Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view".

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.

Wikipedia:Neutrality

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Neutrality (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on issues of relative coverage other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:18, November 25, 2007

Nevermind. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:27, November 25, 2007

SPOV

I have been informed many times that NPOV and WP:SPOV are the same things. There are many editors who wish to write articles which are under WP:FRINGE from an SPOV perspective (I could give plenty of quotes in case someone tries to deny it). Those editors are congregated here. I would like community input as to whether or not they (many of them) are correct that NPOV and SPOV are the same, and that SPOV is not a rejected principle from which to write Wikipedia articles.

To illustrate, in my opinion, editors wish to re-write this:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers;

as

Reliable descriptions of material reality are only made through the expert consensus of the scientific community. While Wikipedia is charged with reporting on various alternative viewpoints, the fact that these alternative viewpoints are not reliable descriptions of material reality must be made clear for Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia it can be.[1]

I could find many other statements from other edtors along the same lines, but this is clearest. For example [2][3].

Depending on the outcome of the debate, I would like to suggest that WP:NPOV be altered to specifically deal with this issue so editors may be told specifically whether NPOV and SPOV are the same, and in what ways they differ.

If SPOV does not equal NPOV, I would also like some guidance to be given as to how to discern when an article is being written from an SPOV viewpoint- that is, I want the community to develop a general understanding of propriety on this issue. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is little more than an antipathetic misrepresentation of the discussions of NPOV and SPOV. Antelan^talk 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to provide a more neutral summary of the two positions, for those unfamiliar with the issue's history? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how to do better than I've done. You've seen enough to do it yourself, though. Could you provide such a summary of the positions? OH!! You were talking to Antelan. I still think you could do a good job, if you think it's needed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, I didn't feel in a very good position to summarize the positions involved in this dispute, or I wouldn't have asked. I'm pretty new to it. Antelan is the one who described your summary as "antipathetic", and I was really hoping to find out what he meant by that. I guess I should have asked more concretely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "SPOV". Perhaps you mean the POV of certain scientists. Bensaccount (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually WP:SPOV is used to mean "mainstream scientific POV." You can find good summaries of the positions here and here, and a general debate here. There are some disagreements, but the interviews are a good introduction. I'm happy to answer questions if there are more.

But this is a very long, large, and intense debate, even if most people don't know about it. It needs to be dealt with in policy, it needs to be debated by the larger community. Thanks (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a policy on SPOV, although attempts to have it have been made in the past and failed. NPOV is not SPOV, as they are very different. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes jossi, but Lord Almighty, all my problems stem from having editors constantly pushing either SPOV or its debunking swamp-cousin. We need to put the difference, along with the reasons, right out where people can see, because people want to say that the notability and Weight are always relative to mainstream science rather than to the subject of the article. And of course, I'd be happy if SPOV became polity, it's the POV pushing under the current system I can't stand. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually we don't really have a good definition of NPOV, and cannot point to an example of it, except as it is observed to occur in the unconscious or the dead. To be alive and conscious, is to automatically have a POV. No writing could occur without a POV, since writing one thing and not some other thing, implies, and requires, a POV. The idea of a "neutral" POV, which means no particular POV in writing, is self-contradictory, since somebody is writing. Not only is it self-contradictory, but it's even meta-self-contradictory, since the very idea that there is such a thing, or can be such a thing, as "NPOV," in writing, is itself (of course) somebody's POV. In fact, existence of NPOV in writing is the official Wikipedia policy POV. With which you are supposed not to disagree, because holding otherwise, and attempting to work that way, is to have a non policy POV (see wrong POV). Thus, we endlessly natter about it, because it actually does not make sense. The only permitted POV is that we strive for NPOV, which is decreed to be possible. This would be funny if not so tragic in practice, as there's no zealot quite like one who is certain he's acting perfectly without bias. SBHarris 04:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen. A lot of times people say to me with a straight face "science has no POV." But they don't seem to mean science as an abstract. I get laughed at when I say others ouside the SPOV group tend to agree with me. This is a good intellectual starting point, and at least I hope that we can take some sort of policy stand against SPOV and debunking, and perhaps -my suggestion- making it more obvious that weight and notability are relative to the article's subject?

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. Just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be noted to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length.

That's what's being challenged by SPOV. With SPOV, you'd have mainstream science as the most notable and WEIGHTY view in every article which deals with material reality even to any extent at all.

However, there is significant support for SPOV, even among editors outside the group, and I think it would actually not be a bad thing to embrace that. It would help make WP a much more reliable source. People would know what they're getting. I'd actually love it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you have asked me to provide a better summary of the NPOV/SPOV discussion. You asked, Would you care to provide a more neutral summary of the two positions, for those unfamiliar with the issue's history? At the moment, I think that my fellow editors would best be served by reading the extensive discussion. This is largely because there are not "two positions", as you suggest, but instead a multitude of positions, all of which are in healthy tension with one another. This is not a situation that is easily dichotomized. However, it is trivially easy to be more neutral than Martinphi has been. Instead of giving you a specific example that will only be useful in one discussion, I will give you a rule that you can use any time: when a participant in an argument tries to summarize the argument, the neutrality of the summary is inversely proportional to its length. Martinphi's summary is quite long, filled with many opinions that only represent one side of many in a complicated series of arguments. Antelan^talk 07:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, thanks for your reply. When you say, "my fellow editors would best be served by reading the extensive discussion, it's not really clear which discussion you mean. If you mean the one that's spread out over scores if not hundreds of articles, talk pages, guidelines, policies and archives, then I'm going to have to plead mortality. I can't do that, before I'm much older. If there's some specific extensive discussion to which you're referring, I'd like to know that.

I absolutely agree that there aren't "two positions" and that it's an issue that isn't easily "dichotomized". We can probably take that as an axiom. The question isn't "does NPOV=SPOV?"; the question is "What does a neutral point of view look like for a topic about which there is a scientific view, and an opposed view with some level of popular or mainstream support?" I don't know where that summary sits on your inverse-relation scale. Did I succeed in the "trivially easy", and say something more neutral than Martinphi did? I'm pretty new to this debate, which is probably an advantage and a disadvantage. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, GTB has read it all and so can correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think that with modifications of application and how extreme one should be (ScienceApologist is as extreme as you can get without invective, others are usually more moderate), it does boil down to "SPOV is mainstream scientific POV and has greatest WEIGHT in all articles or places which touch on material reality." Being neutral is why I provided quotes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, Martinphi, until there are a lot of people on the "other side" saying, "yes, MartinPhi understands our position," I'm going to take your descriptions of their position with so much salt, that I won't be able to taste anything but salt. People who are involved in protracted disagreements are typically very bad at describing their opponents' views. That's why I'm trying to persuade someone who isn't you to summarize what they think. No offense; it's just that I think you've already been clear. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let GTB speak for himself regarding the extent of his agreement with your opinions; after his comment, I'd like to see what he thinks. Clearly, when I say that your summary is a mischaracterization, I'm speaking of your editorializing and lopsided summary, not the direct quotes. Antelan^talk 08:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much about agreeing or disagreeing with his opinions, it's about which ones are his to describe and which ones aren't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagree with Martinphi and his fellow paranormal proponents about many things, I have to agree that we are probably too vague in describing NPOV for FRINGE areas. Having read the text describing it, it appears somewhat contradictory and confusing and inconsistent to me. I only know what it "is" or purportedly is from having senior editors "teach me" or "train me" or even "spoon feed me" in the area. And that is what I take to be NPOV in these FRINGE areas now and what I try to abide by. But I did not come to this through just a simple reading of the policies.--Filll (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, because of the venue here, I'd like you -on this page at least- to stop insulting me by calling me a fringe advocate. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should stop insulting your opponents by calling them "SPOV". ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, don't worry. Neutral editors will ignore as irrelevant all labels applied to people. We're here to talk about edits, not about each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly- they call themselves SPOV or advocate it, often in those words or equivalent. You said it yourself, and I've got the quotes on hand. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You guys are too much. Martinphi, if you're insulted because Filll has called you X, a very good reaction is to explain why you're not X, and then return to the substantive point as quickly as possible, before we start talking about each other, because that way lies madness. Oh, and if SA says that he finds it insulting to be called "SPOV", don't call him "SPOV". If you wish to provide quotes where he called himself that, don't gesture towards your ability to do so, just provide them, saying "that's not what you said here or here; I guess you changed your mind." If SA suggests that Filll finds it insulting to be called "SPOV", just ask Filll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Olive

• NPOV and SPOV should not be considered equal to, or even aspects of, the same level of Wikipedia policy/guideline, if considered at all. At the risk of stating the repeated obvious, NPOV is the over-arching, mother-policy in Wikipedia that sets a tone for the encyclopedia as a whole, does not refer to editors of whom there are no, truly neutral ones, or to articles which are not meant to be created as neutral, but are expected to exhibi aspects of notability, and to allow the reader to read and make decisions for themselves.

• SPOV, if it existed would have to be considered a subset of the mother policy, not an equal policy, and notably does not contain anything in this acronym that implies neutrality, a concern since I assume its use is to increase neutrality and decrease POV. Science, and scientists, as human beings, are not neutral either, nor is science some kind of fixed and unchanging field.

• The sense I have on Wikipedia these days is that there is some immutable level of science that should referenced. By definition science is not a frozen field of study but is a constant search to define phenomena through repeated observation and experimentation, relationships between cause and effects, but in all, must be considered organic, moving, changing, growing. I suspect scientists who really thought science was truth, or was stable would not be actively publishing, and would be out of jobs.

• Given this, fringe theories, today, are the possible proven theories of tomorrow, and if notable should be included in the encyclopedia. Notable has multiple layers of meaning. In its widest sense, notable does not mean necessarily notable to science obviously, but notable to human knowledge. There is no reason to expect that theories or ideas that have not been through rigorous scientific scrutiny would be notable to science. However, they may be notable in terms of general human knowledge, and should be included, even if considered fringe to science. Wikipedia takes a wide view to what is considered human knowledge. I see no reason to have a subset of Wikipedia, SPOV, that deals with a narrow view of science, and that doesn’t take into account or that excludes the notable edges of the undiscovered, and not yet proven.

• On again, another level, in an article itself, notability must be evaluated as per the weight of the article itself, not as per the weight to science in general or to weight in the even more general and larger world of knowledge. Use of SPOV, as I understand it, would reference “weight” to the world of science, not to the article where our concerns must be, and not of world the notable human knowledge. And think. If we have to include SPOV as a subset of NPOV, maybe we also have to have APOV (art), LPOV (literature), MPOV (mathematics), and so on. A thought or two.(olive (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Right- you've worked in at least one fringe article I know of. We're working on the phrasing to establish SPOV within policy below. How would you phrase policy to reject SPOV in such a way that it would actually help in writing fringe articles?

Just so people know, I'm almost neutral as to whether WP adopts SPOV. I would slightly prefer WP to adopt SPOV, but I don't think it is very likely. But I want policy to be very clear and strong on the point, one way or another. So you know where I stand on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would not prefer it to be adopted, to the exclusion of other viewpoints, as that is affirming the mainstream view must be correct, period. No real scientist would believe even the best theory is absolute truth. Therefore, at least a peep about something else, if notable enough, should be heard. Especially considering the point of WP is not to promote a specific viewpoint, but to allow the reader to come to his/her own conclusions. Trying to force the reader into accepting the SPOV (or perhaps "MPOV" -- mainstream point of view -- is a better term) does not allow for that. The reader should be able to use his/her own rational faculty to decide what they wish to believe. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of any viewpoint. That is the spirit of the NPOV policy. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but to make it clear, SPOV would not exclude other views entirly, merely give mainstream science the greatest weight. This is already what a lot of editors are trying to do in fringe areas. That's why I brought this here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Truzzi

Any thoughts on how the following (especially the bolded part, which is my emphasis) might relate to OR and the incorporation and use of fringe claims here?:

• "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual." - Marcello Truzzi [4]

I suspect that with a substitution of some words, we could get this turned into something useful for understanding the application of some policies here. -- Fyslee / talk 16:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be a bit wary there, as Truzzi's theories on what makes a "true skeptic" aren't widely accepted. In fact, his group (zetetics) is becoming is a distinct minority compared to the mainstream skeptics. The consensus among most skeptics is that there indeed is a point where it's reasonable to say a claim is disproved. I could get into that a bit more, but I'm drifting off-topic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't focus on the pseudoskeptic/skeptic discussions of the quote, but the bolded part and imagine substituting. -- Fyslee / talk 18:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

However, disproof of a claim is not the same as lack of proof for that claim. Lack of proof is not disproof. That is what is being said here. (Nor, conversely, is lack of disproof proof.) So yes, there is such a point where a claim can be disproven, but lack of proof alone is not it. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a try at substitution, making the principles apply broadly to Wikipedia's attitude toward OR/fringe POV:

• "Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of falsifiable reality (IOW, scientifically relevant matters) without incorporating poorly sourced OR/fringe/wishful thinking claims as new "facts". Editors are expected to just go on including the well-established and sourced theories of conventional science and mainstream medicine as usual."

Something like that. Try playing with it. -- Fyslee / talk 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for this. We never claim facts anyway, we attribute. This would not be a change. For SPOV, you need a stronger statement, along the lines of Mainstream science is considered to have the greatest WEIGHT in articles related to material reality. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Attributing is claiming it to be a fact that someone said something, so yes-you do claim facts. Bensaccount (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case rephrase:

"Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of scientifically relevant reality without incorporating poor or fringe sources. Editors are expected to use only well-established sources speaking about standard theories of conventional science and mainstream medicine." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good. Of course NPOV still would require mention of notable fringe POV, but not in an advocacy tone, or as if they were equally valid POV. -- Fyslee / talk 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we would need to ammend WEIGHT as well, to state specifically that mainstream science always has the greatest WEIGHT in articles which touch on material reality, even in articles on fringe subjects. The way the current policy is phrased, I believe it is best interpreted as above, WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article, and mainstream scientific POV needs to be noted just enough that the reader knows what it is, but does not have WEIGHT. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a science-specific rewording of what WEIGHT already says. Weight is not relative to the subject of the article, as you say, but is instead "in proportion to the prominence of each (significant viewpoint published by a reliable source). Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Antelan^talk 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For articles dealing with purported elements of physical reality-- or non-accepted aspects of real elements-- which are the object of attention primarily by proponents outside the conventional academic world, the SPOV has to be clearly stated, but there is no reason for ti to get the majority of the article. It is inappropriate--the article isn't about science; it is unnecessary--a simple statement of scientific views is enough to place it into proportion; and its often impossible because few with a SPV would have bothered much with the subject. The net effect would be to decrease the coverage of these subjects altogether. I think thats wrong--there are many sources for information on the net about good science, but finding a clear explanation of just what is meant by the usual pseudoscience is very difficult, and it needs attention here to provide reliable information about just what is being claimed. As I see it,"weight" is already unfair and not NPOV, because it prevents giving an adequate encyclopedic treatment of minority viewpoints. All we need is accurate articles about them.

I'm somewhat disappointed by many of my fellow scientists here. They seem to think that the way to combat error is to hide it, not expose it. You'd think they were afraid that a presentation of the nonsensical position of these things would be less convincing than the scientific. Don't they think they can prove that a fair presentation will prove the SPOV? DGG (talk) 04:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG, you write above:

• "The net effect would be to decrease the coverage of these subjects altogether."

Well, that's the whole idea of WP:NOR!!! Wikipedia doesn't want OR while editing, and Wikipedia is not to be used as a publishing house for novel, real world OR. This is not a soapbox. Such ideas deserve little mention unless they have become very notable, which often means controversial. Then, because Wikipedia documents pretty much the sum total of human knowledge, it should be mentioned, but not advocated or treated as of equal worth as subjects that are well-proven. Short mention should be enough. Note that I'm still speaking of our subject matter - scientific and fringe matters - not other stuff. -- Fyslee / talk 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, a small mention, if any, is correct in articles where the fringe idea is not the main topic. And not all notable topics have generated enough controversy to produce scientific sources. DGG doesn't mean we should do OR, he means that we should fully explicate the fringe topic with the sources avaliable, while telling the reader exactly where it stands relative to mainstream science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG - you always bring a thoughtfully inclusionist perspective, which I have long appreciated. I think that what you are saying largely works - but there are specific instances where I think there would still be trouble. For example, I'd be interested to get your thoughts regarding some fringe-science articles where no SPOV material has been published on the subject. What would be a fair presentation of SPOV for such a subject, keeping in mind WP:NOR? Antelan^talk 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is the option that one would trust the reader a little more. One would get less caught up in trying to make every sentence NPOV, and instead try and make the article as a whole NPOV. Let's take a primary example where there is little SPOV sourcing available: EVP. In that case, you would have to do two things: you would have to depend on the reader to look at the small amount of mainstream information which we could put together, which would not really make for a large amount of reading (in my own opinion, the reader is more likely to read small sections). Second, you would have to depend somewhat on sister articles which would be linked right from the lead, like spirit, paranormal, telekinesis etc. Unless the reader does not understand the basic terms (and also can't be bothered to read their definition), there is no chance of misleading the reader. One can fully explicate the beliefs by using sources from within the field, which, as User:Tom_Butler says are often self-published. And as DGG says, there is really no doubt that the reader will leave with a thorough knowledge of where the subject stands relative to mainstream science.

Where you would get into trouble with believers and also people like me is in the details: do you have to define the thing in a basically sneering way...... to paraphrase ScienceApologist, "EVP are static on the radio which some believers styling themselves "paranormal researchers" believe are the paranormal voices of spirits." Or do you depend on the reader's common sense "EVP are defined as paranormal voices or voice-like sounds which investigators believe are the voices of spirits." Or some such difference, I forget the exact wordings (but the SA one is pretty accurate).

Alternately, one can do SPOV, which would (as advocated by ScienceApologist and Fyslee and a few others on the wtbdwk? page) require that we allow just a little OR, in that standard textbooks which don't actually mention the subject of the article would be tapped to fill in the missing information.

Also, the fringe sources like the AA-EVP would (as SA is indeed advocating) be eliminated as unreliable and non-notable, even when fully attributed.

We could make good articles this way, because it would be fine if the reader knew that WP is a mainstream science source. It would be fine. In fact, is the easiest and most straight-forward way to go. Also, it is probably the way which will give the most reliable information to the reader, because mainstream science, taken as a whole, is the most reliable soure of information about material reality. The only thing that we don't want is the current situation where we haven't chosen which way to go. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

DGG wrote:

I'm somewhat disappointed by many of my fellow scientists here. They seem to think that the way to combat error is to hide it, not expose it. You'd think they were afraid that a presentation of the nonsensical position of these things would be less convincing than the scientific. Don't they think they can prove that a fair presentation will prove the SPOV?

I think one thing that you are missing, David, is that the point of our encyclopedia is not to "combat error" but rather to present reliable, verifiable information. Sure, if our intention was to write "debunkopedia" then we might want to do exactly as you outline. But our intention is to write an encyclopedia that, at least naively, is supposed to be something of a comprendium of human knowledge. Be that as it may, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is, most oddball ideas that come down the pipe are considered unworthy for inclusion in our encyclopedia. I see you voting delete on many of these subjects at the article level when they come up. It is up to the collective consensus of editors to decide how to handle them when they come up in articles that definitely should exist (e.g. ghost).

You seem to be convinced that what I and my allies are doing is "hiding" errors. This isn't quite true. Errors that are notable should be explored completely. But part of what establishes the notability of an error is whether it has received notice outside of the small cohort of individuals who advocate the error. You may think that the axis of the Earth has shifted, but unless someone else notices your "error", it does not belong in this encyclopedia. This is why it is so important to remember that it is the experts in the scientific community who determine what is notable about material reality. If an idea about material reality is noteworthy, then there will be verifiable and reliable independent sources that either point out its veracity or falsehood. However, if there is no notice of the idea outside the small group of advocates, then we exclude this idea from the encyclopedia. That's why we have an article on time cube but not on divulgence.net: we're ultimately publicity whores at Wikipedia in that publicity is ultimately what establishes whether we discuss erroneous ideas and consider them worthy of inclusion in our encyclopedia's articles or not.

The concern of certain Paranormal Wikiproject members has been that we might start excising mythology and even religion from articles or including silly statements like "it is physically impossible for water to turn into wine" in every reporting of that particular story. I have to say that this is a ridiculous strawman argument. Religion has its place as religion and mythology has its place as mythology. What does get problematic is when editors use mythology or religious exceptionalism to make claims about material reality. For example, if an editor started an article on water into wine transformation and used the story from the gospels as material evidence for the veracity of this occurrence, this would be unencyclopedic. It is this kind of advocacy that is being resisted by myself and those who agree with me. A myth need not make any claims on material reality in point-of-fact, but as soon as it is identified as an accurate description of reality, it is necessary for us to evaluate whether the source is reliable enough to make such a claim and, if it isn't, whether reporting that claim should be done in light of the fact that the source isn't reliable. That's where mythology/religion crosses the boundary into fringe theories, and that's where science wakes up and takes notice. If the claim is notable, then there will surely be plenty of sources agreeing with it or disputing it. If there are no independent sources dealing with the claim, then it is questionable as to whether the claim should be in Wikipedia at all.

The issue is that many fringe claims about material reality are so obscure that no reliable sources about material reality (read scientific community) has taken note to discuss them. That's when deleting/excising becomes necessary in order to maintain the integrity of our encyclopedia. You can consider it an extention of no original research mixed with sourcing rules. The issue is that if all the sources possible about a subject are written by true believers, the idea does not meet the threshholds required for inclusion at Wikipedia. Independent notice of the idea is really all that is required. If none exists then removal of content is required. The burden of proof is on the person wanting to include the material, not on the person that wants to exclude it. If the person wanting to include this fringe claim can find an independent source that identifies the claim, then we can proceed in describing it. If not, then we have to consider it not encyclopedic. That's the trick: that's the thing that bugs the hell out of the Paranormalists, and it's the activity in which I engage for which I am most hated here.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"If an idea about material reality is noteworthy, then there will be verifiable and reliable independent sources that either point out its veracity or falsehood." Except that isn't true. There are some notable subjects with no RS critical sources, though I think you would have us accept avowedly biased sources like the Skeptic's Dictionary. Yet, you contradict yourself: "The issue is that many fringe claims about material reality are so obscure that no reliable sources about material reality (read scientific community) has taken note to discuss them." IOW, notable enough for WP, but with no scientific community sources.

However, we are well aware of the notability guidelines, which you are in large part just repeating here. You confuse me on this issue, because the real issue is that there are issues with mainstream notice, thus notability, but no scientific refutation.

But, it isn't really the important thing- notability is not the question, and notability has not really caused any problems in the past.

You have yourself advocated that:

I think that it is not unreasonable to take every claim about observable reality that is contrary to science (no matter how small) and point out, plainly, that it is contrary to science.... Plainly stating this and referencing a standard text[book -MP] on the subject… ScienceApologist (this was about a movie review article) [5]

and

Editors who think that SPOV is somehow contrary to NPOV and use the religious exceptionalism argument haven't really thought through what exactly SPOV is. ScienceApologist [6]

So people can be forgiven for thinking you mean this.

Anyway, I really see no problems with notability- if it hasn't gained mainstream notice, just exclude it. The problem arises with the perspective from which we make the articles, and when the subject has notability, but no really scientific sources. In other words, the issue is really SPOV. If you ever need help deleting a non-notable article, just let me know, you are not using all your allies in this. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Your rejection of perfectly legitimate sources like Robert Carroll is one of the things that makes you such a problematic editor, but that's irrelevant here: it's an issue for WP:RS. Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing notable nonsensical claim. He is someone we rely on heavily, is an excellent scholar, and has never been discredited by anyone except for those who have sympathy for the fringe. As a mainstream source, he's often as good as it gets. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Carroll

Overall, SA's post just above strikes me as worthy of a new section. SA said:

Your rejection of perfectly legitimate sources like Robert Carroll is one of the things that makes you such a problematic editor, but that's irrelevant here: it's an issue for WP:RS. Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing notable nonsensical claim. He is someone we rely on heavily, is an excellent scholar, and has never been discredited by anyone except for those who have sympathy for the fringe. As a mainstream source, he's often as good as it gets. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I never rejected Carroll as a source. I reject Carroll as a source for flat statements of fact. Perhaps you don't, but then you don't need sources for flat statements of fact [7].

Why mention irrelevant things?

Carroll will continue to be used as an excellent source for framing the skeptical opinion of notable nonsensical claims.

"He is someone we rely on heavily..." Who's this "we?"

Carroll is mainstream? No. Carroll is a hardened skeptic, and says himself that he is not mainstream. He also says he is biased, and doesn't even try to take a balanced view.

Carroll does not try for balance:

The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. [8]

Carroll is biased:

My beliefs are clearly that of a hardened skeptic. [9]

Carroll's online Skeptic's Dictionary (most often used here as a source) is a self-published personal website.

The main drawback is the one which comes from self-publishing. There is no peer or professional review process. [10]

This is just the kind of source that you would rain derision on if it wasn't in accordance with your POV. As Carroll says,

As already stated, the one group that this book is not designed for is that of the true believers. My studies have convinced me that arguments or data critical of their beliefs are always considered by the true believer to be insignificant, irrelevant, manipulative, deceptive, not authoritative, unscientific, unfair, biased, closed-minded, irrational, and/or diabolical. (It is perhaps worth noting that except for the term “diabolical,” these are the same terms some hardened skeptics use to describe the studies and evidence presented by true believers.) [11]

Indeed. Those are the words used for sources SA doesn't like. Heck, I saw the NIH and AMA described thus. SA's little post above is just the kind of thing I have to deal with all the time in fringe articles. It's why SPOV is dangerous to WP. Carroll is fine for a skeptical opinion. He is not very good as an RS:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious..." [12]

——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Carroll's website is the online version of a published book, and Carroll is an academic in any case which I believe can make a difference in the case of self-published websites. [by Dougweller]

I know. That's why he can be a worthwhile source at all. Otherwise, it's just like some blog. The site contains much more, and some portion different, than the book, it isn't just an online version. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's like claiming that 2+2=4 is the "skeptical opinion" while 2+2=5 is another opinion. There are people that have different opinions about material reality, but Carroll is someone whose opinion about material reality is actually verifiably the only one that deserves any WP:WEIGHT when dealing with the actual point-of-fact (non)existence of the craziness idiots believe in. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!! That is such a perfect statement. Please, everyone, note that there are a lot of editors who agree with ScienceApologist ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been puzzling over this last statement for days. I asked Martin a week ago in another place for a specific example of what he means by the distinction he's making between SPOV and NPOV, so I could understand it, as it seems a false dichotomy to me. He has ignored the question there, and I find the discussion here as incomprehensible as the discussion over there, as it's still unclear to me what he means in a practical sense, what an article would look like if edited by his version of NPOV and how that would differ from how it would look if edited by what he calls SPOV, and why policy should be changed to accommodate the difference. I don't know anything about Carroll, but yes, I'm proud to be counted among those who agree with ScienceApologist that 2+2=4 and that the encyclopedia should say so if the topic happens to come up. Surely Martin isn't meaning to suggest that 2+2=5 is an equally valid "POV" and should be included in the encyclopedia if sources can be found where this erroneous conclusion has been drawn? Woonpton (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

See, you're new to these, ah, discussions. And that's good, because it means you haven't gotten entrenched. If you read DGG above, well, he said it better than I would, and much more convincingly because of his history. (Search for the post starting "what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which".) The difference boils down to whether we are going to make derogatory statements, or statements which are not ATTributed, or whether we are going to try to juxtapose things in a way which shoves the reader's mind in the direction of science, or mainstream science. Specific examples.... OK, but forgive me for using another SA example. He just gives the best examples, that's all [13]. Note how derogatory the lead sounds "interpreted by some people who believe in the subject and call themselves paranormal researchers as voices speaking words. Some of these people attribute these noises to ghosts or spirits." ScienceApologist wanted to be very sure that the reader couldn't really believe these people were "researchers," [14] but rather that they called themselves that (see talk). That's SPOV. At other times, I believe SA or others actually put the criticism of EVP above the explanation of EVP so that you didn't know what it was that was being criticized. That's SPOV WEIGHT. In reality, it doesn't have anything to do with science, it has to do with what seems to be fear that the reader will go away with the wrong idea. That is the most basic statement I can think of. SPOV, as practiced, is not science. Rather, it is trying by any means- whether WEIGHT or order of words, or derogatory words, or re-writing WP:FRINGE or whatever, to denigrate fringe topics. Notice the current edition of FRINGE. It was recently edited by SPOV editors to include the ArbCom they agree with... and to leave out the ArbCom they don't agree with. SPOV, as practiced, is POV pushing for the POV of mainstream science, and doing it in the name of NPOV. And the stupidest thing is that it just makes the scientific side look prickish. But I digress. Read what DGG said, and then maybe hearing it from him you'll believe it.

As I say above, though, SPOV would be OK if WP were honest about pushing the POV of mainstream science. Then the reader would expect that, and it wouldn't be pushing, it would be like reading an editorial.

SPOV naturally refutes fringe ideas, by disagreement. Simply telling the reader, "here is what mainstream science says about this" isn't SPOV. Or rather, it is the good kind of SPOV which is also NPOV. But telling the reader in a pushy way, or larding articles with huge amounts of criticism, or refuting every sentence or two, or putting doubt words at every mention- that's the bad kind of SPOV. And don't think dumb people are that dumb. Even if they don't know it consciously, they will sense the fear which caused the article to turn that negative. They will know that those who edited feared the fringe idea. They will therefore feel deep down that the fringe idea is more powerful than they otherwise would. The best refutation is genuine and relaxed laughter or calm and succinct statements. The best confirmation of the power of a fringe idea is fear or vitriolic disgust, or underhanded casting of aspersions. And that's what SPOVers try to do. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This last statement by Martinphi is a blatant personal attack on me. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Martin, a couple of observations:

• The way I read it, both you and DGG (and most reasonable people, I would think) object to a certain tone people sometimes take when insisting that an article follow policy. But DGG doesn't call that tone "SPOV" as you do, nor do I see him calling for a change in policy as a way of eliminating the tone. You here seem to be defining SPOV as discourtesy, in which case your call to adopt SPOV as official policy has to be considered disingenuous, at best.
• You didn't answer my question about 2+2=5, but the example you give seems exactly equivalent to 2+2=5, in that it describes a belief that doesn't follow well-established understanding or normal rational thought processes, and is easily refuted by simple critical thinking or observation. And it occurs to me that people who have been arguing for years against 2+2=5 and its corollaries might get a little short-tempered after a while, but the fact that people are sometimes rude when trying to ensure NPOV doesn't mean NPOV should be scrapped.

Thank you for your answer; I think I finally understand where you're coming from. I personally would not like to see WP:NPOV policy altered to better suit your purposes. Woonpton (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV/NPOV wording

Suggestions:

WP is SPOV

Suggestion 1:

Wikipedia must continue to build its descriptions of scientifically relevant reality without incorporating poor or fringe sources. Editors are expected to use only well-established sources speaking about standard theories of conventional science. In all articles which make claims about material reality, the group that has by far the most significant viewpoint and must be given the highest prominence in the article is the scientific community. last sentence paraphrased from here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A fundamental policy about neutrality shouldn't base its mission statement off an idea that has its own set of detractors, especially when it favors one side of a philosophical debate that is necessary to define the 'S' in the POV to begin with. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SPOV may not be perfect, but it is the best general arbiter of truth we have. Anyway, WP needs to specifically embrace or reject this, in policy. Else we continue to have problems with it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV may not be perfect, but it is the best model for an encyclopedia anyone can edit. WP doesn't need to embrace or reject SPOV. It's already embraced NPOV. Editors and all their baggage determine by consensus whether NPOV and SPOV are one and the same on a topical basis. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Unproven claims are not necessary unfalsifiable. Different things. mike4ty4 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP is not SPOV

Suggestion 1:

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. For example, just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be mentioned to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length. Fringe sources, when properly attributed may be used in articles about fringe subjects. Mainstream science is a notable viewpoint when dealing with fringe views that make serious claims about material reality, and articles on fringe subjects must make appropriate reference to it. Also, fringe articles must not reflect an attempt to rewrite mainstream scientific content from the perspective of the fringe view. On the other hand, fringe topics are not written from the perspective of mainstream science, but should written with the tone that all positions presented are at least worthy of unbiased representation. (wording adapted from current NPOV article) ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This says it is adapted from the NPOV policy but it's actually not. WP:NPOV doesn't talk about prominence relative to other subjects, nor context-gaming so that a topic becomes more prominent by selecting the right conditions. You can create the right context so that either Evolution or Creationism is more prominent than it is under other conditions, but NPOV doesn't do that. NPOV simply talks about prominence in general, as it should since it is a non-negotiable core policy not subject to editorial discretion. It's the WP:FRINGE guideline that inteprets NPOV and prominence as context-dependent, which is fine because it's a guideline. NPOV doesn't. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said- what you're calling general prominence is the same as prominence relative to the subject of the article (general relative to the subject). The alternatives are absolute prominence, in which case Atheism needs to be redone in relation to its absolute prominence- that is, mainly talked about from the Christian, then from the Hindu and Chinese perspectives, etc. The other alternative is "prominence relative to truth," that is the religious truth, the SPOV truth, etc. etc. General proinmence is the same as prominence relative to the article. We're saying the same thing. And it isn't fine for a guideline to subvert a policy, if that's what it does. If FRINGE really interprets prominence as dependent on social or truth context, it needs a rewrite.

I practice, prominence relative to the article works well, because the subjects don't interfere with each other too much, and the notable alternate views are merely noted. This is what is being subverted, and either WP needs to embrace the truth-context of SPOV, or it needs to specifically -and in policy- say that prominence is relative to the subject. We seem to agree on that, and that is what a lot of editors get wrong: they want to interpret prominence relative to the higher truth-value of science. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE doesn't need a rewrite and it doesn't contradict the NPOV policy. It's only a guideline, and the prominence-context it covers as a guideline mentions that prominence is relative to "[a topic's] particular field of study", not "social or truth context". There's nothing wrong with either the NPOV policy or the FRINGE guideline. If anywhere, a statement that SPOV is not NPOV necessarily belongs in either WP:SPOV or WP:FRINGE. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but as you see above, that isn't the change I'm actually suggesting. It makes the current policy clearer without changing it, and as a side effect deals with the problem. Everything but the last sentence would be good without our current situation. Just to make it clearer. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Dissent

Note: This is a dissent to the whole concept of putting in a clause covering SPOV vs. NPOV. This debate doesn't belong in a policy. At best it belongs in an essay or guideline.

Call me a purest or minimalist, but Wikipedia already has excellent policies regarding neutrality and already addresses all of the above, "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" in "proportion to prominence". It doesn't need a clause regarding the scientific point of view and non-scientific point of view. Sometimes science is more prominent and sometimes it isn't... it's a case by case basis. On each topic editors must decide for themselves what is more prominent, and no other criteria beyond prominence matters except fairness. This is a "non-negotiable" policy, and it's meant to be simple and basic. The rest is regulated to guidelines and essays designed to help editors along, but provide no hard rules. You have groups of what I guess could be called "wiki-political" editors looking for sweeping changes to be made to policy so they can edit the way they want to. That's fine as far as guidelines go, but I'd like to see the fundamental policy of NPOV protected from them. This proposal should be moved to the WP:FRINGE guideline and away from the WP:NPOV policy. The basic fundamental policy that runs Wikipedia should be abstract and non-specific (especially on this politically charged topic). Of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia it is the only one that describes a "tone of voice". With the multitude of tones one can choose from, and the multitude of topics Wikipedia covers, I'd argue that the whole topic of SPOV vs. non-SPOV is not prominent enough to be covered in a basic fundamental policy that is meant to cover everything under the sun. I'm sure everyone who disagrees with me will say something along the lines of it's a make or break the project issue, but it's seriously not. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes editors say that "proportion to prominence" means "in proportion to their reliability as descriptors of material reality." Rather than their notability per sources and relative to the subject of the article. We need to either embrace SPOV, or make that clear. You say "each topic." Well, people who believe in SPOV have been saying "in all topics which touch on material reality, science has WEIGHT." If it's simple and basic, it ain't simple enough. Yes, this is also my interpretation of current policy, but that is not what a lot of editors want to do. And, since there are good options either way, there is no reason not to make a good firm statement about the subject which one can point to when needed. And I don't see why we'd want to weaken it by making it a guideline instead of policy. We need clear policy dealing with science and fringe topics. SPOV is fine. And NPOV is fine, but needs to be clear and needs to be firm specific policy. No reason WP:NPOV can't have a little section on fringe and pseudoscientific subjects- that's all it would take. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So? They interpret NPOV one way and you interpret it another. Happens all the time on hundreds of topics not related to SPOV/non-SPOV as well. That's not surprising considering number five in the WP:FIVE is "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". You're arguing for a firm rule, in fact a modification of the prime directive in order to cover one group of articles that are fringe and by definition of little importance. Wikipedia works off basic non-negotiable policies, of which there are few, and then "suggestions" in the form of guidelines that can be completely ignored depending on editorial discretion. That shouldn't change as it's a fundamental characteristic of Wikipedia, and certainly shouldn't change just to cover low-importance articles. If someone wants to interpret NPOV as SPOV on certain articles, well that's their right as an editor. Consensus decides what actually makes it into the article and what remains "sticky". Consensus varies depending on the topic. Sometimes SPOV is NPOV. Not always, and not never, but that's why Wikipedia does not have firm rules. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree in any way to include SPOV as a policy or guideline. NPOV is a statement on neutrality and is non-point of view driven, and as I said above is the mother principle on Wikipedia. SPOV is point of view driven and at best is a sub-topic. As Neal says consensus drives decisions, not the addition of a policy or guideline that allows for point of view driven decisions. What is considered fringe is a whole other topic but fringe material is not just on the fringes of science but on all information. There is a element of simplicuty in the policy of NPOV as it now exists . Certainly, it depends on the mature, intelligent environmets created but Wikipedia editors, hopefully we can all come up to the mark in that area. As well SPOV refers to science point of view as a whole not to articles on science.Within an article what is "weight" must reference the article itself, and not the whole of science. Collaboration does not work well with the systematic clamping down of rules for operation, but allows for trust in the editors, and in return requires a certain level of responsibility from the editors themselves.(olive (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Neal on all counts. NPOV provides suitable guidance here; "prominence" is prominence, and its interpretation on specific articles is best hashed out on those articles' talk pages. Most editors are able to work with this level of abstraction; those who cannot often have a specific non-prominent viewpoint which they hope to advance. Changing this fundamental policy at the behest of a small group of editors (on whichever side) who seek to advance specific points of view would be a mistake. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically what you're saying is that per basic policy, it would be OK to interpret prominence to mean that the Atheism article should be 95% from the perspective of religion, and the EVP article should be 95% from the perspective of EVP advocates. Or anything inbetween those extremes. It's totally up to the common sense of the editors. Well, people don't have that much common sense, and it would be easy to fix this little problem without doing any major tinkering with the current system. This isn't about NPOV per se, it's about Weight. To you both- this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard around here. You're saying that NPOV is a matter of opinion, and that everyone's opinion is valid, while at the same time we know that NPOV is not negotiable. That means that you can have editors who quite validly decide not to compromise. Then, at the same time, you say that NPOV is determined by consensus.

If you want to have a WP where the bias of editors is the way of the wiki, well then say that anyone's interpreatation is valid. But that is in fact not NPOV at all. That's APOV, Anarchy Point Of View. It will not produce NPOV. Such an interpretation is antethetical to NPOV, it tosses NPOV is completely out the window in favor of whatever any editor wants to make of it. It institutionalizes gang editing. In fact, it says that everything everyone has been doing, including me and the SPOV group, and the 9/11 people and EVERYONE is just A-OK.

New motto for WP: What I think is NPOV, and NPOV is not negotiable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You put a lot of words in my mouth that I never said, including "everyone's opinion is valid". There's a hierarchal structure that makes some opinions better than others. The hierarchy: WP Policy (WP:NPOV) and then -> WP Guidelines (WP:FRINGE for example). Policy is a hard rule. Guidelines (as every guideline says) are "a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Non-negotiable means no exception. Guidelines allow for exceptions. But by no means are all opinions equal. An opinion based on WP:FRINGE is more valued than one that's contradictory to it, because WP:FRINGE is a "generally accepted standard" built by consensus. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which are known to have certain weaknesses -- as seen by the uninvolved --0when defending things they care about. The reason I stopped editing articles on evolution was the attitude of some other pro-evolution editors, who did not want the views of the other side presented as well as the could have been, and accused me of treason. But to my understanding, the best defense to to oppose the true case, as the other side would have stated it had they been able. And then there was the problem of some of these same uninformed defenders of SPOV, who did not understand the difference between strong and weak arguments from their side, and wanted to include everything. I suppose I could have formed an sockpuppet as a creationist--if anyone is wondering, I didn't. The problem with NPOV is "merely" that of good editing. There's nothing special about it.

I continue to hold that. To summarize, this is a recurrent and difficult question. Basically, there is almost always some SPOV material available. It's OK if it takes 5 paragraphs to present an absurd idea so it makes as much sense as it's going to make, with one paragraph at the end to give the information that shows to any reasonable person that it's nonsense (along with having this also in the lede paragraph) Balance doesnt have to be measured in words. It doesn't after all take much science to clarify most of this stuff. If the SPOV is the valid one and well presented, anyone not committed to the idea will understand after even a short presentation. In fact, strategically it's even better.

So the problem shows up mainly where there's no science at all Most of the time, either t here is not enough pseudoscience to make it notable as such, in which case we don't need an article on it at all, or it is so ridiculous that just explaining it makes it clear what the status is. Nobody thinks we endorse the ideas in our articles. Neutral editing is a technical task, and some people involved in a subject simply are unable to do it. I consider the call for a principle of SPOV as admission of their inability to handle the subject adequately in a truly objective spirit. If you want to encourage the forces of unreason, an admission that we don't have people here who are prepared to handle the medium effectively will do it nicely. More benignly, it's the frustration of reasonable people who are not used to opposition from the unreasonable and ignorant. To work here one must get used to that. This is WP, and those who want to write a textbook of science should do so--elsewhere.

Personally, I simply do not se the problem in the first place. I think we do have enough people. All the major absurdities are being dealt with. We just need to search out the articles that have been hiding from the light in obscure corners. DGG (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know I agree with you completely on these issues. And that's a really interesting story! The only thing I'm trying for here is a way to say "look, that really isn't what WP means by its policy." I'm looking for something to point to, anything that will work, whether SPOV or clearer NPOV. I don't want a policy change, but I do think that if people helped we could come up with something which would not change current understanding, practice, and policy, but which would help prevent POV pushing both in fringe and general articles. I think the general policy can afford to deal with the issue, and doesn't need to change.

I think the formulation "WEIGHT is relative to the subject of the article and minority views need to be clearly stated but need now be dwelt on" or something similar, would help a lot. I don't think that is a change from current understanding, general practice, current policy, or common sense. As I said, I'm also fine with SPOV, but I'm not fine with constantly being told I mis-interpret policy and having people be unwilling to help make policy so clear that even a dunce like me can understand it. No, I don't want to take away the flexibility. Maybe people could just help with the wording?

But I disagree that we have enough people who want to edit along the lines you describe. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting policy is done through guidelines. I would start there (with a new or existing one). Guidelines represent a consensus on how to interpret policy without being stuck with a "rule" everyone has to follow no matter what, which is what it sounds like you're asking for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's why not: change to SPOV is not something you do from the fringes, but it is a modification of a core policy. But my clarification of the NPOV policy is so gentle that it is not even a change, yet deals with the problem by making things clear. We are not looking to change NPOV at all in the "WP is not SPOV" version above. We are only looking to change WP in the SPOV version, which can't be done from the edges except by subversion as it is now being done.

Making NPOV clear is what this is about:

WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article. For example, just as Creationism is a notable minority view in Evolution, Evolution is a notable minority view in Creationism. Notable minority views must be mentioned to the extent that their position is understandable, but need not be explicated at length. Fringe sources, when properly attributed may be used in articles about fringe subjects. Mainstream science is a notable viewpoint when dealing with fringe views that make serious claims about material reality, and articles on fringe subjects must make appropriate reference to it. Also, fringe articles must not reflect an attempt to rewrite mainstream scientific content from the perspective of the fringe view.

It doesn't say anything new, just makes current policy and general practice clear. And it takes care of the problem. Look at the current WEIGHT wording, and you'll see it isn't really a change. But it would help things. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure it's a change. All the examples of what your addition will effect are not uncontroversial interpretations of policy. You say it doesn't say anything new but it actually does. For example, "WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article". That's one interpretation, sure, but not one that's written anywhere. It's not in NPOV, and not even in FRINGE. FRINGE sets it as relative to "the field of study", not the subject of the article, and that's just what editors have come up with over time as a good idea or general rule, not a hard rule that editors must follow. If one convincingly argued that the "field of study" for both Creationism and Evolution was a simple "Origins" field, then Evolution would have the greatest prominence in both articles because both scientific academics and religious academics generally agree that Evolution is accurate. Religious academics see Creation as part of the mythology of Christianity rather than how it actually happened. Only by switching the field of study to general religious adherents (not academics) do we get a group of people who take the Bible as a literal account. Throwing all of this into the core policy is making editorial rulings on something that should be discussed, debated, and developed into a consensus on how those topics should be covered.

Also, your mention of fringe sources belongs in WP:RS and WP:FRINGE (if anywhere), not WP:NPOV as it little to with neutrality. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to amplify on what Neal said, one problem with the proposed change is that it's highly prescriptive. Policy works best when it describes what works and when it grows out of common practice. The proposed text, on the other hand, seems intended to influence or coerce people to stop doing X and start doing Y. Also, the first sentence is actually a major change in policy: "WEIGHT and Notability are relative to the subject of the article" is absolutely different from the current text, which specifies representation among experts on a subject as the basis for determining due weight. WP:FRINGE specifies the "field of study" as the context for notability; again, your proposed text would override this. I don't think this kind of major change should be considered without much wider input. And what is a "serious claim about material reality"? Does the paranormal deal with "material reality"? I think this is a layer of obscurity we can do without. MastCell ^Talk 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As to whether I can summarize the situation neutrally, the answer is that you won't find anyone who stuck with it very long without being invested. That's why I gave quotes. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the quotes are fine, but the summary does the topic an injustice. Antelan^talk 02:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And you refused to give one yourself, and told people to read the equivalent of a book or two. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

SPOV- response to all reactions

This is to everyone here, Wikipedia in general. We have a situation in fringe areas in which editors are (in their own words) promoting SPOV. There are other editors promoting other things. There are next to no editors who are not promoting anything. The policies are vague enough that each side can, without getting absolutely and completely caught, act as if their interpretation is obvious and correct. You have an ArbCom decision which fixed most of this being ignored and reviled [15].

I'm tired of fighting the good fight. I have tried my best to promote exactly the style and content recommended by DGG above. His an my position are exactly the same in terms of content. For this, I have gotten a reputation as a fringe POV pusher.

I mostly stopped editing, but tried for a while to influence things in a way which would try to resolve this situation. I mean what I say above: it doesn't matter what angle WP chooses. But pretending to be NPOV while actually being SPOV (which is what we're heading toward) or any other POV is a betrayal of the reader.

I hear from DGG, an SPOV advocate in his personal outlook (I mean that I believe his basic outlook is more or less that of conventional science): "what else can you expert? last thing I heard, we were edited by humans, which are known to have certain weaknesses -- as seen by the uninvolved --0when defending things they care about. The reason I stopped editing articles on evolution was the attitude of some other pro-evolution editors, who did not want the views of the other side presented as well as the could have been, and accused me of treason." His experience on Evolution is reflected in every fringe/paranormal article.

That is the situation. I have presented my best suggestion for improving the situation above. The only other possibility I know of would be if the community started acting like it rea