Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:18, 26 April 2015

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Spoken Wikipedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Shortcut

WT:NPOV

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.

Poor example

For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

In one discussion someone quoted the NPOV policy including this piece. At least two persons did not recognize it as part of policy and viewed it akin to a frivolous argument "ad Hitlerium". Further, this example teaches using bad style. A professional encyclopedia must replace the phrase "genocide is evil" with "genocide is crime against humanity", i.e., it is evil, but not simply because John X says so.

Of course, I understand what example meant to say, but IMO it is poor choice. This example must be replaced with the one in the area which is clearly the matter of opinions rather than established facts. In the talk page I mentioned I made the following suggestion:

Instead or writing "the movie sucks" it is better to write "John X says the movie sucks". Still better, there are reviewers which aggregate the reviews, so the article may quote them to say, e.g. "65% reviews say the movie sucks".

I didn't realize it was policy quoted, so my suggestion was sloppily phrased. Please consider its merits apart from wording. My version has an additional benefit of suggestion to search for something more than a single wise man say, which is IMO an important part of NPOV. -M.Altenmann >t 18:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make several good points. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I'd like to add an additional reason: genocide is a very controversial event about which most people unilaterally agree is both evil and wrong. Although it isn't Wikipedia's place to make moral assertions, using such a controversial one will lead to misunderstanding and controversy. It's best to use a less morally charged example. As for how a professional encyclopedia would word it, I'd say that it would be worded that "genocide is considered to be a crime against humanity". Some encyclopedias take a more direct stance and state a moral opinion like in your example, but others (including Wikipedia) tend to distance themselves from these claims to be completely neutral and disinterested in every instance. But yes, I agree with your points, and I do think this should be changed. Perhaps something like:

Instead of writing "this movie is bad", it is better to write "John X thought this movie was bad". Better still, "on Date A, John X believed the movie to be poorly made", preferably with a quote from John X describing his opinion. Since many sites aggregate reviews, it may be better to simply document these aggregates instead, as in "On Metacritic, 65% of reviews rated this movie poorly, stating that it was 'A', 'B', and 'C', among other reasons".

Perhaps not the best suggestion, but a thought. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily a good idea to determine weight by amount of published review articles.

The circumcision article on wikipedia has clearly given most weight to medical aspects, because most of the review articles are medical. This makes it appear like people generally are circumcising their kids because of medical reasons, which clearly isn't the case. Most people are circumcising their kids because of cultural fashion, tradition and/or religion. It would therefore be better to have a wikipedia article about circumcision that mainly focuses on cultural fashion, tradition and religion, rather than on medical aspects. The same might be true for other wikipedia articles, that have been "hijacked" by the medical community on wikipedia. 84.210.54.80 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes accepted knowledge as contained in the best RS. If the aspect of a topic most covered in RS is the medical aspect, Wikipedia shall reflect that. In the case of circumcision, this is demonstrably the case[1]. The suite of articles has ones dedicated to religious, historial and ethical aspects. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow Alex and 84. I read this discussion as I tried to understand the issue more. In that talk of whether to prioritize the religious or medical reasons for circumcision in the main article, I feel it's correct to mention the medical aspect of circumcision first but for a different reason. That discussion started with saying there were more reliable sources pertaining to the medical aspect and to prove that they searched a science website. That seems a fallacy, why not search some religious websites or better yet read some religious historical books? But the number of sources is a bad reason for assigning priorities. What will most people that search wiki for the term "circumcision" be looking for. Hard to say. Which is more important, religion? Or medical. Whether god exists or not and whether he wants us to cut penises or not doesn't matter as much as the real world issue of whether this surgery can kill someone by mistake, whether it can hurt your sex life, whether it actually prevents HIV and STDS or not. So the answer to these questions, as best as they can be answered by reliable sources, should be prioritized. This link is in the main article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision and it should stay, if anyone is wondering about that topic they can click on it. Popish Plot (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia phrase, "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" is a phrase which only "slipped into" Wikipedia Policy last summer. I personally think that it is far too vague of a phrase, and in fact encourages a certain type of POV in articles. In the case of this article regarding circumcision, it has apparently caused the editors over there to "drop the ball" as far as I can see. The WHO clearly advocates for circumcision (using standard modern medical procedures) in all countries, yet the article fails to recognize this. See the full Britannica article on circumcision (though the recent WHO literature does focus on African countries, it in no way states that its recommendations re circumcision apply only to Africa).

Our editors at the circumcision article have overlooked that one almost central important fact. They became so locked into trying to figure out what the "proportion of the articles" is, that the article itself suffered. Britannica editors are not forced to have to struggle with such a difficult phrase regarding the supposed "proportion of the articles". I think that this very ill-defined phrase "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" should again not be included in Wikipedia policy. It limits Wikipedia to the POV's of the editors who are best at convincing others that they know whatever the supposed "proportion of articles" is. The fact that 9 months later, editors are still "choking" on this one phrase here at the NPOV talk page is interesting. Wikipedia policy should be restored to the more sane way it served us well its first 11 years. Scott P. (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section that helped address this issue, "Balancing aspects", was reworded to make it fairly identical to "Due and undue weight", instead of being the common sense counter-balance it was intended to be. That debate took place in late 2014. Several disagreed with the change, but there wasn't enough to revert it and we never came up with an alternative. It's worth more discussion. Morphh ^(talk) 12:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scottperry (Scott P.), you need to stop significantly changing the policy page, like you did here, without WP:Consensus. You tried this before, adding Jimbo material and whatnot, and were thoroughly rejected. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel welcome to explain your reasoning below. Allowing two differing viewpoints in the same article is a different topic. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_48#Jimbo_Wales.2C_DUE.2C_and_articles_specifically_about_thought_systems --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True NPOV is not possible due to Wikipedia's inherent bias

This may well have been covered before, and I'm sorry, but I'm not going to peruse all 47 archives just to find out. It seems worth mentioning somewhere (and maybe I just missed it) that true neutrality can never be achieved on Wikipedia simply due to its community of editors. Anytime you have one subgroup of a population (in this case, primarily affluent, primarily western, primarily male, primarily academic, primarily urban -- I could go on) you will have ingrained bias. There is little that can be done about it, of course, but it seems worthy of mention in this article. I realize a lot of work has been put in to attempt to counteract it, but it simply cannot be entirely eliminated. The best example I can give is to just start reading talk pages and RfC's. I realize those are not content, but they are where content originates. And they effectively make clear that the majority rules on Wikipedia -- reality has little bearing. Kwagoner (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, this isn't an article. It's a policy page. What you are talking about would be more appropriate to mention in an article discussing the difficulties of achieving a neutral point of view (and yes it is difficult), but on a policy page, it would be a distraction. The purpose of a policy page is to explain what our policy is. In this case, our policy is to present material from a Neutral Point of View. That may be difficult... We may not always achieve the goal of the policy... but it is still the policy never the less. Something else to consider, mentioning that we don't always live up to the policy would give wikilawyers a "loophole" to exploit). Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is not about treating subjects in a neutral way but treating reliable sources in a neutral way. That is certainly achievable. The fact that the Wikipedia population is mostly affluent, western, male, academic, urban is not a problem because so are the authors of reliable sources. TFD (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you think about "Neutrality" in editing, I think it is a sort of a "Holy Grail" of editing. (Please forgive me for this poor analogy that I am about to make.) Assume that there is an "ultimate truth" in the universe. Now also imagine that there is also a matching "ultimate point of view," which would be the view of one who was so fortunate as to know the "ultimate truth". I think that this is what NPOV actually aims for. It aims for a point of view that is totally objective, and therefore would probably be the best, the most natural, and the most accurate. Scott P. (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of possible interest

The RfC underway at Talk:2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident#RfC: Should the language of this article be softened? revolves in part around whether the language used by the article constitutes a POV issue, it might be good to get some editors from here to weight in on it. Artw (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing more than a single viewpoint in an article

I recently proposed here that when a topic has both a significant or notable minority view, and a majority view, that Wikipedia articles ought to allow both sides of an argument to be fully and fairly laid out. I apologize for making the edit before the discussion, but I thought that this might be the best way to clearly state the proposal. Thoughts? Scott P. (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect description of your edit you linked. -M.Altenmann >t 18:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what you mean... Why do you feel it is incorrect? Does this mean you think that there should, or should not be two points of view fairly and fully laid out in such articles? Please clarify. Scott P. (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expressing an opinion about the policy. I am stating that your description here incorrectly (possibly unintentionally) renders your edit, by omitting certain subtleties which IMO are critical. Therefore, to exclude misunderstandings and the resulting waste of time, please state your suggested change here in full, in this form:

old text

new text

Please also keep in mind that, first, this is a policy, not an article, so we usually don't need to footnote it with references; and second, argumentum ad Jimbonem are good in talk pages, but not in policies, where consensus counts, rather than authority. -M.Altenmann >t 19:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the hope of clarifying that Wikipedia does ask that the two conflicting views typically found within "significant or sizeable minority view topic articles", both be fairly and fully laid out, I propose that the current NPOV text:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

Be changed to read:

In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. In articles relating to viewpoints that fall somewhere between true "fringe/ distinct minority" views and "mainstream" views, both sides or contending views should be fairly represented, allowing the reader to "think for themselves". Such pages should never limit content strictly to the perspective of the minority view.

Scott P. (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there an article where the above proposal would help the encyclopedia? It is likely that the only outcome from the proposed change would be to assist those pushing fringe views and other nonsense. Where authorities on a subject differ, their views are recorded, so what is the problem? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe there is such an article that could easily serve as an example of the many articles that could be helped by this policy. I arrived at this article by simply scanning the recent comments on this talk page. Please check out the Circumcision article. There, the editors have tried to make it appear that all medical opinion recommends against circumcision, yet the fact of the matter is that it is an "undecided subject", and a very significant minority recommends for circumcision. There I have tried to include the fact that it is not a "decided" subject in the article, but I have been fully reverted out of that article. We will see how my most recent edits and arguments there will fare.

There on the article's talk page you can see the debate, obviously unsettled for years, raging on. There seems to be this idea that Wikipedia's role is to not only inform people, but also to make up their minds for them. This idea of making up people's minds for them in such cases is RUBBISH. We need to encourage truly "Balanced" articles, which show both sides of such debates, not "Slanted" articles, which intentionally give the mistaken impression that there is only one side of such an argument. Thus the need for the edit to the policy that I have suggested above. Scott P. (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue that has been discussed many times before... advocates of fringe views often claim that an "argument" exists (and that their side of that "argument" is not equally represented), when in fact there isn't much argument at all. It's really just a few vocal advocates shouting in the wilderness. On the other hand, I have seen advocates of mainstream views try to suppress legitimate minority viewpoints as being "fringe", when in fact they are not.

Which is which is not something we can answer in the abstract... because a lot depends on the specifics. The underlying question is this: How much weight should a specific minority viewpoint be given? If it really is a fringe view, then (per WP:UNDUE) it should not be given much weight at all. It's not our job to promote fringe views. On the other hand, if it is a legitimate minority view, then we need to note that the view exists, and what it's proponents say.

So how can you tell how much weight to give a viewpoint? You examine what the independent sources say about it... how much they discuss it. Set those involved in advocacy (for and against the viewpoint) to one side... If the independent sources spend a lot of time either discussing the view point (whether to support or debunk it), then we should give that viewpoint a reasonable amount of space in our article. However, if they more or less ignore it, then we should do so as well.

That said... once you determine how much weight to give the viewpoint (whether that is a lot, a little, or none at all), you can then go back and examine what the advocates (for and against) say on the issue, and use them to flesh out what we say about it. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Blueboar here, well stated. In the particular case Scott is talking about, the edits are getting reverted mainly because they're making the article misrepresent the sources. Can we agree that before we start considering NPOV we first have to 1) identify the reliable sources and 2) represent them accurately? Zad68 13:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has to all be considered at the same time... because there is a wrinkle to consider: There is no such thing as a 100% completely unreliable source. Fringe advocacy sources actually are reliable for statements of opinion (ie an attributed statement about what the advocates say)... even if they are not reliable for statements of unattributed fact. Which means we have to do more than just identify "the reliable sources" in some abstract sense... we also have to identify which types of statements any given source appropriately supports. However, there is no point in identifying what type of statement the source might be reliable for if the opinion it expresses is so fringe that we will omit it in the first place. That's where NPOV and UNDUE come into play... figuring out whether a specific statement of opinion should be noted in depth, noted in passing, or completely ignored. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar:, please consider making your exegesis part of the policy. Since the issue pops up now and again, it probably means that the policy is insufficiently clear/ understandable. -M.Altenmann >t 16:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar, right, the reliable sourcing I'm referring to here is authoritative, independent secondary sources. Independent secondary sources are needed to be able to determine whether a particular viewpoint is being given emphasis compliant with NPOV. Yes, any source is a primary source for itself, but you cannot determine how much weight to give it without a secondary (tertiaries can help too). Any advocacy group can produce self-published sources and plaster them all over the Internet, cluttering up your Google search results with the top 50 result placings, but unless that group's views are covered seriously by authoritative, independent secondary sources, they shouldn't be included at all. This is what current policy says, and it produces the desired result. Zad68 21:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A fringe article is a minority view (albeit a small one - applying the ancillary article exception) and thus is covered by "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint". We make no distinction there between a "significant minority" and "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". The point of that statement is that the scope of an article changes the focus of the weight. At a higher level, fringe views get no place in an article - weight is placed based in proportion to the prominence within the larger context. As you create sub-articles describing minority views, the body of sources changes to focus on fully exploring the topic scope, and while they will describe their place in regard to the larger topic (as the policy states), the viewpoints that make up the minority view become more central to the article, thus gain more weight in relation. This is no different when the article focus is a fringe view, except the sources often become more primary and sometimes self-published (if discussing itself). In any case, the content should represent a complete understanding of the topic, which means fully describing the viewpoint and the various positions on it. Thus, I don't see what the change accomplishes. Morphh ^(talk) 21:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind y'all that articles such as Whig Party and Zoroastrianism, which both reflect minority points of views, exist, and probably do not link back or discuss the current majority points of view (which I guess would arguably be Republicanism and Catholicism, respectively). I know you scientists out there, staring down at your microscopes, are offended by some people say the world is flat, other people disagree type articles, but there exist whole other realms of thought out there!

But on the larger point, per WP:YESPOV, by all means, include multiple points of view where possible. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad examples. These are belief systems, not scientific theories. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:11, 26 April 2015 edit Kendrick7 (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 22,315 edits →‎Allowing more than a single viewpoint in an article: include multiple POVs per WP:YESPOV ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:18, 26 April 2015 edit undo NeilN (talk \| contribs) 134,455 edits →‎Allowing more than a single viewpoint in an article Next edit →
Line 164:		Line 164:

	But on the larger point, per [[WP:YESPOV]], by all means, include multiple points of view where possible. -- [[User:Kendrick7\|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7\|talk]]</sup> 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)		But on the larger point, per [[WP:YESPOV]], by all means, include multiple points of view where possible. -- [[User:Kendrick7\|Kendrick7]]<sup>[[User_talk:Kendrick7\|talk]]</sup> 22:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
			:Bad examples. These are belief systems, not scientific theories. --[[User:NeilN\|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN\|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 22:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)