This 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.

Why have you permitted somebody to post inaccurate statistics on this page?,not only post them,but he has protected them. GaryS ( talk) 10:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@ GaryS: what stats are wrong? Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems this is a good place to suggest an edit on the "Religion" section of this article. I was thinking about adding the following wording to this article or something like it: "Some articles involving religion can be controversial by nature such as articles specifically linking religion, or non-religion; with morality, culture, gender, criticism, science, etc. Due to the controversial nature of such articles, where groups of people from one belief system/worldview are compared and contrasted with other groups of people from other belief systems/worldviews, some degree of neutrality and balance may be achieved by providing introductory-type sections that provide background context of religion, or non-religion, and the variable(s) embedded in the article (e.g. morality, culture, gender, criticism, science, etc) based on reliable sources. Adding such introductory-type sections in a controversial article, would help establish the complexity of religion, or non-religion, people, and also the sophistication of interactions between variable(s) embedded in the article (e.g. morality, culture, gender, criticism, science, etc). This would limit the reductionism of people's beliefs with their actions in real life especially since correlations do not necessarily mean causation."

I am thinking about articles like Criticism of Islam where a formal and short introduction section to Islam would be beneficial to readers since it would be important to have some context as to what Islam is understood as, before the criticisms sections. Especially since there are diverse understanding of Islam among the Muslim community. Any comments on this? Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 06:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail for policy-level guidance; Also, not sure whether this is at all practical. The quite unintelligible "This would limit the reductionism of people's beliefs with their actions in real life especially since correlations do not necessarily mean causation" seems to give advice on what people should be doing in their real life: if so, it doesn't really fit in Wikipedia guidance – such guidance is about how we write an encyclopedia, not about how people should be organising their lives. Possibly start it out as an essay (without the "real life" advice then probably)? And see where it goes from there? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe we can remove the last sentence of the proposed wording. What about the rest? Pretty much, what I am suggesting is that some degree of neutrality can be achieved in controversial articles by merely providing sections which provide mere background information. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 12:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think any of this needs to be stated in the policy. Adding background and context to an article is certainly a good thing... but it is part of the normal editing process (a way to improve an article). We don't need to a policy to give us permission to improve articles, we just do it. Blueboar ( talk) 14:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Star Wars: The Last Jedi, there appears to be a growing consensus to state that there was a "divisive" response from audiences where there is zero evidence of this from controlled polling. There is commentary about so-called divisiveness based on uncontrolled user scores (mainly the one on Rotten Tomatoes). The so-called editor consensus is essentially based on unscientific conclusions (especially when we have scientific conclusions already). This policy states that editor consensus cannot supersede it, but I am concerned that is what is going to happen here. This looks like it may become an issue with Black Panther too. Please see the RfC here: Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi#RfC: Which version of the Audience response section should we go with?. Thanks, Erik ( talk |  contrib) ^{( ping me)} 16:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Just reverted a series of edits to the WP:BALANCE section. The reason is largely summarized by combining the first edited sentence and the last. The first changes "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence" to also include "or if such contradictions amongst reliable sources tends to reveal that "the verdict is still out" amongst the leading experts in that field". And then a sentence was added to the end: "In such cases assign equal or balanced weight to such contending views while describing them." This is a formula for WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarified that only articles where there is a "relatively equal promince" of contending views require the balanced presentation of both contending views. One passer by ( talk) 15:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Too wordy, no consensus. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Francis Schonken:, the phrases "fairly and accurately," and "without weighting for or against either view" would seem to me to clarify what a balanced presentation should be. Please explain why a balanced article should not meet these requirements. Without clarifying that a balanced article should meet these requirements, it seems to me to allow for imbalance, no? Please explain why you think a balanced article should not be fair, accurate, or free of weighting for or against either side. One passer by ( talk) 15:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You appended the second phrase to a sentence that wasn't speaking about Wikipedia articles, but about the sources we use to write articles. Such sources should not be excluded for "weighting for or against" a view. The first sentence seems redundant for what is already elsewhere in the policy: we don't repeat the entire policy in every subsection, which is just redundant wordiness. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, The phrase, "without weighting for or against either view" was moved to a more logical spot, and the phrase fairly and accurately was not reinserted. One passer by ( talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article, you have no consensus. There needs to be a consensus on this talk page before the policy is changed. All in all not even very likely a consensus to change the policy on these points is within reach, so, summarizing: you don't have consensus, thus don't change the policy. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

IMHO there are a few issues with the "Balance" section, but not related to One passer by's edits or comments:

1. confuses "balance" and "equal balance";
2. doesn't provide for the case where there might be more than two views with equal strength;
3. doesn't show what to do when there are alternate views, but no "disinterested" sources describing these views (as if such situation couldn't be handled in Wikipedia).
4. trying to find reliable sources that put opposing views in perspective is always a good idea, whether that is opposing views with equal strength or minority vs. mainstream opposing views: current wording of the section makes it seem as if such sources would be of no use unless the opposing views are of equal strength.

-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 16:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC); added #4 -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I've seen plenty of situations of #3, particularly when the alternate views are groups or persons at a center of a controversy whom are not getting their voice at least factually stated in RSes, or otherwise steamrolled by the media (see many many many alt-/far-right personalities). There's an element of self-statement that BALANCE cannot ignore even if that self-statement is coming from a normally non-reliable source. It doesn't mean we need 50-50 coverage of that, but it should be stated in an impartial, disinterested voice, with equal prominence to the opposing view. That it, if someone is being frequently labeled far-right by the media far and wide, but they've stated in one interview they do not consider themselves far-right, then we shouldn't bury that counterpoint, it should be a leading statement when discussing that controversial statement: "X has frequently been labeled as a member of the far-right, though X stated in a 2017 interview with Breitbart they are not and instead consider themselves central-right. (Newspaper) considers X to be far-right due to their stance on race and gender equality, etc. etc. (and more and more media statements here)." There may be nothing more that can be said about X's stance beyond that, which is fine, that's the right balance, but its the prominence of where we say that that also is important to be "fair". -- Masem ( t) 16:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Masem, yes, it seems to me that this is a big problem in WP. One of Trump's speech writers gets that treatment, even though he has never proclaimed himself "far right." But perhaps this problem should be addressed in our "Biography of a living person" section. One passer by ( talk) 16:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This would apply to both BLP and to any group or organization; for example, it's known that the influential Southern Poverty Law Center denotes groups as hate groups or similar, which labeling is taken up by the media frequently, even though the group itself issued statements refuting that stance. It would be a similar situation to make sure that proper prominence is given to the group's counter-claim before delving into the specifics of why others call them a hate group. -- Masem ( t) 16:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Many groups do one thing, but proclaim another. Same with people too I suppose. For example, white-supremacist groups sometimes deny this label and proclaim themselves instead to be anti-white-genocide groups. If such a group actually had no rhetoric proclaiming whites as better, or others as worse, then I would agree, but I can think of no such group. Can you? One passer by ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree @ Francis Schonken:, with your points 2 and 3 above. I myself may be a bit confused regarding "equal balance." One passer by ( talk) 16:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Would the Creationism article require "Balance?"

According to the definition of articles requiring "balanced arguments," only articles where both opposing views are supported by a "relatively equal" amount of sources (prominence), is "balance" required in the arguments presented in an article. The question has been put forward, "How would our "Balance policy" apply to an article on Creationism? Being as in this subject, clearly the majority of authorative sources (scientists) favor the likelihood of the Evolution theory being the "correct theory," therefore Balanced and "relatively equally weighted" arguments would not be a goal in such an article. At least that is my understanding of when "balanced arguments" should be the goal, and should not be the goal, in an article. One passer by ( talk) 16:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Since balance is based on the relative weight of opinions in reliable sources, providing greater credence to the scientific view is both weighted and balanced. TFD ( talk) 17:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in matters of science, a logical "scientifically well reasoned view" is generally preferred over a view that relies on unscientific reasoning, such as religious faith. In matters where faith and science might seem to conflict, such as in for example, Creationism vs: Evolution, are not scientists generally considered to be more "prominent experts" than theologians? Thus in that particular "conflict of views," there is no "relatively equal promince" between the two contending views, and thus a scientific view there does not have to be "balanced" against the faith view. I suppose that WP's general predisposition to consider scientists as more prominent experts on scientific matters than theologians, could technically be considered a form of "weighting."

@ The Four Deuces:, are you saying here that you agree with the idea that an article with "relatively equal promince" between two views should not weight in favor of either view, or are you saying something else? One passer by ( talk) 14:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Articles should give equal weight to opposing views that have equal prominence in reliable sources, although that would be rare. I would like to mention that theologians are experts and their writings in peer reviewed articles are reliable sources. However, theological journals do not have articles arguing against evolution, or providing any other pseudo-scientific arguments. There is nothing wrong with a theologian saying they believe the creation story, but it would be dishonest for them to claim that their view is supported by evidence. The normal view of theologians is that religious belief is based on faith, rather than empirical research. TFD ( talk) 15:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Since 27 January 2018, the following change at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance has occurred (the underlined text has been inserted):

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, without weighting for or against either view, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

My concern is that the new wording is a wikilawyer's dream since they can argue indefinitely until their pet theory has precisely equal balance in how it is presented. Issues about whether someone is "far right" can never be fully resolved, and won't be by this tweak to NPOV. Fringe theories or valid scientific (although minority) hypotheses should not be balanced against mainstream views with any more prominence than given in reliable sources. For a wikilawyer, the new wording suggests that when a RS says 'tis so, balance from the 'tis not side must be presented. Encouraging that approach is not desirable. Johnuniq ( talk) 22:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, in the Creationism vs: Evolution debate as above, if we were to grant an assumption that theologians were properly qualified experts in matters of science, then by that assumption we would be allowing Wikilawyers to have a "field-day" at WP. But since we don't grant such an assumption to theologians, I can't see how saying that when the promince of two opposing views is "relatively equal" neither side should be "weighted for or against," would create any problems.

@ Johnuniq:, could you provide any specific examples for where your concern might apply? One passer by ( talk) 15:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone wanting to change a long-standing policy should demonstrate why a change is necessary. Please point to a dispute which would have been resolved by the proposed change. Johnuniq ( talk) 21:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It never happens that "reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence." TFD ( talk) 04:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Is "weighting" both sides equally too hard?

An assertion seems to have been made that when there is a "relatively equal prominence" amongst sources, that editors should not be asked to try to write such that neither side is favored, because writing like that is "too hard of a stance." Yes, it is always more difficult to write so that neither side is favored, but just because such writing is "harder" does that mean we should not at least officially aim for this goal?

@ Rhododendrites: if I may not be understanding your argument correctly, please clarify what you meant by saying that asking editors in articles where "balance" is asked for, to write without favoring either side is "too hard of a stance?" One passer by ( talk) 15:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.....does not need to be equal....but fair....if a book only devotes 10 percent to a side topic we should do the same.-- Moxy ( talk) 15:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you say that when the sources provide two differing views with relatively equal prominence, that the article should proportionately reflect that equality amongst sources, and should allow equal weight to both views? One passer by ( talk) 18:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It is fairly unusual for two viewpoints to have equal prominence. But to take one example, whether the $15 minimum wage would increase unemploynent, the best approach would be to outline the argument that it would, followed by the argument it would not, without taking sides. TFD ( talk) 15:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, both views should be presented "without weighting for or against either view." One passer by ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

My edit summary was "I don't see that this adds something useful and only codifies that more or less equivalent coverage must be equally weighted (too hard of a stance, even if generally true". My objection is along the lines of what Johnuniq said above. "too hard of a stance" is about the wording of "must be equally weighted" which is too prescriptive/explicit about something that is not always clear (i.e. having roughly equal prominence). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, determining roughly equal prominence can be difficult, but I think TFD's example above regarding the subject of a $15 minimum wage is a good one. In such an article, would you then say that asking editors not to weight "for or against either view" would be "asking too much?" If yes, then why? One passer by ( talk) 18:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this would go a bit easier if you just said what article you are having trouble with. Because so far everyone appears to be going in circles with you, and you clearly have a target article you want to change the policy to allow you to edit in a particular way. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I have to echo Only in death’s request for disclosure of which article we are talking about. Determining how much weight is DUE depends a lot on what the article’s topic is... in an article that is ABOUT a notable fringe theory we will (appropriately) give a fair amount of article space to explaining what the main themes of the theory are and proponents of the theory say. However, in some other (related) article we might barely mention it. Consider what is appropriate to discuss in our article on Flat Earth theory vs what is appropriate to discuss in our article on Earth. There are all sorts of nutty views that are appropriate to mention in the first article... views that are not at all appropriate to discuss in the second. Ie... context matters. Blueboar ( talk) 00:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have any specific article in mind when I proposed here that "balanced articles should not be weighted to favor either side." I merely felt that in general, Wikipedia editors writing on controversial topics where there are two contending viewpoints being discussed, both with arguably relatively equal prominence, then editors should be encouraged to describe both sides without weighting for or against either side. Here is a recent example: The WP article on Stephen Miller describes him as "far-right" in the article lead. Miller himself describes himself instead as a "nationalist" and not as a "far-right" person. I proposed on that article's talk page that both voices could be fairly described, both Miller's self-description, and the NYTimes' description, and was shot down.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is always improved and enhanced when it is not trying to make itself out to be the arbiter and authority of who is right and who is wrong in cases of unsettled political controversies. And no, I have not edited the Stephen Miller article itself, and have no intention to do so. I only proposed this on that article's talk page to see what the reaction might be. I'm merely concerned with the tendency when dealing with clearly unsettled topics, of editors to use "The Voice of Wikipedia" to do what seems to me to be furthering only one view. One passer by ( talk) 07:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That is Talk:Stephen Miller (political advisor)/Archive 2#WP and the use of unintended polarizing political language. A "far right" label is an unfortunate corner case and probably should not be part of a discussion on what this policy should say. That is because some issues are thorny and will not fit into any reasonable formulation of a policy—they are best left to special consideration because the details will be important. I assume the four references on "far-right" are valid and therefore, if that term has any meaning, it is applicable. That's about all standard policies can say since they would have to double in size to cover thorny cases. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I was asked above to mention an article that this might concern, and I apologize but this was the best I could come up with right off. What concerns me is how our current policy seems to do so little or perhaps nothing to clarify what a neutrally written article about an unsettled topic should read like. Even the simple concept of "favoring neither side" in an allegedly "balanced" article seems to me to be foreign to our current policy. One passer by ( talk) 08:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "far right" to describe people like Miller because it has more than one meaning and the meaning should be clear from the context. If far right means to the right of mainstream Republicans, then Miller is far right. But if it means as far right as possible, viz., fascist, then that's not what the sources used mean. TFD ( talk) 19:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The nuts and bolts of the policy are not very usable. In a dispute, how is one going to determine the amount of coverage in sources? Also in many areas, the "sources" have instead become participants / advocates. One useful way to go would be to emphasize that the objective of every line and every paragraph should be to inform. Also getting degree of wp:relevance into in inclusion/exclusion equation would help. When writing about topic "A", other participant's opinions and talking points about topic "A" are one step removed in relevance and because of that should need to meet a higher standard to get included. North8000 ( talk) 11:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You use secondary sources that explain the degree of acceptance of various views. Even advocates of one side or the other must be honest about this in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 19:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A slightly broader revision?

Here is a simple slight rewording to the Balance section that might do something like what North8000 suggested:

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, on unsettled topics when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, without weighting for or against either view, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. A balanced description of relatively equally supported opposing views on unsettled topics should be used both for overall articles, and for similar subpoints within articles.

(Underlined phrases are proposed additions.)

This simple rewording might give this section applicability to the Stephen Miller article, as well as other similar situations, thus making the balance section more intelligible and usable. Otherwise it confuses me as to how anything that is supposedly "balanced" could also be weighted towards one side or another? One passer by ( talk) 15:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – worse than the current version which already has its problems (see my 4 points above), and adds even more layers of confusion instead of clearing the current ambiguities out. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 15:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Asking for a "balanced but weighted to one side" article does not seem to me to have a very clear meaning. Is that what this section is currently asking for? If so, isn't there some clearer way of explaining in this policy what is being asked for here without having to mix metaphors up? Also, I have not yet asked for any "vote" on this. Only for suggestions. If you might have any specific positive suggestions for this discussion, they would be very much appreciated. One passer by ( talk) 16:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, could you please elaborate a bit about what you meant in point #1 about what the difference is between "balance" and "equal balance?" One passer by ( talk) 03:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

A necessary time element

Something that I've talked to before that is coming up here again is that it is hard to try to determine an appropriately neutral angle that we should write an encyclopedic article while a controversial topic is still ongoing and controversial; we are far too close to the event, and there are likely few sources giving the necessary hindsight to understand how to accurately weight the topic w.r.t. to UNDUE. It is one thing to talk about Flat Earthers ; we have centuries of data from objective scientific study and direct observation to be able to say this is is a fringe theory, so we can readily determine what its appropriate weight should be when talking about the nature of Earth (read: none). However, when we talk about a current person in a spotlight (the example highlighted above), that's a bit different. There's no expert sources looking back here, but instead speaking to the now, and there are elements of a dependent media that has made it clear it does not like the far right that brings into question of their bias on the matter. We can't properly apply UNDUE at this point to determine what viewpoints have appropriate weight. That doesn't mean UNDUE can't apply, but we have to be careful presuming the loudest side is "right". There are a number of BLP related issues beyond this scope that also come into play.

Basically this page should reflect that UNDUE should not be so intensely followed as some what it to be when we are talking a current controversy that lacks the necessary long-term expert review to resolve. If we're still in it, we should be more careful to at least outline before sides before delving into excessive coverage of the stance of the heavily-weighted side from RSes. We should also be aware, per RECENTISM, that we shouldn't try to load up on the opinions from the heavily-weighted side just because it has the most representation in the RSes. Once time has passed and this may take years, we can then look back and see how to be determine the balance as deemed by expert RSes and UNDUE at that point. -- Masem ( t) 16:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, why should editors feel compelled to have to immediately take a side on a currently unsettled issue? Why can't they be allowed and encouraged to try to describe both sides in an informative and balanced way? One passer by ( talk) 16:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We still can't do a false balance hoever, just because the controversy's ongoing, but we should avoid trying to say the loudest/most-represented side is "right" and/or dismiss one side of the controversy simply because no one else speaks up for it. We want to document the controversy, which means starting with neutral statements of all sides' basic positions. From there if we know one side is highly favored by source representation, we can go on to say "Many reports agree with this..." and document a few representative comments. Alternatively, one side may have zero additional opinions from RSes that support their view, so we simply can't add more in, and instead just leave opinions for that view undocumented. -- Masem ( t) 16:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, here is an example of how current policy has caused some WP editors to first define a controversy that most folks aren't even aware of, then to pick a side which essentially opposes all currently standing US legislation on the WP defined controversy. Please compare how Britannica describes the profession of Osteopathy here vs: how WP describes the profession of Osteopathy here. Britannica highlights no controversy and picks no side, and is quite informative and clear. WP immediately denigrates Osteopathy as merely "alternative medicine," and in the lead "Pseudo-medicine template" compares it to quackery. The voice of WP is used here to oppose all current US legislation regarding Osteopathy, which currently extends to Osteopaths equal status with MD's.

Why create such an "opinion piece" article in WP when none is called for? Which article is truly more informative and balanced? It seems to me that we need a policy that more strongly encourages "equal weighting" for currently unsettled topics, or even for topics which some WP editors might just "imagine" to be unsettled. One passer by ( talk) 17:14, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I strongly support Masem's and One passer by's analysis and points, even though you are talking about two different things. I think One passer by hit on the Rosetta stone. Who says we should be making a "balanced opinion piece" out of an ENCYCLOPEDIA article? North8000 ( talk) 17:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• Having read this entire thread, I don't see anything here that requires a change to this fundamental policy. The examples given to substantiate the necessity for change are both sparse and pretty weak. Like User:Rhododendrites, I see the proposed language as an invitation to false equivalence and "teaching the controversy", which are already problematic enough on Wikipedia. I'm also a little put off by the spectacle of someone using what is obviously an alternate account to edit-war over disputed changes to fundamental site policy, although that's a secondary concern at this point. MastCell  ^Talk 19:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't support the proposed changes. I agree that the tone of some articles take an unnecessarily derogatory tone, particularly on alternative medicine, the American Right and fringe theories. But the manual of style already says that we should avoid "persuasive writing." TFD ( talk) 19:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was supporting the thoughts introduced in this subsection, not a specific change. But I think that that there are many many problems that would be reduced by the concepts introduced by Masem and One passer by in this subsection. North8000 ( talk) 20:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree with Masem for the most part, I also understand MastCell's concerns, but I believe there is extra protection/guidance for health/medical related topics in WP:MEDRS that doesn't exist elsewhere, at least not to my knowledge. Most expect NPOV to be a one-size fits all policy, and the biggest problem I see is adherence to and enforcement of the policy when necessary. The latter is caused by varying perspectives/interpretations which tend to create confusion in highly controversial and/or sensitive topics such as what we've witnessed/experienced in medical and political articles. I'm of the mind that WP, as an encyclopedia, should not draw its own conclusions - in other words, WP should not act like a systematic review of multiple sources, which is exactly what is happening when editors make the determination of what is or isn't a "widespread view" or what opinions should or shouldn't be stated in WikiVoice based on the determination of what is or isn't a widespread view according to multiple sources. But it doesn't stop there...editors also make the determination of what is and isn't UNDUE WEIGHT. Footnote 3 in NPOV policy explains: The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered.

1. If the relative prominence of POV "among Wikipedia editors" is not relevant, why does consensus make the final determination (which contradicts policy)?
2. How is it possible that the viewpoint of the general public is not relevant when the results of polls and elections are determined by the views of the general public, and news caters to what they think the general public will buy?
3. How is it possible that ...articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Who determines what is or isn't the minority view, and according to whose perspective do we determine what comprises a minority or widespread view? Such interpretations require sound editorial judgment, see WP:CIR, especially when it involves topics relating to race, religion, gender, ideologies, and various other societal/cultural aspects. WP should not be making such determinations in the first place which brings us back to the systematic review process.

A common definition of encyclopedia tells us that an encyclopedia contains articles on various topics but more importantly, it covers all branches of knowledge and all aspects of a subject. WP is neither a systematic review of published RS nor do we pass judgment in the court of public opinion. We publish verifiable information cited to RS (which protects WP against WP:OR and potential libel issues), and we include various perspectives/aspects of a topic that are covered in RS without editorializing content/context, cherrypicking what supports our POV, or ommission of what doesn't. That's how we maintain NPOV and the quality of our encyclopedia. Advocates of a particular POV accomplish their goals most often by ommission of certain aspects of a subject that disagree with their POV, and that raises legitimate concern because it is censorship under the guise of "undue weight" when it is actually noncompliance by censorship/omission. NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 20:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@ Wario-Man, Ntrikha, and Corriebertus: and other Wikipedians:
Working on Wikipedia can be interesting, but it can at times also be tiresome or annoying, when we come across deliberate or inadvertent 'mistakes' or 'wrong edits' of colleagues. In such situations, we can minimize annoyances for everyone and keep the disputes as short as possible by being clear and precise in our edit summaries and discussions. (This holds for me too; I'm always glad if others point out to me that my language wasn't as clear as I had supposed it to be.)

Here I'd like to comment on the term 'pov' which I often see used incorrectly, and I'll illustrate that with an edit summary of our well-respected colleague Wario-Man, whom I've asked why he used edit summary "Removed pov (…)" recently on page Afghanistan in April 2018 – not to blame Wario-Man: he's possibly repeating a mistake (many) others before him have made. The words he removed then from that article were: "and Hindi", in section Afghanistan#Etymology, which words asserted that "-stan" means "place of" in Hindi.

From his answer (2April2018) I gather that he had five reasons to remove (the statement expressed in) those words: that statement to his opinion was:

1. incorrect, wrong;
2. unsourced;
3. irrelevant;
4. a personal opinion of editor Ntrikha in May 2017;
5. "pov addition".

Ad 1 and 2.) Those first two reasons: 'incorrect' and 'unsourced' – which I believe both have nothing to do with 'pov' (see point 5) – together would constitute a very good reason to act, in one of two ways, at choice for the editor: (a) If the presumedly wrong assertion seems not gravely harming the article, one might first adhere the template ^{citation needed} to it and come back later to remove the (wrong) assertion all together; (b) If you feel the wrong assertion to be seriously misleading the readers you can remove it immediately. But then I'd recommend editors to clearly state those two motives in the edit summary. For example: "this is untrue, and it is unsourced", or: "this seems untrue and it is unsourced". That is clear, and gives the opposing editor a fair chance to come up with a source and prove you wrong.

Ad 3.) Irrelevance can in general be a very good reason to remove text, but in this case the reason 'irrelevant' seems not applicable. If I'd write an abstract of the Pope's speech of last Eastern Sunday in section Afgh#Etymology it would be irrelevant there (= off-topic, not concerning the issue of that section). But statements concerning the background of '-stan' are very relevant in that section (and if they are untrue they are relevantly misleading readers).

Ad 4.) 'Personal opinion' (of a previous editor) can never be a ground for reverting an edit.
First of all: we can't know what another editor has been thinking, believing, feeling, suspecting or presuming a year ago, unless he tells us.
Secondly: it is very likely, that 99% of all edits reflect facts that the editor at that time (to his 'opinion') considered to be correct (the other 1% are probably what we'd call vandalism). But we wouldn't want to remove those 99% of all edits, simply because the editors who made them believed they were writing a true fact, do we? We remove edits because they seem wrong (see under point 1), not because someone considered them right.

Ad 5.) For "pov", in the given example Wario-Man referred to policy page Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV). That page as I understand deals purely with fair, balanced and proportionate representation of different (conflicting) significant views that exist on a topic, in Wikipedia articles. An assertion like '-stan meaning place of in Hindi' in article 'Afghanistan', unsourced, untrue according to Wario-Man, therefore (in his eyes) not significant for Wikipedia, I don't see how that would have any relation to any rule or advise expressed on policy page WP:NPOV. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The following sentence that I rewrote is difficult to comprehend in my opinion and needs a fresh approach: "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased...." One suggestion to make the phrasing slightly less opaque would be to use hyphens: "The bias-in-sources argument...." However, that phrase is awkward any way you slice it. Stylistically, the repetition of "biased" at the end and beginning of consecutive sentences is needlessly ungraceful. The meaning of the phrase "sources that dispute the POV" is unclear. An article should have no POV to be disputed. Perhaps the phrase means that biased sources can dispute each other. But the wording does not make this clear. My suggestion for a simpler and readily comprehensible sentence would be:

"Some editors argue that biased sources should be excluded in order to maintain the neutral POV of an article."

DonFB ( talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears that it might have material change in how it's interpreted. That wording has stayed exactly unchanged since it was first inserted in 2013. I'll ping TParis who wrote it in 2013. Stickee (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Bias in sources is not a reason, by itself, to exclude a source. Despite that, the argument is made often in disputes when editors are trying to get their POV represented and exclude all others. They often attack opposing point of views as being biased which results in an imbalance of coverage. Points of view in sources are allows - it's Wikipedia's coverage of a topic which must be NPOV.--v/r - T P 01:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

DonFB, I reverted your latest change...pending discussion. You take with issue, in part, with the following statement: "The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased." It seems be arguing a WP:Due weight perspective. This is why the section also states, "Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." And this is true. It's also pretty much what Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources states. If the literature is biased towards one point of view over another, we give most our weight to that point of view and do not try to balance out the text by lending undue weight to the minority view. It seems that you mainly object to the "bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased" wording. I'm open to suggestions on how to reword that, but I don't think that all of the other stuff you changed needs changing. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

When editing highly controversial topics like politics (which doesn't have a sourcing requirement equivalent to that of MEDRS), the selection of sources is equally as important as the material in the source. It opens the door to POV pushers selecting only biased RS that support their POV while excluding/dismissing RS that do not, typically labeling them not reliable. If that group happens to dominate the article, the result is a biased article supported by the selected biased RS. Add to that, the problem of circular reporting, which creates the impression of the biased content being published in multiple sources when in actuality, it's only one source; therefore, that POV is given WEIGHT as the prevailing widespread view. Opposing views suffer because of that logical fallacy and are given far less weight. NPOV policy states that editor consensus cannot supersede that policy but the dilemma arises when editors have to prove the material is noncompliant, and the only support is an ambiguous NPOV policy. It's even worse, when articles are subject to DS that have the 1RR/Consensus to restore restriction, and we're left with a total disaster. In summary, I guess my point is that we need clarity, and a defined procedure for dealing with NPOV issues. BLP has such a procedure, but even that is questioned. BLP is dependent upon our 3 core content polices, one of which is NPOV; therefore, why are we able to separate NPOV policy from BLP policy but not NPOV policy from OR and V? It all comes back to the biased sources and RS issues, which are merely guidelines. It seems bizzare that our policies are dependent on sourcing guidelines. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 01:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That sentence reveals a common and serious misunderstanding of the policy:

"Some editors argue that biased sources should be excluded in order to maintain the neutral POV of an article."

NPOV policy expressly allows the use of biased sources in articles. NPOV refers to editorial conduct, and not so much to sources or content. That sentence seems to be based on the false idea that content must be "neutral". That's BS. Our job, per Jimbo, is to document the sum total of human knowledge, and that includes irrefutable facts, theories, allegations, conspiracy theories, lies, fringe ideas, rumors, etc. We document all of it if it's reported in RS. If it's only reported in unreliable sources, it may not get any mention.

That's why understanding sourcing, knowing what sources are reliable for some purposes, and how to vet sources, is fundamental to almost everything at Wikipedia. It all starts there. NPOV and most other policies come after that. A failure to understand this leads to many problems.

It is editors who must be neutral in their documentation of biased sources. They must preserve that bias and not get in the way. Tell it like it is, in the source, and not how you'd like it to be. I've written a whole essay about this: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Atsme, it's true that shady editors may use biased sources to exclude content they don't like. But, like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources states, I'm saying that so-called biased sources are sometimes the best sources for the topic and that we are supposed to assess the literature with WP:Due weight in mind and then cover topics per WP:Due weight. What do you propose replace the current sentence or paragraph?

BullRangifer, are you referring to the proposed sentence by DonFB or the sentence he's taken an issue with? It seems you are objecting to DonFB's proposed sentence. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

So much sturm und drang to change one poorly written sentence (though I'm not surprised, I'll admit). Not intending to offend whoever originally penned/edited it, but the sentence I want redone is badly overwritten and needlessly twisty. User:Flyer22 Reborn, as you correctly stated, my problem is with that one sentence. In my most recent edit, I changed other things, based on a comment from an editor who was involved in writing the section, but I'm not wedded to those changes. I have no argument with the meaning and intention of the section. My original and continuing goal is simply to re-do that single unfortunate sentence so a revised sentence reads clearly and straightforwardly. Above, I made a suggestion for doing so, very similar to my first bold edit. I don't think either version (my original edit or the suggestion I wrote above, in this Discussion} changes the meaning. In plain English, the meaning is the following: 'Some editors make the argument that biased sources should be excluded in order to prevent an article from improperly showing a POV.' I'd be equally happy if we said it that way. Saying, "The bias in sources argument" is a strange, needlessly indirect and confusing way to say, "Some editors argue that....." The rest of the sentence is a nearly incomprehensible word salad: "one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased." Or, try this: "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article." I see no change in meaning; I see only a simpler, clearer way of making a simple point. DonFB ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I wasn't objecting to the wording, per se, but to it as a good example of a common misunderstanding. I see several rewording attempts have been made. DonFB's last one right above is this:

• "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article."

To make it really clear what is proper, maybe adding the word "improperly" would help:

• "Some editors improperly argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article."

Then add that "There is nothing wrong with adding POV from biased sources to content, as long as it is properly sourced, and maybe attributed, and not an editor's POV. Editors, not sources or content, must be neutral." -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In fact, I used "improperly" in my slightly longer suggested wording in my most recent post. I will say that I'm uncomfortable with your suggestion to write "There is nothing wrong with adding POV from biased sources..." It is too close to an endorsement of adding POV. I also don't agree with the formulation that "Editors, not sources or content, must be neutral." The NPOV policy says articles must be neutral. Saying that "content" (which can be seen as another word for "article") need not be neutral seems to contradict the policy. In any case, I think the sentence which follows the one I want rewritten is fine: "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone...." DonFB ( talk) 04:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

A very limited number of RS present unbiased, straight, news reporting, IOW just the facts, with no POV, and we don't even think of limiting our sourcing to them. That's a horribly unwikipedian thought. Wikipedia's job is to document the full spectrum of human knowledge, and most of it includes various POV, so we also use biased sources. We are even allowed to write full articles documenting one POV.

Censorship of sources solely because of their POV is not allowed. When I wrote "adding POV from biased sources", I meant documenting their POV, without editors using their POV to censor it. Editors must neutrally present what the sources say. The content should neutrally present those various POV, without Wikipedia appearing to take sides.

We don't consider all POV equal, but give due weight to the mainstream POV, so things like fringe ideas and conspiracy theories get less mention due to less due weight. We give more weight to POV based on proven facts, and less weight to POV that are not fact-based. That's not "neutral", and the content will not seem "neutral" because editors give more weight to RS and less weight to unreliable ones.

That means an article will not seem "neutral" to a fringe believer, because it documents the mainstream view and gives it more weight. They will complain about that. They think their non fact-based theory should get more coverage. Reality is not balanced, and we don't create a false balance by giving equal time to various POV. Mainstream and fringe sources do not get equal time here. Does that help you understand where I'm coming from? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

DonFB - your suggestion: "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article." is good - to the point...and it's certainly true that biased sources introduce POV to an article which is why opposing views should also be included. I support your rewording. Now then, you can stop reading at this point if you'd like, but I think the confusion stems much deeper and a bit more clarity is needed in the policy.

NPOV is unequivocally clear that (my strikes for needed grammar corrections): "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies, or guidelines, nor or by editor consensus. While it all sounds good, it's hard to determine how it applies and what it means. If we take it at face value, what are the procedures for identifying an attempt by editor consensus to supersede the policy, and what steps should be taken if/when a challenge arises?

The other glaring issue relates to Due and undue weight, particularly:

1. Explanation of the neutral point of view section: Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.
2. Due and undue weight section: ...in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. The flat earth theory is used as the example.

That simply doesn't work as it was originally intended, particularly as it relates to political articles because of the 21st Century changes to our news delivery system. We have transitioned from printed news based on journalistic objectivity to internet news based on journalistic opinion and baitclick revenue. It appears to me Balancing aspects is far more appropriate for political articles than UNDUE/DUE. Unfortunately, some of the arguments we encounter have not kept up with the times. Considering NPOV cannot be superseded by editor consensus, the question is...how do we enforce that part of the policy? In retrospect, WP's (Nupedia's) earliest policies emphasized lack of bias which used the following test: This question is a good (albeit not infallible) test of a lack of bias: "On every issue about which there might be even minor dispute among experts on this subject, is it very difficult or impossible for the reader to determine what the view is to which the author adheres? This requires that, for each controversial view discussed, the author of an article (at a bare minimum) mention various opposing views that are taken seriously by any significant minority of experts (or concerned parties) on the subject. What a wonderfully utopian expectation...and logical fallacy. So how do we enforce NPOV when editor consensus supersedes it or when POV pushers outnumber their opponents in either local or RfC consensus surveys? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 18:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy the idea that we need to change policy on those grounds. There are still a lot of high-quality, reputable journalistic sources. Reputable media sources like the New York Times, Washington Post, or ABC/NBC/CBS are no less reliable now than they were 10, 20, or 30 years ago. (If anything, they're more reliable, because they operate under much greater public scrutiny in the age of the Internet than they did in the old smoke-filled-newsroom days). What's changed is that there are now also a ton of low-quality, partisan, or untrustworthy sources out there on the Internet as well—some of which have large popular followings. The solution is the same as it's always been: focus on high-quality sources, and refuse to use low-quality ones. I do get the sense that we have fewer editors than we used to who are willing and able to do those things. MastCell  ^Talk 20:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

MastCell, I'm actually not proposing change; rather, I'm proposing clarity and updates to accommodate the differences we're dealing with in many of the sources we cite as it relates to journalist objectivity (of the past) vs journalistic opinion today. If news sources truly were as reliable as some may think, we wouldn't need MEDRS. ^FBDB One could say politics influence the quality of one's life so why shouldn't we have higher standards in our sources and what we report? ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 00:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I disagree with your perspective on so many different levels that I really would appreciate it if you would stop following me around all over WP. I prefer to hear from editors I have not had prior exchanges with - I know your views so you really don't need to keep reminding me. I don't want folks to think you and I are an item, which may result in rumors plastered all over the front page of the SignPost!! ^{FBDB Atsme 📞 📧} 19:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't even remember anymore what brought me here to look at the "Bias in sources" section, but when I read the 2nd (misbegotten) sentence, I felt compelled to make an improvement. The sentence is an example of collaborative editing gone wrong--overwritten, muddled and confusing. My purpose here has not been to debate Due and Balance and POV, etc. I support the meaning of the section, namely: it's not prohibited to use biased sources. Absent objections, I will again replace the 2nd sentence, this time with my most recent suggested wording, which is: "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article." I will add the word "However," to the beginning of the next sentence. DonFB ( talk) 00:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DonFB, why not just add "improperly"? As in: "Some editors improperly argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article." -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 02:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit disinclined to write policy text that bluntly applies a judgmental term to editors presumably acting in good faith. However, the wording could be "...they introduce improper POV to an article." DonFB ( talk) 03:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we're "talking past each other". The very argument "that biased sources should not be used" is "improper", and should be so labeled right away. Editors who act in good faith might still use "improper" arguments, and if there is anywhere we must deal with it and prevent it, it's in our policies. These policies should teach proper thinking and editing. We shouldn't leave any room for doubt.

As to "introduc[ing] improper POV"? That is itself a misunderstanding of policy. We document a source's POV, and we don't imply by our wording whether it's "improper" or not, (unless RS say so, and they often do). That would violate NPOV by introducing editorial POV about a POV. We don't introduce that judgment, even though we may (correctly) hold it. The POV is what it is, and it might be true or false. We still document it.

By proper use of due weight coverage, a well-written article makes it apparent which POV is the dominant POV, the fact checked POV, the POV found in RS, and by contrast, the POV which is not fact checked, and not found in RS. So please don't use that wording. Fringe believers and editors will not like those articles, and that's as it should be. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to use plain language. I have edited here since 2003, and some of my clear and blunt wordings are still part of our most important policies, including this one. If written properly, you too may leave your mark in an improved policy. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 03:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion to use the phrase "improper POV" is intended to illustrate the perspective of the editor who argues that adding material from a biased source is wrong. I don't believe it's necessary to add "improperly" where you want to add it. However, I won't revert if you make that change. DonFB ( talk) 05:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DonFB, that's fair enough. Go for it. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 05:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

DonFB: to clarify, is your proposal to add the single word "improper", to the phrase "they introduce improper POV to an article", and that's it? Stickee (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

My proposal is to replace the 2nd sentence in the 'Bias in sources' section with this: "Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used, because they introduce POV to an article." BullRangifer wants to add "improperly" between "editors" and "argue". I counter-proposed that "improper" could be inserted before "POV". None of this language yet exists in the paragraph. DonFB ( talk) 05:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah right. Doesn't your proposed 2nd sentence (with or without "improper") seem identical to the first sentence in the section ("A common argument...")? Regardless, if I had to chose in the location for improper, it would be before "POV". I still question whether the change is necessary though. Stickee (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

A distinction between the two sentences could be seen as follows: the first sentence describes the argument that an unbiased source should be chosen instead of a biased source. The 2nd sentence says making that choice is a way to preserve NPOV. Your comment leads to the question: is there any substantive difference between the existing 2nd sentence and my proposed replacement? If there is no difference, the original should be stricken (as redundant) and not replaced. (It should be stricken in any case, because it is so poorly framed.) Here is yet another translation into plain English of the 2nd sentence: "Some editors argue that biased sources should be excluded in order to preserve NPOV." DonFB ( talk) 18:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be fine going with your proposed sentence, as long as we use "improperly argue" or "they introduce improper POV." I'm leaning more toward the latter wording, your preference. And again, I don't feel that the rest of the paragraph needs changing. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep I would say to only go with the latter wording too ("improper POV"). Stickee (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

??? Stickee, I'm a bit surprised you reverted me. I had an agreement above with DonFB (search for "fair enough" above), and Flyer22 Reborn didn't exclude the idea, even though they preferred the latter location.

I had already explained above why the latter location is simply wrong, not just an acceptable alternative location.

It makes a substantive difference by making a wrong idea seem okay. It's not okay for editors to see a POV as "improper POV" when they edit. That judgment is made in the context of providing the proper weight to various POV. It is thus the weight of RS which makes the judgment, not editors. That way editors with opposing POV must bow to the primacy of the sources, not to the dictates of a majority of editors who hold one POV.

If editors initially make that judgment, they are not being neutral, but using their own POV (and editors will have opposing POV, so the results of this practice will be chaos) to censor or favor content they like or don't like.

No, they must faithfully document the biased POV in a source. Let due weight considerations sort out exactly where and how much of each POV is included, but not whether it's included at all. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather curious how you interpreted "I don't believe it's necessary" as agreement. The current sentence is functionally equivalent to the sentence it's replacing. Stickee (talk) 06:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The agreement was further on: "However, I won't revert if you make that change. DonFB". So after he added the content, I made "that change". -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, regarding the revert, I don't see that "improper" needs to be in both spots. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Only first spot, not later. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I'm home and can write more. The location makes a lot of difference, as explained above. One corrects a fallacy, and the other teaches a fallacy as good thinking.

First location immediately corrects an improper idea by shooting it down in the sentence.

Second location plants an improper idea in editors' heads and tells them it's an acceptable idea. It's simply a wrong way to think. It makes the editor's POV the final arbiter, and not the POV in the RS.

Do you see the difference now? -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 04:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

It is quite clearly addressed by the following sentence, especially with the conjunctive 'however'. Stickee (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps the solution is to better explain how in-text attribution works, and to give some examples of how biased sources can be used a) appropriately and b) inappropriately. Blueboar ( talk) 11:24, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Blueboar. Did you know there's a section explaining attribution of biased statements in the policy already? See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Stickee (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the current content with the older version (the strike out is only so we can focus on the part that's changing, not because it will actually be deleted):

Original: The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, [1]

Current: Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, [2]

I think the original is better than the new propostion, but I admit it's rather muddled wording, which I assume is the reason for the attempt to improve it, and improvement is always welcome. My analysis of the original says that we're trying to rebut an improper attempt by editors to exclude sources whose bias they don't like, while they claim that the biased source they do like is actually neutral (or something like that). If we're going to continue down this path of changing the original, let me propose a different wording:

Original: The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone,

Proposed: An improper argument against using biased sources is sometimes made by editors in an effort to exclude sources whose bias they do not like. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone,

BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 14:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the proposal is better than the original (or the current) - I would prefer to keep away from direct labeling of improper. It's already covered by using the word "However" in the following sentence. I'm still okay with the original wording, too. Stickee (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Stickee. We should not be judgmental by defining one's perspective as "improper". It could be said that It is a mistaken belief that biased sources should not be used because they introduce a biased POV; biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 21:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Bam! You nailed it. That's the best version yet. Let's use it. BTW, there's typo. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 23:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thx, BR - fixed. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That still seems to have the same issue as the proposal on the 26th. Stickee (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Stickee, it's been a few days. Please explain. It seems to me that Atsme's version is the best one yet. It says what needs to be said very clearly, without any ambiguity. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 06:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I'm saying we don't necessarily need to say something is mistaken or improper. Futher, in the proposed sentence, the first part "It is a mistaken..." seems fairly redundant with the clause starting with "biased sources are not...". Stickee (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I made this set of edits, about the below, and then self-reverted. I think these edits express the living consensus of the editing community, that simply has not been captured in this document.

This policy, pretty much since it was created, has been focused on real world disputes that get carried into WP - for example, that original text focused on "capitalism" vs "anti-capitalism" (to roughly summarize it). The current policy mentions the evolution/creationism dispute.

That is all good, but...

I work a lot on advocacy issues in WP. What I find very often, is somebody promoting (less commonly, denigrating) someone, something, or some idea, by generating big swaths of UNDUE content, sourced to primary, often SPS, sources. That is an issue with regard to this policy.

Two examples of this would be:

• a swath of content sourced to an organization's website, a bunch of their press releases, etc.
• a section describing some medical or biological thing or phenomenon, sourced entirely to primary sources, synthesized from those primary sources.

Neither of those are in the context of a dispute, mind you. It is just about somebody promoting something or someone or some idea. Using a bunch of SPS or primary sources creates content that fails NPOV, since by definition what is going on there is

• a) the self-image of the source of the SPS (the "self" in SPS) is being giving UNDUE weight and the resulting content is POV not NPOV, and
• b) the POV of the editor who selects the SPS or primary sources and synthesizes them, is being giving UNDUE weight, through their selection of primary sources and how that editor weaves them into a story.

Neither of those is inherently about real world disputes, and this policy as written fails to deal with these issues, which are not uncommon.

My work on this led me to think about it, and to write this little essay on my userpage about relying mostly on independent, secondary sources.

In the current policy, there is exactly one line about this, in WP:BALANCE. It says Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.. Do you see how this is focused on disputes?

The section on WP:UNDUE is also focused on disputes, and expresses our consensus on how to deal with disputes pretty well.

But it doesn't deal with UNDUE in the sense of something vs nothing or a lot vs a little -- of "blown up out of SPS and primary sources to create content where there are few to no independent, secondary sources about it".

I ~think~ the stuff in my edits expresses the living consensus of the community. Am interested to see how others view these proposed changes. Jytdog ( talk) 17:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What I saw is a confusion of this content policy (NPOV) with one of the other three core content policies (WP:V, with its subsidiary RS guidance). Confusing the three core content policies, which each have their own value, and are not exchangeable (although supporting one another of course), is of no help to the editor, especially not if more essay expansion is added (which confused content guidance with behavioural guidance and was thus removed by me). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I think you missed the WP:BALASPS subsection, which is quite far from the "dispute" aspect. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 18:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes the policies all do intersect. There are facets that arise from each one and should be discussed in each one. This writing is too focused on RW disputes and misses real issues that arise every day, that aren't discussed here and should be. In my proposed edit I didn't push this throughout the whole thing for fear of seeming too aggressive, and yes WP:BALASPS should be clarified too - the body of reliable, published material on the subject. leaves for example non-independent sources on the table as part of the "body" and those really should not come into play. Jytdog ( talk) 01:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"We" have had an argument over at /info/en/?search=Ohio_gubernatorial_election,_2018 . I have tried to add a green party candidate which came upon great resistance after her getting picture into the infobox. Undue focus on the conventional parties perpetuates polarity. Dael4 ( talk) 04:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the Ohio article, there has not been any “disput”... just a series of edits back and forth with no discussion. I would suggest that you discuss the issue on the talk page of the article before running off to complain about policy. Blueboar ( talk) 12:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Francis, and support most of the proposed changes except for the following paragraph:

This process begins by finding reasonably recent, high quality, independent, secondary reliable sources, and studying them, to learn how the experts in the given field define and describe the subject, and summarizing what those sources say. Sources are authoritative, not editors.

”Recent” is ambiguous for the instances WP:RECENTISM is at issue. “Sources are authoritative” raises more issues than it resolves as it relates to NOTNEWS and NEWSORG, not to mention political pundits and subjective journalism which also drives clickbait. Journalists are not experts regardless of the quality of a news source. It works for MEDRS and other such books and published papers in peer reviewed journals, etc. but not for politics in the “news”. ^{Atsme 📞 📧} 13:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it even possible at all? No human being alive is unbiased about anything at all, social psychology research seems to have demonstrated this fairly rigorously. Even my view point on this very comment is biased, whether I intend that to be the case or not. No matter how hard I might try, or you might try, at the end of the day every single comment made by every single one of us is going to contain an immeasurable amount of bias. What's the point in trying to mitigate it? Seems like a futile endeavor. I suspect such a policy will more likely be used as a flimsy justification for censoring some viewpoints over others. Doesn't sound like a good idea if a healthy and open community is to be fostered. Just my biased two cents, of course, food for thought, perhaps. Perhaps not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.182.221 ( talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

"We" have had an argument over at /info/en/?search=Ohio_gubernatorial_election,_2018 . I have tried to add a green party candidate which came upon great resistance after her getting picture into the infobox. Undue focus on the conventional parties perpetuates polarity. Dael4 ( talk) 04:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Sucks to see this go unaddressed. Encourage fellow wikipedians to pick up the mighty pen (keyboard) and fight against unjustified censorship on Wikipedia. CanisLupisArctus ( talk) 01:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Per an ongoing dispute on Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, is there any requirement or recommendation that, per NPOV, facts and opinions related to an article subject must be separated or insulated from each other in-text? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure states «Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents». -- Nemo 22:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors

This is really beyond the Milwaukee Bucks or even sports in particular, and relevant to coverage of organizations and their house styles generally. This touches on all of: WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOR, MOS:CAPS, and MOS:TM, in various aspects (see the more detailed discussion below the !vote section).
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

TWO FALSEHOODS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT - SO TO SPEAK. TERM INFLATION (LOADING AND FRAMING) IS JUST FALSEHOOD
I specialize in Testimony (particularly scientific testimony), and so I'm sensitive to misrepresentation by term inflation (Loading and Framing).
Misrepresentation: 1-Forgery(crime), 2-Counterfeit(Crime), 3-Fraud(crime), 4-Hoax(Attention Seeking or Practical Joke), 5-Fictionalism(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism, supernatural) 6-Propaganda(Loading, Framing, Obscuring), 7-Fiction(Entertaining Inflation or 'Gossip')
- A Forgery must misrepresent authorship of for the purpose of profiting from the premium in an exchange due to that authorship.
- A Counterfeit must misrepresent it's identity (trademark, weight and measure) for the purpose of obtaining a premium on its exchange.
- A Fraud must misrepresent information by word, act or implication for the purpose of profiting from an exchange.
- A Hoax must create physical misrepresentation by suggestion for the purpose of gathering attention (marketing), providing entertainment, or humor (practical joke).
- A Fictionalism must make use of pseudoscience (failure of due diligence) or magic, idealism or sophistry, and/or the supernatural or occult.
- Propaganda must provide information of a biased or misleading nature, to promote or publicize a political objective.
- A Deceit ("deceit or gossip") must used to load, frame, suggest, or obscure causality for the purpose of avoiding or creating harm.
- A Fiction must only entertain by coloring the information without necessarily engaging in deception.

For example:
- Michelangelo began his sculpting career by misrepresenting his early marble sculpture, Sleeping Eros as a Roman original so he could sell it at a premium - first by burying it and then digging up and 'discovering' - That was a Forgery.
- Alves Dos Reis forged a contract from the Banco de Portugal so that he could acquire banknotes from official printers – meaning his notes were identical to the state's. That was a Forgery followed by Counterfeiting.
- Feed the Children and Bernie Madoff. People donated money to this religious organization with the intention of helping starving children, but it was privatized. People gave money to Bernie Madoff to invest but he create created the biggest pyramid scheme in history. These are famous frauds but not counterfeiting, or Forgery or Hoaxes.
- The Voynich Manuscript was produced (as far as we know) as a Hoax or a Fraud - but not propaganda or fiction.
- The Protocols of Zion are clearly a Hoax, and clearly Propaganda - and the most currently famous.
- The vast body of mathematics is constructed upon mathematical idealism (platonism) in which some mathematical reality exists. This is a bad habit held over from antiquity, whereas all of mathematics (measurement by positional names) consists of correspondence and a small number of rudimentary operations. That a Fictionalism.
- The founding books of the three abrahamic religions are both propaganda and fictions - and the most universal.
- Crichton's Eaters of the Dead is a fictional account attributed to Ibn Fadlan - it is a fiction(entertainment), but not propaganda, hoax, or fraud.
- History and Record: out of necessity, histories and records are constructed by framing the complex so that it is comprehensible.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:81A5:A7AD:18E3:DA3D ( talk) 16:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• OP blocked under WP:NOTHERE. Their idiosyncratic interpretation of vocabulary is just an attempt to downplay the falsehood of an antisemitic forgery. Ian.thomson ( talk) 16:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

  Are you sure? That was my first reaction, but they said clearly that the Protocols were false, they were just quibbling over which kind of falsity they were. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ SarekOfVulcan: I was willing to assume good faith until they said that disagreeing over what phrasing should be used makes one "just as bad" as the antisemites who believe that shit. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, the IPv6 user geolocates considerably close to an IPv4 address that was previously trying to downplay the false nature of the work. Ian.thomson ( talk) 17:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#The_intersection_of_BLPSPS_and_PSCI Jytdog ( talk) 19:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

"Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources." - ONLY articles on religion should be drawn from sacred texts. For articles on history, sacred texts should either not be considered, or be included as historical sources with suitable justification for its inclusion as such a source. SecC ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs." - If this is the case, it should be ignored. These adherents are absolutely incorrect as they have no reason to believe that such treatment "discriminates" against their religious beliefs. A historical treatment by definition involves no bias.

Mostly Oppose - Context matters. Religious belief has been an important factor throughout history... indeed understanding religious beliefs is often crucial to understanding why events played out as they did. Thus, to give a complete account of events, it may be necessary to refer to sacred texts. For example, an article about the archaic Kingdom of Israel really does need to mention what the Bible says about it... and compare and contrast that to what archeologists and historians say. To restrict references to sacred texts to ONLY articles on religion is overkill. The key is that when discussing what sacred texts say, we present the information with attribution and phrase things in proper context. Blueboar ( talk) 12:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. My second point is not addressed, however. SecC ( talk) 17:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Input is appreciated here - Please see this discussion on how NPOV affects the selection of 10 album ratings in an album ratings box for critical reception sections, considering the overall reception of an album (negative, mixed or positive). Lapadite ( talk) 06:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

A new RfC has started that concerns if an old sentence at WP:NPOV_dispute accurately reflects NPOV policy, please see Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute#RfC: POV Pushing On Talk Pages - Obsidi ( talk) 14:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Things like:

 - Israel vs Palestine conflict 
 - River Plate vs Boca rivalry
 - George Bush vs Al Gore debate

etc..

which can be found on titles, lists, rankings and infoboxes I would propose suggesting alphabetical order or oldness (when appliable) as an arbitrary principle in the NPOV policy

— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
92.57.22.44 (
talk) 23:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC) 

Due to NPOV editors, editing wikipedia, Nathuram Godse is a terrorist and Ajmal Kasab is a militant, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed is a militant, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi] is a leader. This is the reason I left Wikipedia. Yakub Memon is Indian citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpinesundra ( talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)