: This is an old page--the draft has been developed into an article, which can be edited here. Please note the word article with respect to WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV also states: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." This wording doesn't appear to imply that the policy is non-negotiable.

Since WP:NPOV is an editable article, and the policy applies to all articles, it follows that the policy itself must reflect the neutral point of view.

• Conclusion: WP:NPOV is self-contradictory due to the non-neutral wording of one section.

I hope that the two conclusions above have been shown now to be true to everyone's satisfaction. The only saving grace that the community has left is the objection: but this represents consensus opinion. However, the history of the Pseudoscience category and the lack of debate about the Pseudoscience section in WP:NPOV do not seem to bear this out. There may be resistance to change, but that doesn't equal consensus opinion. If it did, the Wikipedia community would be in serious trouble because it is enforcing naming conventions and wordings in direct contradiction to its own bedrock policies and guidelines. In which case resolving this issue belongs to a higher level within the Wikipedia hierarchy. Aquirata 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Pseudoscience is not a term which "reflects a non-neutral point of view", it is a definition, a concise categorization per terminology, plain and simple. If something is presented as science but is not science, it is, ipso facto, pseudoscience. This is not non-neutral, this is accuracy. Your entire argument rests on the premise that pseudoscience is either non-neutral, or SPOV, or both. You are in error; you have built your house on sand. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: The article on pseudoscience states:

• The term "pseudoscience" [...] generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science. As such, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification.

Thus the term is not-neutral by definition. Aquirata 10:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make it non-neutral by definition. Consider the term "criminal". It has negative connotations (not even just generally, but nearly always), but it is an objective and neutral fact that can be attributed to some people. It is a neutral term, and people may be described, categorised, and the like as "criminals" without running afoul of NPOV.

Similiarly, if something is presented as science but is not, then it is by definition pseudoscience. The negative connotation doesn't have anything to do with whether it's neutral or not. Arguably a different term that lacks the connotation could be used, but Wikipedia specifically forbids using neologisms, insisting that we use the real-world established terms that are accurate and commonly accepted. Using a term like "alternative knowledge" for what is called pseudoscience around the English-speaking world would be as unacceptable as using a term like "unlawful persons" for what is called a criminal.

(Note I make no special connection between "criminal" and "pseudoscience" by juxtaposing them—I just picked the clearest example of a factual but negatively-connoted word.) — Saxifrage ✎ 17:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The word criminal is just as much non-neutral: it is a term used by one (albeit large) part of society to describe the other part. Do criminals accept and use this term for themselves? Consider the following from Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality: "Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms such as "faggots" or "niggers" are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances." These terms had been widely used at one point in time, but were later recognized as non-neutral, therefore usage changed. So just because the term criminal is being widely used today, it doesn't make the usage exemplary. The problem with the term pseudoscience is that it categorizes along the legitimate vs illegitimate line. This is similar to orthodox vs heretic.

The List of alternative, disputed, and speculative theories "includes examples of fields of endeavor that are considered to be fringe or pseudoscientific by the mainstream scientific community." This not only defines the term pseudoscience as SPOV (therefore not NPOV), but also provides a suitable, neutral term, that of "alternative theories." It is clear to me that the current situation is unsatisfactory, but I will take this discussion now to the Category talk:Pseudoscience page. The reason it was started here in the first place, however, is that the policy deals specifically with pseudoscientific topics, and the treatment is less than neutral. Aquirata 10:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Criminal is not a term as you've described, and your logic falls down because of that. Criminal is a non-derogatory term that describes a factual status: one who has been convicted of crime. In that way it is much like the word Ph. D: one who has been granted a doctorate. By your reasoning, everything that isn't a positive and desirable label is derogatory, and this is absurd on its face. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to once again explain another faulty premise: the idea that the editing of policy-related pages is subject to the WP:NPOV policy. It is subject to consensus between Wikipedia editors and to intervention by Jimbo et al. Policy-related pages must be kept consistent with WP:NPOV, a policy whose text is negotiable—except for its core, which is given at the top of this article: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". AvB ÷  talk 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see only one aspect here that looks (but isn't) recursive: the definition of pseudoscience (which is technically a part of the policy) is currently relegated to the Pseudoscience article. The latter has to conform to WP:NPOV. Which is fine, and gets us to yet another false premise: the idea that Wikipedia editors are required or allowed to create the pseudoscience definition. We have to report it. AvB ÷  talk 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so barring intervention (which I presume doesn't happen every day), "the editing of policy-related pages is subject to [...] consensus between Wikipedia editors [in a way that they are] kept consistent with WP:NPOV." You are arguing in favour of modifying the pseudoscientific topics section within WP:NPOV, are you not? The text is clearly written from a scientific point of view, which is not consistent with WP:NPOV, and therefore, by your definition above, should be brought in line with it. Aquirata 10:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The top line

Ironically, what Aquirata sees as the bottom line is, in fact, a misunderstanding of the top line of this policy page. In Aquirata's defense I will say that the text (but not the use in practice) just conceivably could lead to exactly this type of misunderstanding, so I have slightly copyedited it, bringing a fundamental aspect present in the text markup (visible in the edit window) into plain view on the page as displayed to the reader. I would not have thought of this improvement without Aquirata's input. AvB ÷  talk 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging this so openly. Although this particular change was not my original intention, I'm glad that all the talk about NPOV policy did bring about some movement. The value new editors can bring to the project by looking at old things in new ways and thus encouraging introspection with respect to policies, guidelines and the consensus process should not be underestimated. Aquirata 10:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following two sentences from the section "Characterizing opinions of people's work":

For instance, that Shakespeare is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe.

The latter statement is simply false. No reputable scholars argue that there is such a case to be made; a tiny number of unreputable scholars believe it. There should be an example like this, but this is not it. NPOV does not mean, as Jimbo has stated many times, including information believed by a tiny and marginal minority, and the policy page should not make it seem like it does. Chick Bowen 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a new example that is closer to what is meant by that section of the policy, I think. Chick Bowen 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverting, please find talk page consensus *first* (that's not something that usually happens in 24 minutes between two of your own comments on a talk page).

Here's your version:

Characterizing opinions of people's work

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For example, William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus has been considered one of his most interesting plays by some readers, ^[1] a relative failure by others, ^[2] and by a few to have been written by someone else; ^[3] a proper article includes the history of these interpretations without passing judgment on them. Note that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research, but once determined, a clear statement of that reception is far more useful and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia than a mere statement of opinion.

A remark: this version doesn't contain any external references to support its Shakespeare example by factual evidence, so the example is not nearly as good as the one you deleted. It doesn't show editors how to go about such things, but promotes weasel wording like "has been considered" without evidence. -- Francis Schonken 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care what the actual example is; but it should not be a statement that, as I said, is false. I'm disappointed that you reverted it rather than improving it. Chick Bowen 02:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are the one who thinks it needs changing, the onus is on you to garner support on this here talk page for a specific wording to change it to. Unlike in article pages, significant changes are normally reverted unless they've undergone debate and gotten significant approval on the Talk page first. It's nothing personal, it's just that it's a policy page and stability and consensus is very important, and there's no "needing to expand the encyclopedia" motive to counter those two important factors on a policy page. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Part of the problem here is that, of course, very little decent Shakespeare scholarship is available online except at subscription sources. Here are references for what I've included in my example, which could easily be cited using <ref>: good play: "Shakespeare's detached, often ironic perspective upon compelling art in this popular revenge tragedy makes charging him with naively imitating the works of Roman masters extremely difficult" (Maurice Hunt, "Compelling Art in Titus Andronicus" SEL 28, 2 (1988) 197-218], 214); bad play: the famous line that Titus is "Shakespeare's worst play" is from G.B. Harrison's introduction to his edition (Titus Andronicus [Middlesex: Penguin, 1958]); not by Shakespeare: Samuel Johnson himself said, "All the editors and critics agree with Mr. Theobald in supposing this play spurious. I see no reason for differing from them. . .", and that is online here. I hope that this is sufficient. Incidentally, since I am not editing policy but an example illustrating policy I didn't think, and still don't, that it should be such a big deal. Chick Bowen 03:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've now put the references into my version above; I'd welcome any comments. Chick Bowen 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Though it's substantially longer, in principle I approve of the change. Let's see what others think. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I got no objections to this version, I went ahead and put it in. Please do edit it and improve, but I would ask that if anyone objects to it altogether, just take it out, and we won't have an example for that section, or replace it with an entirely new one. The old example was a serious liability, since it put forward a highly controversial (and discredited) opinion as if it were mainstream. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, should have spelled it out: I still object like I did before. Too long, isn't as clear as the previous version (I mean in the sense of not making clear how Wikipedia's NPOV policy is intended), and confuses while a bit wishy-washy about the "truth seekers" thing (I mean, compare Wikipedia:verifiability#Verifiability, not truth).

Chick Bowen's only argument has been thus far "I know the truth and the truth is that there is no reputable scholar that ever argued that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe."

Sorry, seems like you're missing the point of the NPOV policy, and want to mold it to something else. Note that the NPOV policy page is not an article about Shakespeare, but err, ehm, ... a page on the NPOV policy. Don't start to change it before you're sure to understand. -- Francis Schonken 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But Francis, the example as it stands is not NPOV--it hinges on the assumption that John Baker is a reputable scholar, while he is in fact an enthusiastic amateur. I have tweaked it. Once again, I would invite you to just take it out altogether--I don't think an example is needed. Chick Bowen 15:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried, Will, I tried. Apparently Larry Sanger was right after all. Chick Bowen 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis removed the Tacitus quote, stating "Augustus/Tiberius seems quite out of place here".

inde consilium mihi pauca de Augusto et extrema tradere, mox Tiberii principatum et cetera, sine ira et studio, quorum causas procul habeo.		Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus – more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.
Tacitus, Annals I, 1 – Church/Brodribb translation

I originally added this as a parallel to the quote in WP:V. This is where the famous "sine ira et studio" is found - people are acknowledging the "neutral point of view" since antiquity. See Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus#Approach_to_history for more context.

OK, if this is removed then this either needs elaboration or shouldn't be here at all. Dr Zak 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zak,

• The quote (but replacing the Augustus/Tiberius part with an ellipsis) is contained in Tacitus#Approach to history.
• Although I was the one to have placed both that quote in the Tacitus article, and the Tacitus quote in the WP:V policy page, and I'm by all means a fan of Tacitus quotes, here are some considerations:
  • Basicly, wikipedia's official policies are made by 21st century people, let's not bend them too much towards a single person who lived in Rome 19 centuries ago. Let's be sparse with Latin quotes (this isn't an Asterix album, for instance).
  • Note that the WP:V#A thought: Tacitus' recommendation quote would be as usable for WP:NPOV as WP:V, in fact it is so powerful that it sums up the three core Wikipedia content policies ( WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR). From that angle we don't need a different quote in WP:NPOV than the one that is already in WP:V.
  • If a bit acquainted with Tacitean studies, it's no secret that the "sine ira et studio" quote is much more problematic than the "consensum auctorum" quote (that's the WP:V quote). Tacitus could be very vitriolic, so his "sine ira" has been criticised at large in literature. Personally, I'd have no problem that wikipedia had the same sharpness of Tacitus sometimes (would sort out wikipedia:weasel terms with a blow), but that's a bit different from the WP:NPOV policy, which I sport even more for wikipedia. The difference is that Tacitus is a single author, as a manner of speach his own judge on how much anger he'd show in his writings. Wikipedia is a community project: what is without anger (sine ira) for one person, can be perceived as being very agressive by another person. That's where the NPOV policy kicks in: how do we work together on a single project, how do we sort out that one person's "objectivity" can be perceived as a positive bias by another person. IMHO, that's the core of the NPOV policy, the core of what makes wikipedia tick. the "sine ira et studio" quote is maybe not the best to make that clear.

Anyway, if it would be included in the NPOV policy (which all in all I'd support), I'd put it here with the Augustus/Tiberius part taken out (so the format as it is in the Tacitus article currently). -- Francis Schonken 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The policy says that NPOV is a viewpoint. This means that the objective is NOT to make an article neutral sounding as if nobody knows what the truth is about any subject. It is a viewpoint because NPOV only comes into play when dealing with the reliable sources and the data given us about the subject at hand by them. This means that if you find 10 reliable (verifiable) sources all saying a positive thing about the subject, that means that the resulting "Neutral Point of View" is positive. It does not mean we should take that positive and neutralize it so that anyone who comes along will feel that it is neutral (meaning neither positive nor negative). The "N" in NPOV only means that we must rely accurately on what the reliable sources give us. Saxifrage and Schonken apparently have not understood this up until now. The "Neutral" in NPOV means to heed fairly what the reliable sources say. If all reliable sources say something negative then NPOV results in negative. If reliable sources are split and oppose each other, then the NPOV comes out neutral. My edit emphasized this because many people misunderstand it and it needs to be made clear. It is the cause of lots of problems on WP. NPOV should ultimately be renamed because it was a mistake to use the "N" and is throwing everyone off by making people falsely think the resulting articles should always sound neutral no matter what the reliable sources contain. This is a disaster. -- Diligens 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaking the viewpoint part for something it's not. The neutral one is the point of view that Wikipedia adopts in dealing with subjects. It's not the viewpoint that must be expressed by every line of every article. However, never may Wikipedia "speak" as if it held a positive or negative POV on something, even if all sources agree. That's not neutral. Wikipedia presents the opinions and points of view of the world and should have none itself (aka, a neutral one).

Unrelatedly, I don't have any problem with the principle of making it clear that NPOV must be applied alongside Verifiability. This would be the wrong reason to do so, however. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This reveals you need to read again what I wrote. You don't understand NPOV like so many other people. The rule currently says that NPOV is a viewpoint, but you are saying it is not. Why? You also state here that I am mistaking viewpoint for something it is not, but then you fail to say what viewpoint is. The rules currently also say that NPOV must be interpreted inseparably with the rules on verifiablility and reliability, but you are disassociating that dependency on reliable source data. The very fact that you do this shows you don't understand it, and is precisely why my edit was made - to emphasize that dependency. For instance, if we have 50 reliable sources that say that Jack Smith committed murder. The WP article doesn't remain neutral, it flatly states that he committed murder. WP doesn't just keep pointing fingers in every sentence saying "Source such-and-such claims such-and-such". No encyclopedia talks like that. You need to reread what I wrote above and read this again. Your view of NPOV is a common mistake. NPOV can be positive, neutral or negative depending upon the reliable source data. That is NPOV. -- Diligens 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying NPOV isn't a viewpoint, I'm saying it's not a viewpoint in the sense you're using it. NPOV is a point of view, a philosophy, a perspective, a position, on how to write an encyclopedia. It governs what Wikipedia does and how it relates to the subjects it covers. This philosophy must be reflected in how subjects are written about in articles. It means that Wikipedia articles must be dispassionate and not take sides. It does not mean that "it is a viewpoint that is applied when there's disagreement", which is what you seem to be saying. It is a viewpoint that Wikipedia always expresses by doing what it does. When there is a conflict between sources, this is obviously more evident, but it is there even when there is no conflict.

For opinions on facts, I will agree with you that when all sources agree, Wikipedia can just say "such and such is true" or write as if it is so. I disagreed as soon as you used the word "positive", though. If all sources are absolutely glowing and say the subject of the article is wonderful and amazing, and no sources disagree, Wikipedia can't adopt that Positive Point of View—it must remain neutral and not promote a value judgement. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is an issue where no-one disagrees, why would it ever come under an NPOV conflict anyway? I think most of your concerns are already addressed by the undue weight section. Certainly, NPOV and verifiability go hand in hand, but I fail to see what the issue under contention by you is. Are you attempting to move the definition of NPOV closer to that of Scientific point of view, or are you trying to make it so that undisputed articles can speak with surity? (they already can) Until someone disagrees, there is no conflict, and in cases where they do disagree, the current policy makes sense already. I did think some mention of verifiability in the opening paragraph was sensible, but I'm unsure now, since it seems like you are trying to distort the definition somehow... what's the objective of the proposed change here? -- tjstrf 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to agree with you, Tjstrf, but unfortunately here on WP argument over NPOV flare up even if no one in the real world disagrees. Some editors will still call for "according to"s etc. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully those authors are merely attempting to err on the side of caution. Also, saying "according to n" is a good thing, as it allows you to add more references and improve the quality of the article that way. -- tjstrf 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Tjstrf, some are not. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we might be thinking of two different things here... could you direct me to a case of what you are talking about? -- tjstrf 17:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it this way... ask yourself why, for example, does the featured article on Abraham Lincoln (considered one of the ideal and top notch articles of Wikipedia) contain the plain statement that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln? Shouldn't it have said, "allegedly"??? Shouldn't every sentence on Wikipedia therefore be prefaced by "allegedly" in order to remain "neutral"?? You can see the absurdity of it. NPOV is not abstract neutrality in wording - it is concrete neutrality is direct relation to representing the truth of the data contained in all reliable sources together for a particular point of an article. This is what my edit accomplishes by detailing this dependency and relationship. -- Diligens 17:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because no scholarly books have been published which feature the claim that Booth didn't assassinate Lincoln but instead some other guy did it? If such a book were published, then it should be mentioned briefly in the article. -- tjstrf 17:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point with the my edit. Neutral would say it is "alleged" that Booth assissinated Lincoln. But it doesn't. It positively claims it based upon reliable source. That is my whole point. -- Diligens 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In practice it's not a problem, and few people seem to read the NPOV policy as you have. And, as many have pointed out at other times, we're here to make a better encyclopedia, not better policies. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Diligens wrote: "Your view of NPOV is a common mistake. NPOV can be positive, neutral or negative depending upon the reliable source data. That is NPOV." - Diligens, could you please explain how you arrived at your definition of the NPOV c.q. your interpretation of WP:NPOV? I think it would be illuminating to learn if you are basing this on your interpretation of the current policy language, or perhaps on your observations of how things are done in practice. Thanks. AvB ÷  talk 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate and maybe say it differently for you. The rules say that NPOV cannot be interpreted inseparably from the necessity of having verified/reliable sources to support an article. This means that NPOV is dependent upon the need to first have data from reliable sources. It is a matter of pure logic, but really the rule already mentions that NPOV is dependent on what reliable sources say. If a reliable source says something is, the article simply says it is a fact. I cannot be otherwise. If anyone disagrees with this, try going to the Abraham Lincoln articel and edit it so that it says that it is "alleged" that Booth assassinated Lincoln. You won't success because NPOV there along with reliable sources results in a positive - that Booth DID assassinate Lincoln. Let someone argue with this, otherwise I am making my edit to this policy to emphasize what so many people get wrong. -- Diligens 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've figured out what the problem here is: You are confusing verifiability of support with verifiability of truth. To be neutral, we must include any position that is verifiabily held by at least a significant minority. We do not, however, require that their opinions be verifiably true. In other words, we say Booth assassinated Lincoln, and it is neutral. Not because it's true, but because no one opposes us. If that's not what you are talking about, then you're apparently just ranting about something that is already covered: under the verifiability criteria, content cannot be included, POV or not, if it is verifiable. In other words, the NPOV guideline is subordinate to verifiability already. -- tjstrf 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Near the top we have this summation: "It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."

Later: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone...Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."

I realize there is a difference between having having a sympathetic tone (not deriding something) and being sympathetic to (actually being partisan) and I don't think we have a flat contradiction here. However, the opposed uses of sympathy is a weakness I think. Perhaps drop sympathy in the last. Marskell 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• Somedays its easy to just find a random point to make the interjections that have been brewing

in the back of ones brain.

• 1There are two primary properties of "neutral." The first is that the information presented is presented factually. The second is that the information is being presented without an emotional

spin or bias. In other words; propaganda tools are disallowed.

• 2The only way to accomplish neutrality in practice concerning different points of view on a controversial subject is to present equally all of the points of view involved. That is actually not limited to false dillema dualities, there are probably at least 5 or 6 seperate politics voices in America, for instance, and at least a hundred different voices for "Christianity" for instance as the different denominations.

• 3When a belief or a propaganda tool is being discussed, neutrality reporting it requires it to be properly atributed to the group which specifically is a proponent of that view or issue in that light. In other words, the "Fact" xy y Z "Is that group xyz believes in, or supports position xyz" etc.

• 4The best overall method to determine as a judge if neutrality is present is that true neutrality always eres on the side of the favorable light for the position it is presenting.

Thats "sympathetic" only in that it is exclusive specifically of "negative." To put it a very different way, neutrality forbids straw man arguments.

• 5points 2,3,4 are what really makes writing neutrally about charged subjects very difficult.

Theres a big problem in reconciling reporting on a view or position that a person or group takes that is negative. The biggest meltdown point is determining the difference between interjecting ones own spin, and reporting some body elses spin as they spun it, not as you might spin it.

• 6The next biggest question or problem is whether or not a person is capable of making the cognitive leap to neutral thinking. Some people aren't. They can write neutrally, but its an internal dialogue process of rant and translate. The result is really just negative axioms translated in neutral language, and extremely sly ad hominems and attacks. The solution to this problem is to discuss, teach, and train the concept of neutral thinking, and at least enough conversational logic to support that process.

• 7. The next biggest problem is due weight. If you count honestly the voices in American politics, theres the neo cons, the paleo cons, the Christians, the Democrats, the Liberal Democrats, The Republicrats, the Greens, and the True Liberals. How much time and energy should each of those groups get on a given political subject? Some might cut that pie into equal portions. Personally, I think thats fair in most cases. But the truth is that true fairness on that pie slicing is a very complicated game based on how those voices are actually involved or were involved in that conversation. Was an effort made to cover that issue? By that voice? Or

is trying to involve that group on that isue more like piecing together a brand new position paper and original research? Should the Greens get only 1 percent of the air time, as i am sure the Republicans and Democrats would like? (Or, better yet, just freeze all of american politics into the tyranny of a duality false dillema.)

Prometheuspan 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is currently a dipute on Talk:Muhammad as to how Muhammad should be described in the introductory sentence. The academic view is that he is the founder of Islam; the Muslim religious view is that he is the final prophet of God, but not the founder of Islam because Islam is eternal. So, some editors advocate that only the academic view must be presented in the introductory sentence, although the Muslim view must be given full credit elsewhere in the article, including the intro. Other editors argue that both academic and Muslim views must be presented in the first sentence, or alternatively, the first sentence must be formulated in a neutral fashion without giving advantage to either view. The root of the dispute, it seems, lies in the way WP:NPOV is presented now; namely, that the policy deals mainly with the conflicting academic POVs, but not with views stemming from two entirely different discourses. I'll be glad to hear input on that issue. Pecher ^Talk 09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at how Jesus does it - a stable compromise that is the result of LOTS of arguing. My view is this: Muhammed is important largely becuase so many people consider him their ultimate prophet. To say this (which is not the same thing as asaying he IS God's ultimate prophet) does not violate NPOV, and I would lead the article with this. I would then have a new paragraph laying out major cholarly (secular) views of Muhammed, and then paragraphs with any remaining important views (i.e. beyond those of Muslims and scholars of Muhammed or Islam). Just my opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)