Wikipedia talk:NPOV
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia_talk:NPOV".

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

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

tags

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— message used to warn of problems

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— tags only a single section as disputed

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

— message used to mark articles that may be biased. (

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

may be used for short)

The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

— when the article's title is questionable

1. ^{neutrality disputed} — when only one sentence is questionable

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

— When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies

What is the point of a neutral point of view?

Is this political correctness? It extends to discussions as well as articles right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.4.239 (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

neutral point of view, as I understand it, primarily refers things that affect article content. talk page discussions should adhere to wp:civility, and the hope is that civil discussion on the talk pages will produce neutral perspectives in article content.

neutrality is not political correctness (which as I understand it simply avoids anything that might offend anyone); neutrality means that we are trying to present a view on the subject that either lacks a particular perspective, or offers all of the major perspectives without giving any undo preference to any of them. it's actually very difficult to achieve neutrality because none of us can really claim to be neutral, and there's no real objective guideline for when something is neutral, and sometimes neutrality means that a perspective some people find offensive has to be given. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

talk pages should be PC; articles should have NPOV and be PC (when possible). Keep in mind, both are subjective topics and the ability of humans to strictly adhere to either is a matter of philosophical discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.220.172.236 (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, talk pages must be civil but political correctness has no place whatsoever in the encyclopedia (other than as the subject of the aforementioned article of course). Political correctness chills discussion, which is the very antithesis of what a talk page is all about. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So I take it it's OK to start arguments in the discussion of any given article? (civily of course). (Original poser of the question what is the point of a NPOV). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.53.83 (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The point of NPOV is so that an article doesn't become unduly biased. Print encyclopaedias often are not neutral - two good examples being early Encyclopaedia Britannica which had things from an English view point (favourable to english exploits etc) and more recently: the Encyclopedia of World Biography which landed George Bush in trouble after he labelled Silvio Berlusconi a "political amateur known for corruption and vice"see here. Wikipedia is accessible throughout the world and should look not to unduly favour anything but the most accepted point of view, giving lesser priority to more minor views. Also, libellous or dubious claims should not be given any space on a wikipedia article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok sorry to bother; initial poser of question here. I am being accused of libel in a wikipedia discussion about a politician about an issue which i know to be FACT. Is this little setup going to stick to it's original encyclopediadic sense? If i will be prevented from putting political argument into articles where else will I go? I understand the problem ... certain discussions go on, those that need conjecture, most commonly conspiracy theories. I am told to only discuss possible enhancements to articles. And I'm being shut down. Civility only? Are you sure?

If you are referring to this claim [1] then it falls under the policy WP:BLP and as far as I can see, unless you can provide a reliable source to back up the claim, you have been correctly reverted. It is not a matter of "NPOV". Shot info (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V29aDnQlPWk <- reliable source to back up claim (film). I was prevented from posting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.171.10 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to the discussion

It appears that there is, as of yet, no consensus. Let's move away from what the wording is and look at what we, as writers, want it to say. In my opinion, the section on tone should cover the following points:

-> Thesis: tone is part of content and must also be neutral.

• Structure contributes to tone.
• Word choice contributes to tone.
• Weight contributes to tone but WP:UNDUE has priority.
• Other things also contribute to tone.

In the spirit of "Customer Service", we should acknowledge the following groups of users likely to be reading the policy:

1. A new editor trying to get their bearings or a reader attempting to determine the reliability of the article.
2. An editor acting in good faith who was directed to this policy because of concerns about their writing.
3. An admin trying to explain why a persistent violator was blocked.
4. A tendentious editor looking for loopholes.

The first group will probably only really retain the thesis. The second group wants more details. The third group wants specifics so that they can avoid charges of being arbitrary and capricious. The fourth group will abuse overly specific wording. A guiding principle of "Less policy is better" is a consensus. Examples wouldn't hurt. SDY (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, this is a good starting place, though I think we should add (to your customer service lines) that the real focus of this policy is the non-editor reader. ultimately, articles need to read as neutral because if they don't reaad that way casual readers are going to shrug wikipedia off as a biased source, and the encyclopedia's credibility will be shot to hell and back again. --Ludwigs2 19:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I think they'd essentially have the same approach as the first category, with the same essential result: looking for big picture, not details. SDY (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe that's true; I just don't want to lose sight of this point. it's easy for us editors to get lost in our own little disputes and forget that there's a few billion people who could care less what our problems are. --Ludwigs2 20:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, we have two potential dangers here; the civil POV-Pusher, and the fringe advocate. If an edit war starts, then admins can step in, and dispute resolution can take over. I think, however, that by stating "you don't have a right to your wording, but you may present your facts" we might guide through a lot of problem editors by encouraging them to work with their phrasing. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some proposed language largely following this structure, taking into account a few other things:

Tone, for the purpose of this policy, is the style rather than the substance of an article. The tone must also be neutral, and problems with word choice, structure, and phrasing can lead to a biased article even when the basis of the article is verifiable facts.

This does not mean the article should be "balanced", since WP:WEIGHT requires minority views to be portrayed in proportion and WP:FRINGE states that views that have very little support should be left out entirely. It does mean that views, minority or majority, must not be portrayed as wrong, foolish, or immoral except in clearly attributed statements with appropriate context. Common sense applies, and words such as "hoax" can be used when there is consensus that they are appropriate, such as with Piltdown Man.

(Structurally: 1. Definition of terms, statement of policy. 2. Explaining that the policy does not nullify other policies, explaining what the policy does allow, appealing to common sense.)

This is really not that different from the long-standing "fairness of tone" section, but I believe that it expresses the same content without abusable words like "fair" and requesting emotional judgments from editors. There is wiggle room in that it appeals to common sense, but it is otherwise worded in terms of prohibitions and exceptions. The second sentence in the second paragraph is probably the stickiest one, but I do want to allow for verifiable statements like the Durban Declaration which pull no punches. The pro-life argument that abortion is immoral must be allowed in any discussion of abortion, but it must be clear that Wikipedia is only reporting the argument, not making it. SDY (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, SDY. I don't think this wording actually resolves the issue (at least, not the issue I see...). you're reducing the solution to idiosyncratic judgements of 'appropriate context' and common sense, when in fact the judgement and common sense of editors is the thing in question. what happens when an AIDS Denialist wants to say 'the Durban Declaration' is the political opinions of this group of scientists, not a scientific document, and so the context is not appropriate for inclusion of this overly harsh statement'? I'd rather preclude any argument that might remove properly sourced material, and focus the debate on how that material is to be used in the article. --Ludwigs2 01:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We ultimately have to trust the judgment of a consensus of editors. The policies should be ground rules, not prescriptions. The solution must always come from common sense, both in the figurative and literal definition (i.e. consensus). You cannot legislate common sense, you can only give boundaries to the discussion. SDY (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Self-contained definition of fairness of tone?

Here is a statement-of-intent form that might condense the "neutrality of tone" section into a self contained form. It is a completely opposite approach from the other side. It says nothing about which facts/opinions deserve mention, which is covered elsewhere, nor does it discuss the weight those opinions receives. It restricts itself entirely to the consideration that editors will have to deal with the fact that facts they disagree with will be in articles, but that wording will still have to be crafted carefully to avoid pissing people off. I actually think it sidesteps two of the competing interests that hounded the wording of the previous suggestion. Specifically, it explicitly states that editors may not try to exclude information they don't like, and ensures that the scientific viewpoints, with their large numbers and well documented and reliable sources are not excluded from articles. At the same time, those whose views disagree with the scientific majority, may present well sourced information that challenges scientific consensus. Both sides can use this to ensure that the facts presented say only what they mean and no more, and moves arguments towards inoffensive wording, rather than factual content.

• In a nutshell: as a reader or editor, someone may present a reliably sourced argument that a belief you hold dear is wrong. If the fact meets the criteria for inclusion in the Wikipedia, you can't object to the fact itself, but you can insist that the article only say that you're wrong, and not imply you're an idiot for holding that belief.

• Wikipedia strives to be as useful to a wide range of individuals, some of which have deeply held opinions and beliefs. Readers and editors will be faced with facts that disagree with or challenge such fundamental beliefs, and with which they disagree; sometimes vehemently. Presenting all facts relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia while keeping emotion cool requires careful balancing of language within any article.

• In the interest of presenting facts that challenge a reader or editor's beliefs or values without inciting passions, it is possible that sources may require paraphrasing rather than quotations. Facts may require careful placement within the article structure. Choices of words and phrasing may require revision so as both to remain faithful to facts presented and simultaneously present those facts in a light as palatable to as many readers as possible. Finally, It is possible that some issues may be too contentious to declare final judgment on even when an editor believes the weight of reliable sources makes such judgment clear.

HatlessAtless (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to think about this for a day or so, but I could probably see using this version as well. thanks for being a reasonable voice - I respect the work you've been doing here.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

2¢ from a passer-by: I think the idea of focusing this section only on tone of the writer's "voice"--rather than issues of undue weight, fringe opinions or other matters that are handled elsewhere--is very appropriate. The above draft veers away from my understanding of the reasons for this policy, though: the goal is to present material from a neutral point of view, to the extent possible, not to keep editors or readers from becoming emotional. Also, the concept of fairness seems to have disappeared from this version; do we want to dump that? (I think that needs to be in the NPOV policy someplace.) In any case, perhaps this bit should be relabeled "neutral tone of writing" or something. I also think the word "disinterested" could be useful here: that gets to the heart of the matter, as I understand it. BTfromLA (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

BTfromLA; you nailed it on the head when you said this veers. Let me be specific about my intent here; I approached this from a purely functional perspective, rather than an ideological one. Instead of trying to prevent anyone from writing with a POV tone, the aim of this section is to help fix POV sections and articles, rather than reverting POV changes. We accomplish two things by taking this approach. First and foremost, articles that are edited using this section as guidance will end up being neutral and fair, while providing specific guidance as to how to get there.

I don't think we'll be able to draft a policy paragraph or two that will stop POV articles, sections or statements from appearing in articles; Civil POV pushers and wikilawyers will hide behind shades of meaning in any ideological policy. Newbies will make POV statements out of ignorance for the policy, and insensitive people will make POV posts and not care about the policy. What my proposed wording does is focus on fixing POV statements and articles once they have appeared, the end result of the process being a neutral tone. Responding to your words exactly: writing in a neutral tone is what keeps readers from getting emotional; conversely if we write an article that keeps readers from getting emotional, we will end up with a neutral tone. In addition, reverting someone's POV statements and pointing to a policy is grating and can spark edit wars. It can also be questionable in terms of removing facts that should be in wikipedia so only because they are POV, instead of fixing it.

This policy statement is also crafted to be of immediate use to as many wikipedians as possible, as SDY so eloquently described in the previous section, I will elucidate point by point:

1. For a new or good faith editor, reading the first couple of sentences along with the title will give them a good idea of what they should keep in mind when they edit. Just taking the time to think "am I writing in a way that will avoid pissing people off" will likely succeed for 90%+ of statements, and helps with good faith.
2. For an editor trying to understand why other editors are concerned about their writing style, and for those editors who have to direct an editor to this section, it provides very specific action-based language that can be pointed to. "Facts may require careful placement within article structure" is not nearly as amenable to the rebuff "but my tone was fair and balanced!". Replying to a concern raised within any of the cautions in this draft immediately requires answering the question "why?". This raises the level of discourse immediately, which will naturally tend to avoid edit wars.
3. For the admin explaining exactly why an editor was warned, blocked, or for a mediator trying to resolve an edit war or a dispute, this provides crystal clear guidance: all wording is open to negotiation. "stubbornly refusing to discuss moving a fact from an article header to a subsection" or "stubbornly refusing to consider alternative phrasings for a loaded statement" is much less subjective as an admin's statement than is "the presentation was unfair to group X".
4. For the tendentious editor looking for loopholes, this is intended to force the discussion to elevate. An editor must explain "why" and requires things such as discussions on the talk page. The last sentence in the proposal is intended to emphasize that no single editor may declare consensus in an article, since other editors may dispute it. The key here is that for the tendentious editor or the civil POV-pusher, this section makes it harder to hijack articles, and more difficult to interfere with making an article neutral; rather than focusing on trying to force tendentious editors into writing neutral articled in the first place.

In short, the idea behind this proposal is to change from "getting it right on the first try" to "getting it almost right on the first try, and then getting the process right to fix it". Let WP:Undue and WP:FRINGE stand on their own for arguments of who gets heard and in how much detail. Let's have this section focus on the best guidance for editors on how to fix POV. HatlessAtless (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, HatlessAtlas. I stand by my opinion that, even if avoiding offense is brought in as a problem-solving principal, the overriding goal of creating an unbiased encyclopedia deserves a mention. I certainly agree that providing guidance for working one's way out of a conflict is a fine aim for the policy page, and to that end I'd suggest developing specific examples: a sentence that has ostensibly the same content that has been reworded two or three times to demonstrate both positive and negative models of this policy, say. Concrete examples are usually a good idea, but I think there is an especially urgent need in this case, as a significant number of editors seem to be "tone deaf": that is, they don't seem to grasp the concept of tone of voice when applied to encyclopedic writing, so it becomes imperative to demonstrate that idea as explicitly as possible. (And, perhaps, to state explicitly that ridicule and derision have no place here.) I wholeheartedly agree with keeping this focused and concise. I wonder whether veering away from describing the concept of fair tone and into what you call "the best guidance for editors on how to fix POV" might suggest two sections--one describing neutral tone, another describing things to keep in mind when addressing POV problems. What do you think? BTfromLA (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see and understand both points. Both of your comments could be addressed by expanding the "fairness of tone" section into three subsections, of which the above proposal would be section number two. I would certainly have no objection to a single sentence, or perhaps two, as part of the beginning of the first paragraph, that states the principle of using an unbiased and neutral tone, and then linking that with the guidance on how that neutral tone is achieved. I just think its important that the policy section devote its primary weight to guidance on how to successfully achieve neutral tone, rather than worrying about being too extensive in defining neutral tone. As for specific examples, we'll have to be very careful with how this is done, since if we're going to enshrine specific examples in policy, we'll have to balance examples that are clear, but also subtle. Examples that are too egregious and obvious won't be that useful, but at the same time, ones that are too subtle may be difficult to fathom and analyze. It would be perfect fodder for an essay, which I may write. To be clear, I have no objection to enshrining some examples in policy, only recognizing that it will be challenger. HatlessAtless (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the first paragraph could read: "Wikipedia strives to be as useful to a wide range of individuals, some of which have deeply held opinions and beliefs. In the interest of being as useful as possible to all readers, articles and sections must be written in a tone that impartial, balanced, and does not take sides in controversy. Readers and editors will be faced with facts that question or challenge their fundamental beliefs, and with which they disagree; sometimes vehemently. Presenting all facts relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia while keeping emotion cool and maintaining neutrality requires careful balancing of language within any article." HatlessAtless (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Perhaps it'd be better to have the policy simply say "write in a neutral tone" and define what we mean by tone since the rest of the page defines what we mean by neutral. Some of this could be incorporated into an essay that addresses my second case (people who want more information). Two of the other three groups (nonwikipedians and problem editors) are best served with a relatively straightforward policy, and the final group (admins) would probably want a policy that they can cite without the appearance of cherry-picking. WP:TLDR is a major problem with this proposal. SDY (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

SDY, I think you may have misunderstood both what the proposal was and the intent. The proposal is the 167 word boxed quote at the top of this section, and is the same length as the proposal in the "consensus achieved" section above that you got behind. The long reply post to BTfromLA was not a revision to the policy proposal, it was an explanation of my thoughts as to why approaching the policy in this way. Look at my point #1 as to why this is simple and straightforward to nonwikipedians and problem editors, and my point #3 as to why this is useful for admins who need to quote it. I think this is perfectly clear, concise, and useful for editors, readers, and admins, but an essay on this policy would be useful for exploring in depth specific cases, rather than filling up the policy page. As for your comment about creep, this is simply a clear, concise, and action-oriented approach to how to get neutral tone rather than trying to define neutral tone, which gives wikilawyers and civil pov-pushers too much ammunition. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is an even shorter and cleaner, single-paragraph presentation of above. I've shaved some redundancy out of it and defined neutral tone in the first sentence. Per WP:SOAP we do not take part in controversy, but we are free to write about controversy, which is how that fits in. It defines a neutral tone, drills into why a neutral tone is important, and then gives a concise, clear, and useful explanation of how to achieve neutral tone.

Neutrality and tone:

• In the interest of being as useful as possible to all readers, articles and sections must be written in a tone that impartial, balanced, and does not take sides in controversy. Readers and editors will be faced with facts that question or challenge their fundamental values or beliefs, and with which they disagree; sometimes vehemently. Presenting all facts relevant for inclusion in Wikipedia while keeping emotion cool and maintaining neutrality requires careful balancing of language within any article. Sources may require paraphrasing rather than quotations. Facts may require careful placement within the article structure. Choices of words and phrasing may require revision so as both to remain faithful to facts presented and simultaneously present those facts in a light as palatable to as many readers as possible. Finally, it is possible that some issues may be too contentious to declare final judgment on even when an editor believes the weight of reliable sources makes such judgment clear.

HatlessAtless (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HatlessAtlas, While I respect your efforts, I don't think either proposed draft does the job you want it to do: it is really vague about things that the writing "may require." but it doesn't give anything more than a hint about when or why such changes might be appropriate. SDY is right, we need to spell out specifically what we mean by tone. I've been amazed to find that quite a number of editors don't grasp the concept; some seem to doubt that what we call "tone" really exists. (Just read through the arguments on this page for examples.) An essay might be valuable, but upon reflection I'm not convinced that this revision is the right way to go. I don't think that the existing paragraph is all that bad: it might make better sense to start with that, add specifics about tone and remove the stuff that duplicates undue weight and fringe topic issues. Perhaps you could propose, separately, a new section on conflict resolution. BTfromLA (talk)

My problem is that there are very few rules in the proposal, just a lot of suggestions. In other words, I disagree that it is clear (it doesn't define what we mean by tone), concise (dropping the first paragraph wouldn't change much), or action-oriented (though I'm not sure exactly what that means, I'm expecting "do this" and I'm not seeing a lot of statements like that). I would also hold that it does not even promote a neutral tone, it promotes an inoffensive one. A neutral tone is patently offensive to zealots on all sides (i.e. "you're either with us or against us"). "Tone" is a word that means many things to many people, and this section's primary goal should be to explain what we mean by tone, since "neutral" is all over the rest of the page. SDY (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

BTfromLA: I think you may have misunderstood why those statements are intentionally vague. It would be impossible to enumerate all of the ways POV can be slipped into an article. The reason the word "may" is included in all of these cases is simple; it puts the burden on the editor correcting a POV statement to justify why that statement is POV. For egregious cases, an edit summary would suffice, such as "attributing inflammatory statement to make it NPOV". If an editor has one of their posts changed with a rational reason for being NPOV, then the burden is on that editor to defend why that statement was neutral before reverting the change. The emphasis here is the fact that all wording is open to discussion is key here. It relies on the principle that we, as a community of editors "can't necessarily define (POV) but we know it when we see it". As to your suggestion for a conflict resolution section, how would you suggest I title/structure it?HatlessAtless (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to side with SDY on this, and I'd go even further: the suggestions themselves are unclear. Obviously, enumerating all possibilities is not an option. But there is a big distinction between a brief statement that is general--it clearly lays out a basic, though not universal principal--compared to a vague statement, which really doesn't tell us much at all. As to the conflict resolution bit--I'll need to think a little more about how to structure that: the reason I suggested it is that seems to be your primary interest here. We should probably check to see where and how that is being dealt with on WP policy and guideline pages already before diving in. BTfromLA (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

well, if you want a clear definition of tone, that's not too hard. something like this, maybe (adapting the first version in this section...):

• Wikipedia strives to be informative to a wide range of readers, who have an equally wide range of opinions and beliefs. Since many of these beliefs may clash, and even the clearest facts may be interpreted differently by different readers, editors should take care to balance the tone of language within articles. A balanced tone avoids excess: positions are neither overstated nor understated relative to their importance; discussion is sufficient to make a given point clear, without redundant or tangential commentary that might distract from other points; milder phrases are used instead of stronger ones, particularly when discussing bitter disputes. In general, editors should write in an educational manner that tries to describe uncontested facts and contested opinions without offending those who might think otherwise, and should keep in mind that where one editor complains about the tone of an article, a small army of silent readers have likely already been offended.

• It is possible to present facts that challenge beliefs or values without causing offense. It may require paraphrasing of sources rather than direct quotations, or the careful placement of facts and opinions within the article structure to avoid unwarranted implications. Word choice and phrasing may need revision to simultaneously remain faithful to the facts presented and to present those facts in a light palatable to as many readers as possible. Some issues may be so politically or emotionally heated that even common-sense evaluations by editors are too strong, and the article may need to fall back on simple description.

well, I feel like I've editorialized a bit, but I think you can get my drift here. --Ludwigs2 01:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiment and much of your wording, but I disagree strongly with only this part: sourcing is sufficient to establish a point, but not so excessive that it drowns out other points Inclusion of a point, along with the relevant, sourced, and substantiated facts to back it up, is exactly how we let the facts speak for themselves. Majority opinions are considered majority opinions because of the strong weights of facts backing up the viewpoints. This sentiment is not in line with "Equal Validity" as it could be used by minority POV-pushers to defend stripping important facts defending majority opinions and imply that the minority opinions are stronger relative to the majority opinions than they actually are. If you were to rephrase this in such a way that its clear that you are referring to redundant facts and citations and balance this with sentiment in line with WP:PRESERVE, that information relevant to the topic should stay in wikipedia, and the sentiment stated in WP:UNDUE as Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. would completely resolve my concern. (If you want more details on how I am thinking about this, see the conversation on neutrality on my talk page) HatlessAtless (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, I hadn't been thinking about it in that way at all, and I see your point. let me look at your talk page and then I'll modify the text above with something (hopefully) better. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(revision) I think my error was casting that line as a sourcing issue in the first place (because, of course, it isn't about sourcing). I've revised the passage to talk about 'discussion' instead, using "discussion is sufficient to make a given point clear, without redundant or tangential commentary that might distract from other points". that should solve the WP:PRESERVE problem nicely, though maybe it could highlight WP:UNDUE issues a bit more. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This revision I can get behind. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with it. It's more about being inoffensive than being neutral. The two are often associated, but they're not equivalent. It strives and considers and wants to do the right thing, but it's more "consider mommy's feelings" than "honor thy mother." My concerns include but are not limited to:

• "Educational Manner" will run afoul of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and can easily run into WP:SOAP.
• The discussion on "balance" can easily be read to create a conflict with WP:WEIGHT.
• "Without offending those who might think otherwise" runs contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED.

It could easily be read to contradict other policies, most of which have far greater weight than concerns about tone. SDY (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... SDY, without debating that this version would need improvements, I think you're shadow-boxing. the point that I've brought up repeatedly (and that maybe needs to be highlighted more in the text) is that this policy section would only apply after other policies are satisfied. to address your points individually...

• "Educational Manner" may be bad phrasing, but considered in context all it means is that one should write with the intention of informing people of things they don't know, without judging them for not knowing it. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is something that would be resolved before considerations of Fairness of Tone (FOT) ever arose, and this 'educational' thing is intended to prevent the kind of judgmentalism that would lead to WP:SOAP.
• WP:WEIGHT (with respect to sourcing issues, and inclusion/exclusion) should be determined before any discussion of FOT becomes pertinent. after that, this passage from WEIGHT - "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements" - starts bleeding into FOT issues, and so FOT would not conflict with WEIGHT, but instead augment it.
• again, WP:NOTCENSORED would have precedence over FOT. FOT is not intended to exclude viewpoints, but just temper them to a neutral tone. I'll point out that this is already de-facto policy on wikipedia: even the most die-hard science advocate editors wouldn't include a phrase like 'scientists think this theory is stupid and irritating', even if they could find proper sourcing for it, because it obviously carries a biased, unprofessional tone. all I'm trying to do here is hone that generic intuition into a clear, established point of policy.

I see FOT as a policy that should be applied when (and only when) all other policies have been satisfied but a dispute still exists between editors about bias in the article. Basically (if inelegantly put), FOT should hold that "If editors cannot reach consensus about neutrality on the basis of reliable sourcing (and other policies) alone, then the reliable sources given must be phrased and used in a manner that provokes the least offense possible (given what the sources say), since the offendedness of editors and readers is the only measure of bias left that could resolve the dispute." see what I'm reaching for, here? --Ludwigs2 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) If the policy isn't meant to contradict other policies, it should either be clearly worded so that it doesn't, or explicitly state that those other policies have priority. As it is, I'm not 100% sure what the policy means other than "try not to say anything clearly, you might offend someone." SDY (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

ok, I'll make some edits to reflect that - give me a bit of time.

with respect to what the policy means, it's not 'try not to say anything clearly' but rather 'don't be more clear that the sourcing allows.' lets take an obvious example, like 'remote viewing'. an old (and at that time heavily defended) version of the page said "As with all pseudoscientific claims of extra-sensory perception and the paranormal, the scientific community accepts none of the alleged instances of remote viewing as being actual evidence of psychic perception." now a phrase like this isn't wrong per se, and was certainly sourced, but it kept running into objections (from me, and others) because it read as though disdain were being laid on with a trowel. certainly anyone who happens to believe in remote viewing (as silly as you and I might think that is) would take this phrase as an electronic slap in the face. the current version of the passage, by contrast, reads: "Remote viewing, like other forms of extra-sensory perception, is generally considered as pseudoscience due to the need to overcome fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles currently held by the scientific community, and the lack of a positive theory that explains the outcomes." This gets across exactly the same idea and information, but explains why scientists reject it, and avoids the potentially offensive overstatements (e.g. 'As with all pseudoscientific claims...', 'accepts none of the alleged...'). I think the second version is a much better way of expressing the idea, as well as (or because it's) more palatable to all readers, and I want this policy to guide people towards that kind of phrasing and away from the former kind. that's the meaning I'm trying to get across. --Ludwigs2 16:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of my problem with some of these proposals is that they're really more appropriate for WP:MOS. They're really more about good writing, which is obviously a GA and FA criterion, and there's a balance between clarity and heavy-handedness that is far too subjective for policy. Interestingly, I got into a bit of a spat about this recently, where the exact problem happened: someone disagreed with the tone of an article and immediately assumed that a writing problem was someone pushing a fringe POV.

I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, but I don't think it would work as policy because it is by nature an extremely subjective judgment. SDY (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah, this is definitely a tricky and difficult issue. The main reason I don't think the WP:MOS is right for this is the it clearly is a bias issue, not just a style issue. it's just not necessarily a bias in the 'POV-Pushing' sense of the word. for instance, there's nothing stylistically wrong with any of the following phrases:

• Scientists reject a fringe theory
• Scientists despise a fringe theory
• Scientists have not accepted a fringe theory
• Scientists discount a fringe theory

but each phrase carries a different set of implications about the relationship between scientists and the fringe theory, which can impose a wide range of implicit meanings without any sourcing whatsoever. plus, even where you would think that the MOS would address these issues - such as wp:MOS#Avoid_contested_vocabulary - it turns out that it only refers to common usage (in this case avoiding archaic and 'strained' sounding words), not to the connotations of different word choices. --Ludwigs2 18:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Should we assume good faith to group motives as part of NPOV?

I've been reading the arguments about neutrality of tone and some of the articles used for illustration, and I think I've noticed something. I think that a lot of the "treat fairly" and "respect opinions" seems to come down to a proxy observation that groups should have their beliefs treated in good faith. I think there is a place in NPOV for a statement to the effect that "Unless multiple reliable secondary sources indicate a motive for a group, care should be taken that an article or section does not assert or imply a motive to a group." Also, though I don't know how to phrase it, I also think that even when a clear consensus in RSS's has been reached about a group's motivations, I think that the group's self-asserted motivation should still be stated, and that attribution is particularly important when asserting motivation for a group.

I think that there are two useful reasons for this thought. First, implying that a group's motivations are disingenuous is an easy way to piss off supporters of those groups, and second, attributing something like motivation to a group without a source is not only NPOV, but also OR. Especially given the volatility and potential for veiled incivility, I think attribution of motivation is particularly important.

Comments please? HatlessAtless (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we'd need to change policy to do this; we already can with current policy. Antelan 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:V seems to handle this, yes. I'm mainly concerned that in the instance of groups where the motive has been demonstrated that some people would use arguments about tone to censor that information. This is especially important with things like health fraud. If it hasn't been documented, we shouldn't be assuming any motives at all, good faith or bad faith. SDY (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

hmmm... I'm not sure verifiability quite makes the grade for this. I'm thinking about Intelligent Design, where there is documented evidence that ID proponents were engaged in a political gambit, but this evidence gets used to disparage ID proponents as mere machiavellian schemers (when in fact, I'm guessing their motives are more complex than that, involving an honest concern about spiritual welfare).

Hatless - I think you're right. at least, I know that the boundary line between group identity and personal identity is thin to the point of non-existence, so making incorrect attributions about a group will (almost invariably) be taken by group members as an attribution about their own individual behavior. plus, these kinds of attributions risk reducing a group to a 2-dimensional cardboard cutout of itself. that's never good. --Ludwigs2 18:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion over whether an active political entity is a "person" has some strange legalisms to it, but the consensus over at WP:BLP appears to be that policy only applies to individual human beings. I agree that the claims should not be used spuriously, but they should also not be removed if they are verifiable and attributable to a reliable source. Wikipedia should not be a "Second Life for corporations" as the Silly Party's candidate for president put it. SDY (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how we'd need to change policy to do this; we already can with current policy. Antelan 18:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Which existing policy are you reading, and how, that already does this? I agree that existing policy already has sentiment of this kind, but if one were to make and edit with the edit summary attributing assertion of group motive per WP?, which WP would I point to to make my rationale clear? (Please do not read this as a sarcastic or challenging question, if I've missed or misunderstood a policy then there's no need to try to hammer out a change to NPOV) HatlessAtless (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

missed edit summary

reverted a change by Science Apologist, that assumed a non-existent consensus. no doubt he will revert it back in, however. --Ludwigs2 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The revision as restored by SA looks a considerable improvement to me. . dave souza, talk 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think SA's language is clearer. It doesn't change long-standing policy, but it does clean up the wording. I think there's still room for improvement, but I would rather have this version than some of the recent proposals. SDY (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we remove the ref to notability? (we should be phasing that concept out, right? Or am I jumping ahead too far?)

Otherwise: both versions have merits. I like the warmer and more informal tone of [2], though. Warm tone, relaxed attitude and especially giving people ideas on where and what to negotiate on improves usage of the project namespace pages when it comes to wikipedia's dispute resolution system. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (wikipedia is WP:NOT a bureaucracy or anything, so any way we can strengthen the "feel" of consensus tends to help people cooperate better on making our encycopedia. And that's part of the goal of the project namespace.

When it comes to discussing with people who are adamantly opposed to WP:ENC and prefer to think of Wikipedia as a community, informal tones tend to make them too focused on social interaction and not focused enough on editing. That's a problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words: it's a consensus if one makes a huge assumption of bad faith and thereby discounts all contrary opinions. 64.86.17.112 (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can an administrator please block this Davkal wikistalker? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, is everyone who says something you don't like automatically a Davkal puppet?

Kim - consensus is something achieved, not something imposed. imposing a consensus when there is none is not consensus at all, but some form of authoritarianism. and strengthen the '"feel'" of consensus in the absence of consensus is propaganda, nothing more. if that's the way you want policy decided, fine, but please don't rationalize it by asserting that it's a normal part of consensus.

my real objection here (as always) is with ScienceApologist's approach to the problem. I wouldn't mind using his preferred version of the section (or any other place we've edited together) if he or his buddies bothered to take the time to discuss the matter and convince me it was better, but all he seems to know how to do is edit it in by brute force, and then keep it there by whatever means necessary (short of actual discussion). it's rude, inconsiderate, and deliberately thumbs its nose at consensus. now, again, if that's the way you all want things to be run here, say so - I'll go somewhere else where I don't have to deal with this kind or degree of stupidity. otherwise, I don't see why you all put up with it. --Ludwigs2 20:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, then edit or propose your changes. WP:OWN specifies that this is our not his policy. I read the discussion of SA's version to indicate that consensus reflected that the SA version of the tone article was an improvement over the policy that was there. Consensus did not dictate that this was the perfect wording. More importantly, consensus and unanimity are not the same. Also, let's point out that its consensus, not having any one of us convinced that a particular thing is best. I still want one of my wordings that I proposed to be the one that ends up here, but I'll work with what I've got. Come, let's take the substrate SA has and that consensus tolerates and tweak it into the perfect policy section instead of arguing that we should hash out the endless talk-page debate to conclusion before making a change. HatlessAtless (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Updates to tone section

I've made two updates to the new tone section of the policy, to keep the existing sentiment, which I like a lot, but to eliminate the two key concerns with word choice, which were expressed by a large number of editors per the original discussion of the new version. I've preserved all of the meaning in the new version.

• I have changed the word dispassionate into impartial to make the policy mesh more tightly with WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK from the perspective that wikipedia does not get involved in disputed, it lets reliable sources do all of the telling. An article can be massively POV and still presented in a dispassionate tone, while changing a statement from a polemic one to a dispassionate tone does not necessarily remove the POV.

• I removed the word notable opinions for the two reasons cited in the discussion of this version. First, without an essay establishing a notability criterion for schools of thought beyond that in WP:UNDUE, there's no need to point to UNDUE from this section. Secondly, using the loaded word 'notably' immediately presents a problem with making the section susceptible to wikilawering to push fringe views into articles. Since some fringe groups have unquestioned notability, this could be used as a wedge to try to force those views into articles they do not belong in (based on the criteria in UNDUE) by arguing that they are notable. To fix the section only discusses the tone of schools of thought that are being discussed in the article, leaving UNDUE to stand alone in adjudicating which schools of thought deserve mention in an article or not, eliminating all possibility of conflict.

HatlessAtless (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that one all-too-common manouvre is quoting a polemical, shrill source that tends to make the other side look as rediculous as possible, and that one thing the tone section should do is explain that we should avoid that. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I always support the removal of the word notable where there is no objective notability scale or criterion provided. Notability isn't a real word here. It is a term of art to describe whether an article ought to be included in the Wikipedia or content ought to be included in a Wikipedia article: useful when objective, useless when arbitrary. patsw (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious views

The FAQ Religion section seems ambiguous in explaining how to present religious views in disputes between religion and historians, scientists and similar. Since this is an issue that comes up time and again in the encyclopedia, suggest clarifying. Propose adding the paragraph in italics after the existing paragraph quoted to address this.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith, claiming that this somehow discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith as they see it, which might be from an ahistorical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion.) Their point of view must be mentioned, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia editors ought to say something like this: "Many adherents of this faith believe X, and also believe that members of this group have always believed X; however, due to the acceptance of some findings (say which) by modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Similarly, some historians and scientists might object to presenting religious views on subjects which they regard as properly and perhaps solely the domain of history or science, including past events or prophesized future events. Nonetheless, for the reasons explained by Larry Sanger, the neutral point of view includes neutrality in these disputes and significant religious views should be fairly and sensitively presented where appropriate. Such views should be described using language which explains the basis of adherence without endorsing point of view. Articles describing a disputes between religious authorities and e.g. historians could say something like this: "According to [scriptural narrative or religious sources], X happened. (religious interpretation sources) explain that X has (religious significance Z) (etc.). However, modern historians/archaeologists/etc. (say which) have generally accepted that X did not happen because of findings A, B. ..." The article, including the introduction, should attempt to avoid using language that would tend to endorse one view or the other. It should neither present the scriptural narrative or religious belief as fact, nor present a characterization of it as a myth or ahistorical as fact. Language should present differences in how different viewpoints understand reality in a way that is accurate (e.g. religious sources "believe" or "recieve a tradition that", historians "find", scientists "observe", etc.), but jargon language that has negative connotations in common use ("myth", "cult", "heresy", etc.) should generally be used only when presenting the viewpoint that uses the jargon (with appropriate link). ("Anthropologists characterize the Noah's Ark narrative as a myth" rather than "The Noah's Ark story is a myth about..."). Similarly, care should be taken to use neutral terms when describing religious narratives and beliefs. For example, terms like "narrative" rather than "story" should be used when describing scriptural accounts except when presenting specific views of them (or describing their use as children's stories).

I think an example clearly explaining how to handle this situation would be helpful and appropriate because of the frequency with which this kind of dispute comes up. The first paragraph could be interpreted as describing only internal religious disputes. When the subject matter of an article is something described in a religious source (for example, a Biblical narrative), the first paragraph doesn't always provide clear guidance on how to handle the situation. The specific proposals I've made can doubtless be improved, but guidance on this issue will I think be very helpful. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for readability, consider breaking it up into "answers" and "lists of examples." It's a very dense block of text. It could probably be more explicit about disagreements between religious groups of the same faith, historically the cause of some pretty messy disputes. SDY (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Addressing disputes within a faith is the subject of the first paragraph (which already exists.)I agree better clarity would be welcome on that issue as well. Suggest addressing improving that section in a separate proposal. We might have a better chance of reaching consensus on the current issue if we don't bite off more than we can chew. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Additions are basically good. Separate proposal regarding the extant first paragraph would probably have to cover material which is the object of religious belief for several distinct religious groups, as there are a number of groups of both the Abrahamic and Dharmic religious families which use the same words, and sometimes even use the words to describe the same subjects, but have vastly different ideas regarding the significance or meaning of those subjects. But no real objections to the proposed additions. John Carter (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are putting way too much weight on Larry Sanger's personal interpretation of NPOV, as the NPOV policy as stated here and used in encyclopedias as a standard policy do not just let religious views get treated with the same weight as scholarly views. I would strongly oppose that entire proposed change until it is rewritten to remove the idea that people being offended about information that conflicts with their religious beliefs (being scared of the word myth, demanding their views in science articles, etc.) should be coddled. That's not how things work here, as is clear in all other writing about NPOV. You're going to need pretty wide consensus to make such a sweeping change to how NPOV is handled, and the handful of responses you have so far don't come close to it. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked back at the section as it stands now -- it is as perfectly clear as it needs to be, and specifies that religious people being offended isn't an excuse (in and of itself) for changing an article. That's an extremely important concept, and the rewording suggested above would completely turn that on its ear, basically welcoming religion in every article in the whole encyclopedia whether it has anything to do with the topic or not. DreamGuy (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am proposing adding a second paragraph, not to remove the (aleady-existing) first, so the issue of religious people wanting to censor scientific discussions remains addressed, and if you think it should be strengthened I'd welcome a proposal to strengthen it. The proposal discusses only the presentation of "significant" religious views, which are includable per WP:WEIGHT and related policies. It dosen't change or even discuss criteria for determining when a particular view is significant. The threshold for includability remains as it was. It simply discusses how to handle things once that threshold has been crossed. Neutrality between different points of view is what WP:NPOV is all about, and has worked very well for some time. The intent of the proposal is simply to clarify existing policy and to ensure phrasing that more appropriately reflects neutrality in practice, not to change the underlying policy. By using a phrase like "information that conflicts with their religious beliefs" and by using phrases like "they", you are inserting your belief that one view is correct and another incorrect, which is what NPOV is designed to prevent. Once religious views are includable, the question of what weight they also remains unchanged by this proposal, and per existing policy depends on the topic. On a specifically religious topic (a detail of a doctrine or ritual, for example) religious viewpoints might get primary weight, and the proposal isn't intended to suggest that religious views get primary weight in an article like Evolution. If you believe clarification is needed to avoid the possibility that this language might be interpreted as changing when religious views become included, I'd welcome a proposal. However, when religious views are includable by our ordinary criteria, they should be welcome and the door should be open to them, whether editors personally agree with them or not. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether one view is correct or another incorrect is often irrelevant. Let's take an example of Scientology. This particular religion believes that psychiatry is just about the worst thing ever to be inflicted upon humanity. They are adamant in their distrust and outright hatred of psychiatry. Fine. We must describe this fact in our articles about Scientology. However, we should also point out what critics have said about Scientology's disdain for psychiatry. What's more, we should not pretend that the opinions of Scientologists about psychiatry deserve as much weight as, say, an expert in the subject. We rely on reliable, third-party sources to evaluate the "sides". In pretty much all the cases I know about, the third-parties heavily discount the Scientologist opinion in favor of mainstream psychiatry. This is hardly fair to the Scientologist, but Wikipedia is not in the business of fairness. We need to be honest with our readers about what the best sources have to say about the subject, and we need to be honest when a source is the best. Otherwise, we will end up pandering and accommodating rather than integrating and explaining. This often looks to adherents as though Wikipedia is "talking a side" in the dispute. However, this is simply not the case. Consider, if you will, a hypothetical scenario where in the future, Scientology becomes a ubiquitous and mainstream belief that is not criticized by anyone but a marginal few. In such a situation, our characterization of Scientology's beliefs would remain the same, but our discussion of the responses to Scientology's beliefs would change dramatically or may even disappear altogether depending on how marginalized the naysayers became. Our job is to present what the preponderance of reliable, expert sources say (in our hypothetical scenario, the preponderance of the expert sources say Scientology rules and every other idea is marginal at best). We are not supposed to try to add any kind of balance on top of this to make sure that the impression that one view is correct and the other incorrect doesn't come across. Doing such is actually a violation of NPOV, interestingly enough. Most people, especially those who find themselves on the out-and-out with what the most reliable sources say, miss this nuance. They want to make sure that no one reading the article will come away with the impression that their cherished belief is not on equal footing with expert understanding of the subject. Generally, this is an impossibility. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the principle of letting the facts speak for themselves could usefully be introduced at this stage. We shouldn't assume that NPOV is unattainable and that articles will inevitably be "weighted" towards either a religious or a scientific stance. In the Noah's Ark example, I would prefer to see rather than "Anthropologists characterize the Noah's Ark narrative as a myth", "In the 1950s, John Doe, an anthropologist, made a detailed analysis of the Noah's Ark story as a myth. Jane Deer, a theologian argued that his approach ignored..." The more we add sourced and concrete detail, the more the POV problems melt away. (This is not an endorsement for writing too much though; keeping it short and sweet also helps in many cases).Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your suggestion. I certainly agree that careful and detailed attribution and sourcing can go a long way to assisting with NPOV in a brief, unobstrusive and civil, yet rigorous and effective way. Perhaps this could be better articulated. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 10:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As to the Scientology example, because Scientology is a small minority religion both in numbers and in historical/cultural impact, its views on a lot of subjects (other than itself) wouldn't necessarily be significant under WP:WEIGHT. The views of major denominations of major historic world religions -- Hinduism, Buddism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- will tend to be significant and includable on a broader range of subjects than the views of tiny minority religions and denominations, as a simple application of WP:WEIGHT principles. My understanding is that we don't weight based on truth, we weight based on cultural impact (how much the view has impacted thought and discourse) with respect to a particular subject. Because obscure religions would be excluded by WP:WEIGHT, would it be possible to provide another example involving a more clearly significant religious view, so we discuss issues and problems in including and describing in a more realistic case? Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what this is about. Statements by religious adherents regarding their faith are primary sources. We can cite primary sources for what they are, but encyclopedic discussion of religious topics needs secondary sources, that is, we always need to rely on academic literature, in the case of religious topics, academic literature in the field of religious study. Conflating secondary (academic) literature on a historical question with religionist (primary) sources is an absolute no-no. The suggested paragraph above is muddle-headed cultural relativism at its worst and has no place on Wikipedia, except in WP:DISCLAIMER where we already state that our encyclopedic material may offend. That's all that will ever be needed to address this. The "point of view" of a religious faith is the very topic in articles on that faith, and it needs to be documented by referring to the pertinent literature within religious studies. Statements like "Many adherents of faith A believe X, and also believe that members of this group have always believed X" belong in the article on A, not X, and need a reference from the literature relevant to A, not some random blog kept by some self-identified adherent of A. --dab (𒁳) 09:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

aye! --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! According to WP:PSTS, "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic", eyewitness accounts and similar, while secondary sources are one stepped removed. So in religion, primary sources would describe revelation and other direct encounter experiences by people claiming to have had such experiences or people very close to them (e.g. the Gospels, the Prophets, etc.). Anything not claiming to represent direct experience (commentaries and the like) would be a secondary source. I couldn't find your view that secondary sources have to be academic or that all religious sources are primary in the WP:PSTS language. As to reliability, clearly the views of Thomas Aquinas, C.S. Lewis, Moshe Feinstein, or the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards can easily be distinguished from "some random blog", and many organized, long-standing religions have academies and other ways of determining who is regarded as an expert. Finally, I don't understand why religion isn't, like science, both a subject and a point of view. My understanding here is that points of view become significant not based on their truth but by the extent to which they have influenced thought and culture - the extent to which they're discussed, not the extent to which they're agreed with. And for better or for worse there are many subjects on which religion and religious views have had a lot of influence and been part of a lot of discussions. My understanding is that "Muddle-headed cultural relativism" is essentially what WP:NPOV is about. If we don't want it, perhaps we should drop the policy entirely. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Two points: first, I strongly disagree with dab and Francis Schonken that accounts by religious people about their own religion are primary sources. They confuse kinds of sources for kinds of views. My book about an indigenous group in South American is not a secondary source because I am not indigenous. It is a secondary source beause in that book I use a particular methodological and theoretical framework to reflect on and analyze primary accounts of the indigenous culture. It is the methodological and theoretical frameworks that make my view an "anthropological" view, not the fact that I am non-indigenous. As a Jew, if I were to reflect on and analyze Jewish primary sources using the same methodological and theoretical framework, my view would still be anthropological and my essay a secondary source. Now, a religious Jew can also reflect on and analyze primary Jewish texts. Their methodological and theoretical framework is different from that of an anthropologist, so they are expressing a different view. But their analysis of primary sources itself still constitutes a secondary source.

Second, I think Shirahadasha introduces an essential element when he brings up WP:WEIGHT. I have no concerns about coddling religious people; NPOV insists that all notable views be represented no matter how wrong we think they are, I see no problem in applying this to religious views as much as anthropological views. My only concern - and I would ask Shirahadasha to incorporate the language about WEIGHT or FRINGE into the proposed change - is that people may misread the proposal to say that all religious views should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am actually arguing for "muddle headed cultural relativism" or indeed any kind of relativism. I agree with dab about preferring academic sources and that that includes works of theology. A useful question to ask when encountering difficult NPOV questions is "what discipline does this article belong to?". There will always, I think, be one or more academic disciplines, for example the study of Pokemon belongs to cultural studies, the study of Greenpeace belongs to political science or political sociology, the study of the Moon belongs to astronomy. That helps us to identify the relevant sources and scholars in the field. However, academic disciplines are not only delineated by their subject matter but also by their research questions and their methods. So an economist comes to the study of anthropogenic global warming with a completely different set of questions to a climate scientist. Hence many academic disputes and disagreements that we end up having to unravel. One way is to separate knowledge emanating from different disciplines into separate articles or sections - e.g. there is a whole lot to say about the Moon in culture and it is easily split off from the astronomy. But sometimes that won't work at all because there has been a to-and-fro of argument between scholars from different perspectives, as in my example above of an anthropologist and a theologian disagreeing. That's as far as I can get with the problem at the moment. Very interesting thread. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize "scholarly" can have multiple meanings. It can mean a depth and breadth of knowledge, a practice of studying and reflecting on texts, or a particular approach. As a concrete example, Moshe Feinstein is an interesting test case because he had some dealings with both worlds: his writings on medical ethics questions in particular became of interest to university-based bioethicists, while his opinions and decisions on a wider variety of religious subjects became authoratative within a certain religious world. In one view, his reputation within his religious community is essentially worthless and his reliability derives solely from the fact that university-based scholars found him interesting on a small part of his writings. In a different view, his reputation within his religious community for carefully checking and thoughtfully assessing the various religious commentators and precedents, the extent to which his writings were published, studied, commented on, and cited in the religious world and the degree of respect in that world even his innovative opinions tended to have, is relevant to assessing his reliability on religious subjects. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested revision to tone section

The current wording This does not mean that all views should get equal space, nor that they should be presented as equal: Minority views should not be presented as equally accepted as the majority view, for instance, and views in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all.

Runs into an a-priori/a-posterioiri problem, as well as one of implied non-notability. Specifically, the views of a 51%/49% minority will be treated as almost equal to the "majority" viewpoint, while an 85%/15% minority will receive much less. More importantly, that division (51%/49% vs 85%/15%) is determined by representation in reliable sources, not some outside judgement by wikipedia editors. The wording above runs the risk of editors trying to violate WP:UNDUE pushing a majority viewpoint by stripping relevant and important facts about a minority viewpoint using the the above phrasing of tone as an excuse. Just as importantly, WP:PAPER/WP:UNDUE makes it clear that we should not strip out encyclopedic content about a minority view in a page dedicated to that minority view. The lack of specificity above means that an editor could go to an article on a minority opinion and improperly claim that the article should have less content than the respective article on a majority viewpoint.

I think these can be resolved by changing the wording to be as follows:

This does not mean that all views should get equal space when describing multiple viewpoints on a topic, nor that those viewpoints should be presented as equal: Minority views will only be presented in proportion to their mention in reliable sources outside the articles dedicated to the groups that hold those views. Views in the extreme minority will not receive mention in Wikipedia at all beyond the articles dedicated to the groups that hold those views

HatlessAtless (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to repeat the entirety of WP:WEIGHT in the section, just acknowledge that providing appropriate weight instead of "balanced" coverage is acceptable, even though it nominally gives a tone to the article. SDY (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the intent of the tone section has been to require that each view be presented from the perspective of its proponents, using its best arguments (as its proponents see them) when there is a dispute. The fact that a view happens to be a majority view at the moment does not mean it is correct. The purpose of the tone section hitherto has been to ameliorate, not enhance, the effect of the weight section. In general, weighing sources with anything like the sort of specificity that is being called for -- identifying how much stature each view has --requires a subject-matter expert and is probably not possible in a Wiki environment. Everyone tends to think that their view has the better argument and is better represented in reliable sources. Weight has traditionally, and wisely, required only a purely qualitative assessment requiring more emphasis to a clearly dominant view and prohibiting clearly minority views from unduly dominating the article. Attempts to introduce anything like a quantitative assessment, with views weighted in proportion to claims about their specific degree of acceptance, sounds nice in theory but in practice will introduce so much subjective judgment into the picture that it undoes rather than reinforces the intended effect of WP:NPOV. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone ameliorates weight only in that it does not allow scornful representation of minority opinions, a point that is already brought into great detail by other sections of the NPOV policy. I'm just pointing out that adding this additional language is redundant. It may be correct, but policies shouldn't drone on in endless repetition. SDY (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the connection between your response and my concerns? Personally I think this section should not allude to WEIGHT at all, and simply let it stand on its own, but consensus seems to be against me on that one, so I want to avoid potential conflict. How does the current wording prevent someone from making an AfD case against ID (or the article on some tiny minority but notable political party) for example, by quoting this wording of core policy? HatlessAtless (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the tone section has to mention weight at all is that NPOV and weight can conflict when some will read "neutral" as "fair and balanced." The tone section is not the entirety of the NPOV policy, it's a minor section that deals exclusively with subtle problems like wording, choice of quotes, and some stylistic decisions. Notability is covered by its own guideline; all that this section covers is avoiding bias creep. SDY (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the current wording, but the proposed change isn't too horrible either, other than being a little clumsily worded. If it does go anywhere the end part about "Views in the extreme minority will not receive mention in Wikipedia at all beyond the articles dedicated to the groups that hold those views" would absolutely need to end with something like ", assuming they are notable enough to even deserve an article." Otherwise the wording implies that all extreme minority views should get articles of their own, which is clearly not correct. In fact, I would just leave it at no mention in Wikipedia at all.DreamGuy (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

DG, the [{WP:V]], the notability criteria, and the AfD process cover plenty well that some groups will not get articles at all. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone: Unfair treatment?

Whereas previous long-standing language specifically called for "fairness" of tone and called for "sensitive" treatment of viewpoints one might disagree with, the current revision does the opposite and includes languague indicating that points of view