Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 30

message: I've seen this term used on Wikipedia a number of times. It needs to stop as it violates both WP:AGF and, more seriously, WP:NPA. Jinxmchue 22:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly can be. It can also be a useful description of an all-too-common behavioral pattern. As an aside, WP:AGF starts at home, and something like this hardly puts one in a position to lecture on AGF. MastCell Talk 22:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy, that SPADE nonsense sure has come into vogue lately as a way to excuse violations of AGF and NPA. As for "something like this," I've seen nothing to dissuade me from believing those things, particularly in regards to the article about D. James Kennedy. It's all still going on. Jinxmchue 03:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: SPADE is not a policy. WP:NPA is.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "POV warrior" slur 

message: See this thread on VP(P) and comment. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we create a NPOV noticeboard? 

message: What are the appropriate responses to ethnic slurs in Wikipedia policy names, procedures, etc.? Jacob Haller 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CIV, WP:NPA.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those only deal with slurs by one editor against another editor, not slurs embedded in policy. Jacob Haller 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're about to post a link to something specific... ...? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (sic), etc. Jacob Haller 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we can also expect some Swedes to complain about our use of the word "troll". I think the problem isn't Wikipedia so much as the English language. Trying to find a way forward, was there an alternative term you had in mind? Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, I type "revert trashing" and the like, but I've no general suggestion. I suppose the systemic bias wikiproject might be a better place to address this. Jacob Haller 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting sick of ethnic slurs 

message: At the talk page of the article Israel & the UN, I ask a question about the limit of the NPOV policy when dealing with real life. In brief, Where is the line between a lie and an opinion? Emmanuelm 18:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here is a real life example 

message: This is a call to all Grand Wikis : please provide us with a list of articles that you judge to be orthodox by all WP policies. Emmanuelm 13:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles. --Elonka 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please provide us a list of perfect WP articles 

message: This page is getting ridiculously long... What is the archive policy of this page? It seems that at some point it was two months per archive, but that was done 6 months ago. Should we rather consider User:MiszaBot II for this task? A useful setting might be discussions older than a month. G.A.S  09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I went ahead and archived manually for now, and set up an archiving bot.  There was a problem before where the talkarchives were using non-standard names (Archive 026 instead of Archive 26), but I've switched numbering systems, so hopefully it'll work now.  :) --Elonka 21:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: Isn't it impossible to have a neutral point of view because a neutral point of view is a point of view. Monobi 20:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Neutral point of view ≠ No point of view. G.A.S  06:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about NPOV 

message: The section on bias could be confusing in some instances. For example I've been involved with editing L. Ron Hubbard, mentions of him in WP:RS like Time magazine or the Los Angeles Times paint an overall image of a mentally disturbed power freak out for money.Some might argue that RS about Hubbard are biased against both him and the religion he created.
They are:
1. Wrong
:A. Reporting critical material about the creator of a religion is not a direct criticism of the creation. Thus no bias against the religion is implied.
:B. If a source is considered reliable enough to be in the article, it is not biased.
:C. A source with no clear motive to defame someone, and evidence exists to prove its assertions, is not biased it is simply critical. 
:D.-Z. Other
2. Right
:A. The sources have an agenda based on a pre-conceived notion that he was a shady character, since they more or less say so they must also be biased.
:B.-Z. Other
3. Right about: (A., B., C., etc) Wrong about: ()
Anynobody 03:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the WP:NPOV policy makes any claim that "reliable sources" are unbiased or otherwise likely to be true. Reliable sources merely help ensure that that the views expressed are significant. Since bias cannot be determined definitively unless one already knows the truth, whether significant views are biased or not and which ones are is for the reader, not Wikipedia, to determine. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I encourage Wikipedians who watch this page to comment about a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Appeal to particular attribution. Thanks ScienceApologist 17:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion about particular attribution 

message: The correct adjectival form referring to the "Quran" is "Quranic".  The correct  proper adjective for "Veda" is "Vedic".  The correct form for "Talmud" is "Talmudic".  This is the same as all proper adjectives in English, that are always capitalized, eg. "Lithuanian", "Australian", etc. However, a number of editors have now arisen insisting that the accompanying proper adjective for "Bible" should be "biblical" (small b) as a special exception, and only because they say certain style manuals they claim to be authoritative, ought to trump the notion of maintaining a neutral, even-handed appearance, without any other explanation or rationale being required.  (Of course there are many other authorites that allow 'Biblical' with a capital B, but these, they claim, are somehow irrelevant.) The issue, including how it pertains to neutrality, is now being discussed at an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible, please comment there. Til Eulenspiegel 17:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in capitalization? 

message: This is a silly and inept example. The "view" of the world as flat is not a "view" at all, but rather a departation from fact. The world is provably spherical and as such there is no "view" to be reasonably had on the subject. Instead, a classical example should be given, one of a subject notable for not having ascertainable truths, forcing it to be comprised of views instead (i.e. the existence of God).74.12.74.247 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight -- Poor Example 

message: So what do we do when a reliable source discussing a group calls them the most popular band of the 90's?  
* In article as a direct statement, i.e. So-and-so was the most popular band of the 90's. with the source cited. 
* Written with a qualifier (being careful of WP:WEASEL of course) as So-and-so is considered one of the most popular...
* Directly quoted, to denote that it is the words of a particular journalist/source, i.e. So-and-so is considered "one of the most popular bands of the 90's..."
Tarc 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The most popular band" 

message: I have heard of cases where cited sources get deleted becasue they are edited by someone who works at the place the article is about like Quik Trip or Burger King. I know that editing articles about Companies that you own, Yourself (non UserPage),  Your own Band, ETC  are believed to be in Violation of NPOV. But Are Editing Articles on where your work or had worked at a violation of Wikipedia Policy (Even if properly cited) and that anything that is believed to be done by that person should be removed from the article now matter how much it belongs? I didn't see anything about editing Articles for Companies you own or where you work at in the FAQ.  Sawblade05  (talk to me | my wiki life) 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is covered in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. In my reading of it, and in following the discussions, it's okay to edit an article if you are employed by a company. And content shouldn't be deleted just because it's been added by an employee. But there are caveats: an employee must be very cautious to observe policies and guidelines, and would ideally make suggestions on the Talk page that are then implemented by a neutral editor. In practice, it simply doesn't make sense, and doesn't help Wikipedia grow, if all employees are barred from contributing. TimidGuy 19:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Articles On Where you Work At 

message: After reading 
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
looks like that the fifth pillar of Wikipedia 
	Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five principles outlined here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because perfection is a goal and not a requirement. As all previous versions of articles are kept, content won't be irrevocably destroyed by an editor's mistake. So don't worry about messing up.
is not valid anymore. The above sounds like a strong rule.
--Smerdyakoff 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conflict at all... All of our core policies (including NPOV) are discussed in the first pillar. So NPOV is falls within the statement "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five principles outlined here". Blueboar 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which one has the precedence??? 

message: From Wikipedia:Press_coverage
*
:Basing on an example from the editing of "Wal-Mart", the article carries out an insightful discussion of the NPOV issues and the importance of the contextual frame in which "neutral" facts are presented in judging the neutrality.
:"...[B]oth sentences pass the undisputed fact test. But they also violate the logic of Wikipedia's rule: undisputed facts equal neutrality which leads to truth."
--Philip Baird Shearer 12:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An insightful discussion of the NPOV 

message: I need a neutral party who understands the NPOV policy to look at and comment on the above linked article, and to possibly act as a mediator.  The article is contentious... it is also full of half substantiated POV "accusations" and "rebuttals".  The article has been tagged for being POV for a long time.  I have been calling for a complete re-write of the article for over a year now, attempting to find a POV balance.  I am not getting much support for this at the article.  I could really use some back up.  I am posting a similar request at WP:NOR, since there are issues with that as well... if you know both policies, even better.  Thanks in advance Blueboar 01:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know a little about the subject from both the Catholic and Masonic perspective, being the former and studying the latter rather extensively. As already stated on the Wikipedia talk:No original research#Catholicism and Freemasonry page, I think that there may well be a lot of biased material in the article, but that bias to a degree reflects the biases which seem to have been prevalent in society for a great deal of the time discussed. That doesn't mean that those biases should be declared as objective, but it does mean that the content probably in general meets Verifiability and RS standards. What I think the main problem might be is WP:Undue weight, and I'm not right now sure enough about the subject to know all the evidence on the Freemasonry side of the argument to add what should be added, but I think that most of the content, with a few exceptions I noted on the page linked to, probably does at least meet Verifiability and RS requirements. I don't think the article is remotely NPOV, but making it so would require adding material from the Masonic "side of the argument", which I don't myself have ready access to right now. John Carter 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Catholicism and Freemasonry]] 

message: In the Carmax article, this phrase exists: "Although not unique to CarMax, these features are still interesting." While browsing Wikipedia, I often see this type of phrase. Wouldn't this not be a neutral point of view? What may be "interesting" to one may not be interesting to someone else. Please guide me in the right direction and if there is a section specifically on this type of phrase. Thanks!
PGT.Endurance 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's covered under WP:WTA#Ironically.2C_amusingly.2C_unfortunately.2C_interestingly.2C_etc_.5BWords_which_editorialize.5D. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 16:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone Please Direct Me 

message: I would like to see a section on this page about the responsibilities of one who inserts a "The neutrality of this article is disputed" tag into an article.
One might launch a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) attack on Wikipedia by sprinkling various forms of dispute tags in a multitude of articles -- without giving a reason for adding the tags.  A visitor who sees a "dispute" message at the top of the article may not ask _why_ there is a dispute.  They might just move on to a source which isn't proclaiming doubt about its own contents.
Or, if not engaging in a FUD attack, an editor might merely be "trolling": Trying to get attention by "forcing" others into action at their "command".
A NPOV-dispute tag was recently added to an article on my watch list.
The editor who added the tag has no history of editing the article in question.
Their tag said "Please see the discussion on the talk page."  There was no discussion on the talk page about whatever they were disputing.
Their tag said "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." What dispute? By what measure might it be "resolved"? Who decides when it is "resolved"?
It occurs to me that if one has a problem with the neutrality of a statement, their first action might be to fix it or to question it on the article's talk page -- not to drop seeds of doubt on the whole article.
If one does drop a NPOV-dispute tag, it seems that there would be:
*A commitment to participate in correcting the "problem"
*A proposal stating what is necessary to achieve a NPOV
If one takes it upon themselves to drop a NPOV-dispute (or other doubt-inspiring) tag in an article, what are their responsibilities before or after doing so?
--Ac44ck 17:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! If you are talking about J. Vernon McGee, I did post it on the article page (as you requested)  where you requested I do so. Here:
Mattisse 01:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The responsibilities of one who adds a dispute tag vs. FUD attack or Trolling 

message: I've looked for your post to respond there but can not find it. Sorry!   Mattisse 01:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it and replied above.  Mattisse 02:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't find where you posted so I will post on AN/I 

message: I have two questions:
*First, does the term criticism imply legitimacy? For example, the Criticism of Islam article says "Islam is criticised for not being moral". Does this mean that indeed Islam is not moral, and critics are simply making the observation? Or does it mean that according to the critics, Islam is not moral?
*Secondly, is it neutral to say that a particular religion is a "false religion" or an "immoral religion". Or is it neutral for wikipedia to portray an opinion that accuses a religion of being "false" as factual and accurate?
Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions.Bless sins (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While notable criticism definitely belongs in religion articles, some care regarding neutral terminology and portrayal is needed. A good approach would be simply to attribute the criticism directly to the critics in an unambiguous way, e.g. "Critics such as  claim that 'Islam is immoral' ". Although direct quotes of a short phrase might be the best way to clarify that this is not Wikipedia's opinion, a paraphrase is also possible as long as any critical claim is attributed to identified critics and is not made in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Wikipedia cannot portray any opinion on religous matters -- good or bad, true or false, moral or immoral -- as factual and accurate. The only relevant facts are whether an opinion is notable ("significant" per the WP:NPOV policy), accurately described and attributed, and whether it is given appropriate weight. These are the facts to be sourced. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism" and its legitimacy 

message: I've noticed that some articles refer to "the ancestral fatherland of the XXX nation" or similar phrases, sometimes in the article title. This tends to suggest ownership by the XXX ethnic group. I can't find any clear policy against this. Fourtildas (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sneaky land claims 

message: I would like to change the name of the default shortcut here to WP:YESPOV. The current shortcut goes to a section that explains that the idea of "no pov" is incorrect. As so many editors seem so confused by this concept to begin with, I don't think putting forth WP:NOPOV as a "nickname" helps matters. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I went ahead and made the change. -- Kendrick7talk 22:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOPOV shortcut only adds to confusion 

message: I am involved in a debate as to whether a criticism-- one published as an op-ed in two generally notable publications (The Jerusalem Post and The American Spectator)-- deserves mention in a proposed criticism section for a BLP. (see Gayatri Spivak)  Other editors have complained that the criticism has not received serious attention in academic circles, and I'm sure they're right.  However, I think all criticism in the public sphere is relevant to a person's notability, but I'm not sure where the "tiny minority" threshold for inclusion/non-inclusion is to be drawn.  Would double-publication of the criticism as an op-ed alone be enough to bring it out of the tiny minority category?  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JrFace (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like it would. But I don't know the particulars. TimidGuy 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "tiny minority?" 

message: Should sources acknowledged as extremists be given space on articles, even though they are popular?
For example, on the article Judaism, should The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Judaism"? The publication is widely acknowledged as extremist and antisemitic.
Another example: on the article Islam, should The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Islam"? The publication and the author are acknowledged as extremist and Islamophobic.Bless sins 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another case

message: I am involved in a debate as to whether a criticism-- one published as an op-ed in two generally notable publications (The Jerusalem Post and The American Spectator)-- deserves mention in a proposed criticism section for a BLP. (see Gayatri Spivak)  Other editors have complained that the criticism has not received serious attention in academic circles, and I'm sure they're right.  However, I think all criticism in the public sphere is relevant to a person's notability, but I'm not sure where the "tiny minority" threshold for inclusion/non-inclusion is to be drawn.  Would double-publication of the criticism as an op-ed alone be enough to bring it out of the tiny minority category?  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JrFace (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like it would. But I don't know the particulars. TimidGuy 19:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "tiny minority?" 

message: Should sources acknowledged as extremists be given space on articles, even though they are popular?
For example, on the article Judaism, should The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Judaism"? The publication is widely acknowledged as extremist and antisemitic.
Another example: on the article Islam, should The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion be given some space, possibly under the header "Criticism of Islam"? The publication and the author are acknowledged as extremist and Islamophobic.Bless sins 20:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference: the Protocols are clearly proven to be a forgery, while the Islamocritical book mentioned is an utterance of an opinion. Also, the characterisation of the author is controversial so this should not be a basis for exclusion. Str1977 (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One may replace The Protocols of the Elders of Zion with another book acknowledged as antisemitic. Secondly there are a lot of scholars who believe that "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion" is also false, not to mention an example of hate-speech. Also, please note that "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus we care more about verifiability than the truth here.Bless sins 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, are you seriously suggesting that wikipedia should state that Islam is considered to be "the World's Most Intolerant Religion"?Bless sins 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not comprehending what "forgery" and "false" means. The Protocols are proven to have been forgered by a Russian secret agent to discredit the Jews. Are you suggesting that Mr Spencer made anything of what he writes up. I am granting you that he has an unfavourable opinion on Islam but that's not quite the same. "Hate speech" is anyway a questionable concept. "Not truth but verifiability" is probably the most abused sentence here on WP. Yes, truth does matter. But even though, Spencer's book is clearly verifiable. I do not care much for that book but your attempts to remove anything that's critical of Islam is scandalous. Str1977 (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SO you are saying that Mr. Spencer's book is true? Otherwise I don't understand your argument.Bless sins 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying anything about Spencer's book beyond what I wrote: he didn't make things up. Your reply is ample evidence of your inability to separate his POV from his editing. And that is the one that lectured me about how "truth" was unimportant. Str1977 (talk) 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr. Spencer's book is presumably truly his own book. The Protocols were held up to be something they were NOT. They were held up as a secret cabal document, and this was later roundly discredited. Epthorn (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another case

message: why am i getting in trouble when im trying to make my own article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dresendiz (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  stopped 

message: "Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases" Is there a source for this? :) TrickyApron (talk) 10:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demons cause disease 

message: I changed a wording of "...views which are in the extreme minority do not belong in Wikipedia at all" because I found a talk page comment where someone stated that in an article which was about a minority view that view doesn't need to be presented because it's a minority view, and that sounded absurd. I wasn't sure if I should edit this policy with my main account or this, but because I found that talk page related to an arbitration case which I'm uninvolved but made a statement I felt I should use the same account. I have a legitimate main account and I can tell it to someone who isn't involved with that arbitration. I certainly did not plan to get into policy editing with this account. :-) I'm still hoping that I could keep my main account out of these controversies, even though I wanted to make that brief note on an arbitration case and found this a little bit unclear part on this policy. As I understand this is that if a minority view is so extreme that it doesn't even have an article, then it's not presented anywhere. Calejenden 16:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views 

message: I surfed on in to the NPOV page to look up a specific detail and randomly noticed the link to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples. You can imagine my enormous surprise at finding that this page is essentially unchanged since the day I first posted it back in October 2001. (see the version at Nostalgia). 
While I am deeply flattered that something I wrote so long ago is still being referenced, it is fair to say our collective perspective is (ahem)
"a tad more sophisticated now". We should either archive it as historical, or subject it to a complete re-write. Manning 13:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples]] - in DRASTIC need of an update 

message: A proposal concerning the creation of a new Admin noticeboard has developed into the suggestion/proposal to create Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposed new Admin noticeboard. AecisBrievenbus 23:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Noticeboard proposal 

message: :(Reposting here, was originally on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources by mistake, and I was directed here instead)
Hi, I'm sure this will be a Wikipedia 101 question, but please review for me? On Talk:Waterboarding, a rather spirited debate is raging for whether it is acceptable to say essentially, "Waterboarding is torture" as a statement. It had gone in quite a few circles, and then I finally asked people to simply list all the sources that say it isn't torture, versus those that say it is. 
We got this as a result.
A large variety of sources and notable opinions that indicate, yes, it's torture, and on the other side, two pundits. One basically saying, "Kick it back to the legislature to decide," which is largely irrelevant, as the United States legislature mentioned in her source of course doesn't decide this globally, and the other pundit simply saying he doesn't think it's torture. My take is that, based on the overwhelming weight of opinion and sourced information, we can only go with what we have at this time: Waterboarding is a form of torture, and we can mention in a subsection or later that some may disagree. As apparently only one sourced person disagrees, I wouldn't mention it in the lead, but down below in the text/discussion of waterboarding and the United States.
Am I analyzing this correctly? Lawrence Cohen 19:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of sources for "factual" statements in Wikipedia 

message: Policy is a wonderful thing. Every CEO will tell you "ït is meant to be interpreted liberallÿ". If Neutral is supposed to be a policy, then all one can do is watch, shuffle and delete paper, and most bureaucrat do, in line with what they see as "policy".
E.g. This talk is is respnse to the deletion of an article, signed by Wikipedia's founder, for copyright violation by Hut 8.5. See deletion log 1 19:25, 8 December 2007 Hut 8.5 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Open Education Declaration" ‎ (copyvio of http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/front-page/read-the-declaration)
Yes, I know Wikipedia is soon going to be migrating to a Creative Commons license, but until that happens the text can't be included in Wikipedia. Even if that wasn't the case, the text would have been deleted through some other mechanism since it wasn't any kind of encyclopedia article and Wikipedia is not the place for any kind of campaigning, as I'm sure Jimmy Wales will know. Hut 8.5 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy enforcement is in it's interpretation 

message: A question has come up in Talk:Persian Gulf regarding the controversial usage of the alternative (and controversial) name the 'Arabian Gulf' in the Lead. A great many there feel that the addition of the controversial alternative name is an undue weight violation. I am not as sure of this, as the naming controversy of the alternate name usage appears within the article, there is an actual dispute about the name, there are cited references to the usage of the name (both historically and contemporarily) and that a sizable percentage of people in the area refer to it as such. the debate seems to be a perennial issue of debate, and it would be nice to specifically address this so as to resolve the usage question. 
I've suggested that the matter be rfC'd or even ArbCom'd but the first led nowhere and the second seems like more of a nuclear option, as an AN/I on one of the more uncivil users has served to leaven out the incivility that was brewing there. ArbCom is usually to resolve issues of user condict, not content disputes. the only reason why i still think it might eventually be valid/needed is that it does seem like a policy interpretation dispute.
The matter is insoluble to both sides. My own observations of the discussion are that, while it might seem unfair to characterize it as such, this is another cultural-type dispute, similar to the ArbCom Persian Naming Dispute thing from this past summer. Some inpute would be extremely helpful. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate name of a subject certainly belong in the lead, but perhaps a footnote would be adequate? -- Kendrick7talk 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they don't want it mentioned anywhere in the article. Besides, as an alternative name, it does belong in the Lead (perhaps in parentheses, afterthe more widely known name). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay. Yet ''another'' Persian gulf question 

message: if there ever was a biased article, that one was it. We should work on that. The accepted truth isn't the only one.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.161.138.241 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution 

message: Given a number of alternate names which are not widely accepted and are in dispute, would it give the alternate names "undue weight" if they were mentioned in the lead? This is the issue we're trying to sort out over at the Persian Gulf mediation case, and input from the wider community would be welcome. CloudNine (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add to this that the alternate names are cited and are a long-standing dispute in the region as per the Persian Gulf naming dispute. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further, the particular question is with regard to providing additional prominence, as related to Undue Weight, to a name used by a small minority in the lead where it is already included in the article itself. ObserverToSee (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Small minority". lol, okay. That isn't really cited, and appears to be a part of the issue of neutrality. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence and undue weight 

message: If anybody has expertise in this area, please see Rfc on NPOV and comment as indicated.  Pernicious Swarm (talk) 05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc on NPOV 

message: There is an ongoing difference of opinion as to how to interpret this on the article Waterboarding. Most editors are in favour of stating in the lead: Waterboarding is a form of torture. As I understand it the views on this are:
#Most experts (>140) consider waterboarding torture,
#A very small group experts (<4) and notable individuals consider it not torture,
#The fact some oppose the majority view this is torture proves there is a dispute. 
Regarding the above I am interested to hear how to interpret this. Do we, as in Intelligent Design, start with the consensus among experts (it is torture) and continue to explain in the article body what a notable minority thinks? Does opposing a similar stance as with ID violate WP:FRINGE/WP:WEIGHT? RespectfullyNomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is not a weapon for eliminating content in favour of including POVs. A more appropriate rule to consult here would be Wikipedia:Define and describe. Bensaccount (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV and WEIGHT arguments are, unfortunately, frequently misused.  I'd be interested in how the experts were polled about their opinions.  At least there is some claim that over 144 experts have been polled.  (And how does one become an "expert" in torture, any way?)   For those who really want to try NPOV, instead of making absolute statements, something like "Waterboarding is a form of torture, according to a poll of most experts."(cite)  The problem is that many POV pushers will not have a cite that actually reflects a poll of experts but instead will simply point to some reporter who claims to know what most experts believe.  Without a real poll of experts, "most" is just an assertion.  "Many" is better.--Strider12 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "UNDUE WEIGHT?" 

message: I sense there are fundamental problems regarding the usage of the word pseudoscience on wikipedia. This is starting to become a systemic problem on wikipedia since the concept of pseudoscience is used in a policy.
*Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
It feels this policy was written for articles on mainstream subjects where a minority objects to the established sciences. This policy then is then usually desired. However in articles where a fringe subject is described this rule is often applied, and then in my opinion in a way that lessens the integrity of the article.
This defaults for most editors, because of their education or cultural background, established science. However fringe subjects are outside established science. Consequently, the scientific body on the subject is thus often limited. Often actual science is published in less reputable journals because of its fringe status. Additionally it represent the minority view, so it will be given less weight. These factors introduces a systemic bias into the article text. 
I suggest that an accusation of pseudoscience should present a verifiable falsification of the fringe claim. If the methods are regarded to be lacing then this should be described. This way one can let the science do the work, and at the same time avoid using words that lack a place in philosophy of science.
Totally I find the idea of the whole of science giving a subjective conclusion on the basis of the opinion of some notable scientists isn't enough to warrant it to be written exclusively on basis of hard sciences.
The definition debates on what is pseudoscience or not has been detrimental on the quality of articles. I hope my criticism of this policy is understood, since it is indeed a tricky issue.
--Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This concept is irrelevant to Wikipedia where, by NPOV policy, all significant ideas, whether true or not, deserve to be discussed. Thus, we have a large and well written article on Homeopathy, complete with over 150 references. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Homeopathy has been under heavy discussion from people from both sides, and I feel the article is fairly respectful. There are however scores of articles that has been under "heavy fire" from people watching the fringe-noticeboard. While I do accept that pure non-sense should be removed, I repeatedly see articles be labeled pseudoscience because this is the opinion of some fringe skeptics sites. For example I see that primary sources describing for example fringe technology is considered unreliable sources, and instead replaced with blanket statements about pseudoscience and theories from uninformed skeptics. I could go deeper into the matter, but it boils down to an unprecise definition of what the definition of pseudoscience is, and at a deeper level on a problematic definition of how science should be represented. Currently it is what is considered mainstream science by the majority of editors which gets due weight instead of accepting there are many concurrent contemptary sciences that need to explained on their on terms. The concept of hard sciences being the only true science is an american bias. I agree that cults and gross scientific misconduct should be treated accordingly, but the heavy vigilant activity against fringe topics is promoting misinformation, lacks scientific integrity, and might be against WP:BLP. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused. I suspect there is a language barrier here of sorts between what you are trying to say and what we are interpreting. Carl Sagan argued in his series and book "Cosmos" that scientists should never dismiss out of hand ideas and prevent them being discussed. He put forth the (correct) notion that only by discussing them and allowing free discussion can false ideas be truly shown to be false. Is this what you are referring to? Or are you refering to an undue weight being placed on logic-based scientific method, meaning that practices which have repeatedly actively avoided the use of proper scientific method are discredited on wikipedia as they do not meet 'hard' scientific measures, and that is to your disliking? LinaMishima (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry if I am not clear. Yes, I agree with Carl Sagans reasoning here. I think the undue weight policy introduces subjective bias into an article. The concept of "scientific method" is really a gross simplification if you consider the width of philosophy of science. There are sciences that do have problematic methods, and this should be pointed out. Many of those can be said to "claim to be science, but lack empirical evidence". The problem is bigger with articles that are about anamolous findings, such as Cold Fusion where science has problems finding a mechanic. Other examples are Bio-Psychiatry where the majority POV regards it as unproblematic whilst research which highlights its problem is considered a minority POV. In the article on placebo a number of unproven hypothesises are presented as fact. The problem is that a lot of articles attracts editors that are bent on debunking it and lacks standards, and then succumb to removing information because they regard it as WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and whatever policy helps moving the goalposts for those editors who are actually interested in writing articles portraying the status of the subject. It is frustrating, and it really smells of wikipedia underestimating the intelligence of its readers. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word [[Pseudoscience]] 

message: Hi. When making editing decisions about how to present points of view, the Undue Weight aspect of neutrality is crucial. Basically, Undue Weight suggests that tiny-minority (fringe) views may be excluded from an article (even if the fringe view gets its own article) whereas Significant Minority views should be represented, albeit without undue weight.
Therefore, it's important for editors to pay attention to, and learn how to distinguish Significant Minority views. I often find myself explaining Significant Minority policy during Talk disputes. However, while there is WP:FRINGE, there is no shortcut -- not to mention a policy page -- about Significant Minority views. Proposal Would folks agree to add something like WP:SIGMINORITY as a shortcut to the WP:UNDUE section? Thanks. HG | Talk 10:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SIGNIF is currently simply a redirect to WP:N. I had earlier proposed resurrecting it as a separate guideline and adding content to help give guidance on how to identify a significant viewpoint. I have long thought this redirect inappropriate. A significant viewpoint is very different from a notable one and the two are simply different subjects. Notability only requires a couple of sources, while significance can often require substantially more. I also personally believe that significance needs to depend on context (e.g. how many other views on the subject there are) whereas notability does not, and this context-dependency should be explained. (Example of significance depending on context: If there are only 3 published theories on a scientific question, it might make sense to include all 3 without much fuss. But if there are hundreds of religious doctrines on the specifics of the nature of the Trinity, a different standard would be required to determine which of these viewpoints to mention). Notability is absolute and considers a subject in isolation, whereas significance is relative: in determining significance there is always an implied comparison to a set of other views. (Significance also depends on notability: For barely notable topics all views are significant; tiny minorities can only exist for highly notable topics.) The current view, however, is to rely on WP:FRINGE which explains how to identify non-significant viewpoints. It seems to me to be logical to interpret this outcome as implying that current guidelines favor the inclusion of gray areas (since we only provide guidance on how to exclude clearly non-significant views and we don't provide guidance on how to distinguish signifcant from gray). But I'm not sure if this result was what was actually intended. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed to the SIGNIF link going to notability because N isn't about article content, but topic inclusion. A redirect to WP:Weight would be better, but I have to agree that a guideline bringing together weight (undue as well as intentionally diminished) and POV significance would be a best. Along the lines of Shirahadasha's thoughts, we might think about delineating religious, hard science, soft science, general academic, and popular culture contexts - or maybe this is too much creep. S, would you mind discussing what you mean by "gray"? Is this a POV between fringe and minority, or fringe and majority, or do you mean things like rejected hypotheses? I'm not sure what you mean. Thanks! Phyesalis (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significant minority views 

message: I have reverted the addition of the simple redirect called WP:PROMINENCE which adds nothing to the page as it's simply a redirect.  This addition wasn't discussed and no attempt to find consensus is recorded on this page.  I'm not sure what the intent was, so please clarify. Thanks. Wjhonson (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an extension of the disagreements that have been going on surrounding the addition of homeopathy on plant pages. The editor who provided the UNDUE WEIGHT tutorial above has taken to creating his on wording to replace long-held shortcuts with his own terms, which has the effect of conflating and causing [in some case has caused] confusion in discussions. I wrote First there was the notability of citations for which there is no policy, then the prominence of citations, for which there is no policy now there is undue weight across articles and that there is no WP:PROMINENCE, no WP:CITATIONNOTABILITY and no WP:GLOBALWEIGHT policies. In response, all three redirect & shortcuts were created. Here is the PROMINENCE diff.  A WP:RFD discussion is ongoing here.  Anthon01 (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "This addition wasn't discussed and no attempt to find consensus is recorded on this page." So what?  See WP:BOLD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, see WP:BOLD, including Wikipedia:BOLD#.E2.80.A6_but_don.27t_be_reckless. and Wikipedia:BOLD#Non-article_namespaces. Also, WP:BOLD doesn't say anything about someone's BOLD edits not being subject to revert and discussion -- quite the opposite -- see Wikipedia:BOLD%2C_revert%2C_discuss_cycle. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again: So what?  I don't see anything related to creating redirects in the links above. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you are the one who brought up WP:BOLD. If you believe your own comments are off-topic.... OK.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I brought up BOLD.  My response to you is, "So what?"  To be crystal clear, I cannot find anything relevant in your responses here to the discussion.  --Ronz (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Dlabtot (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems to me like this discussion has became more one of personal reasons and interpretations than one over the merits of the action taken. Regards to the merits, removing the reference whilst in RfD is perhaps not a good idea, as it could be seen as gaming (commenters follow redir, see that it is not listed here). The original bold edit in question was perhaps not the adding of the redirect's details, but the redirect itself. I shall not comment on that here, as there is another, better, location for that to be done. LinaMishima (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Anthon01 the redir itself Wikipedia:PROMINENCE is in RfD at the moment.  You can go to the page, then click-back on the "redir from" and then see the RfD tag.  Lina Gaming is not removing a disputed, non-talked link, but perhaps rather adding it in the first place.  If people are coming here to see the link, they're coming to the wrong place.  I'm sure we have several editors who only monitor the RfD list.Wjhonson (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominence 

message: On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. I got tired of looking for it. I think this will achieve consensus without any serious opposition. Anthon01 (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ShortCut 

message: We badly need some clarification on the policy about cartoons and drawings of living or dead people. Should they be considered factual? If so, under what circumstances? If someone draws a picture of a person and the majority of the opinion is that the drawing does not resemble the person in question, should that drawing be still included in the article about the person, just to uphold the POV of a single person (i.e. the painter)? Should we consider imaginary paintings as "fact" or a "POV"? Regarding the painter it may be a fact (that he/she painted the image) but regarding the subject of the painting, how can this be considered as factual? And yes, these questions are emerging because of the issue with the images on Muhammad. 
There is this FAQ page about this subject - I am not sure whether this page is a part of Wikipedia Policy, or some sort of ruling based on the policy - the FAQ page says - As there are no accurate images, it is best to use images that are historically significant and/or typical examples of popular depictions. Well, what are the criteria to decide "Historical Significance"? The criterion of "popular depiction" certainly doesn't hold as any depiction of the subject is extremely unpopular. Given Muhammad himself strictly prohibited painting of living things (including himself), is it appropriate to include imaginary paintings of him on his biography simply because "Longstanding tradition on Wikipedia favors any images even representing part of a tradition over none at all"? What is more important, respecting a person's wish that he never be painted, or respecting Wikipedia's tradition that all articles have images? Arman (Talk) 10:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to establish NPOV on imaginary paintings 

message: ===Narrative based fact selection Mechanism===
In several articles, I have in the past tried to add facts, which I deemed important to include in order to balance the article, making sure it is NPOV. Such edits were almost always reverted, however, because in the final stage of discussion, they "did not fit into the narrative" of the article.
But:
*when we have a pre-conceived idea, "A", which seems supported by facts by RS;
*when we then find some facts, "X, Y, Z" which seem to conflict with "A", but are also supported by reliable sources, then we have to options:
*#idea "A" is false
*#there is an explanation for "X, Y, Z" occuring while A is true.
This explanation itself however, is often subject to debate, for which no independent reliable sources can be found: most reliable sources, if they would say anything about it at all, would have already committed themselves to idea "A". But what if idea "A" could be false?
Such would never get detected, because facts X, Y, and Z were explained away or simply disregarded, whether this "explanation" in turn is valid or not.
The problem I see is that not only Wikipedia is using reliable sources, the reliable sources themselves in turn are also using reliable sources! It is a whole grid of reliable sources who keep repeating what the others say. And all of them use this method: "Disregard facts which do not fit the narrative. They will certainly have some alternative explanation." That is what Narrative based fact selection really amounts to. In my eyes, this mechanism NFSM) looks very much as Selection bias , a common logical shortcoming, which in the end leads to Circular reasoning, another one. (For further reading, if interested, you may also like this text: talk2000.nl)
Therefore, if we insist on using NFSM in our articles, we must have some logical reason for doing so: we either need to be absolutely sure that our narrative is a true account (and would need a very heavy RS which enjoys consensus for this extraordinary claim); or... the NFSM we follow must be known flawless. (— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk))
::I think this would be much clearer with some examples--including more than just any one particular case which you might  have in mind at the moment.DGG (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Selection bias]] leading to NPOV violation? 

message: In several articles, I have in the past tried to add facts, which I deemed important to include in order to balance the article, making sure it is NPOV. Such edits were almost always reverted, however, because in the final stage of discussion, they "did not fit into the narrative" of the article.
But:
*when we have a pre-conceived idea, "A", which seems supported by facts by RS;
*when we then find some facts, "X, Y, Z" which seem to conflict with "A", but are also supported by reliable sources, then we have to options:
*#idea "A" is false
*#there is an explanation for "X, Y, Z" occuring while A is true.
This explanation itself however, is often subject to debate, for which no independent reliable sources can be found: most reliable sources, if they would say anything about it at all, would have already committed themselves to idea "A". But what if idea "A" could be false?
Such would never get detected, because facts X, Y, and Z were explained away or simply disregarded, whether this "explanation" in turn is valid or not.
The problem I see is that not only Wikipedia is using reliable sources, the reliable sources themselves in turn are also using reliable sources! It is a whole grid of reliable sources who keep repeating what the others say. And all of them use this method: "Disregard facts which do not fit the narrative. They will certainly have some alternative explanation." That is what Narrative based fact selection really amounts to. In my eyes, this mechanism NFSM) looks very much as Selection bias , a common logical shortcoming, which in the end leads to Circular reasoning, another one. (For further reading, if interested, you may also like this text: talk2000.nl)
Therefore, if we insist on using NFSM in our articles, we must have some logical reason for doing so: we either need to be absolutely sure that our narrative is a true account (and would need a very heavy RS which enjoys consensus for this extraordinary claim); or... the NFSM we follow must be known flawless. (— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk))
::I think this would be much clearer with some examples--including more than just any one particular case which you might  have in mind at the moment.DGG (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Narrative based fact selection Mechanism

message: So now I am asking you all to help and show a RS or an authority on logic which indicates that NFSM would be the right way to go about, and that using NFSM would lead to truthful encyclopedic articles? (If we have none, should we not abandon NFSM?) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: request rationale

message: I'm struggling to figure out how NPOV applies to books of pseudohistory or I guess even flawed history books.
The example I am working with is Where Troy Once Stood.  I started looking at this a few days ago. It had external links to bronze age finds with no clear relationship with the book, it had a sentence in the first paragraph which linked to a personal Amazon page which listed the book as a great book, it had the Odyssey evidence still there, etc. I started by adding a section on linguistics which quotes the author and pointed out that the languages he was discussing didn't exist at the time, and that was left in.
I added short sections on archaeology quoting Michael Wood about artefacts found in the Eastern Med, and a short section on geology quoting recent research that shows the geology around Hissarlik (where Schliemann thought he found Troy) matches Homer's description, something that contradicts Wilkens. That was removed on the basis "Attempts to disprove the book's thesis don't belong in the article either--we should stick to what secondary sources say about this book, which is almost nothing."  But the arguments about the Odyssey were left in. I then put an external link in to the scientific article about the geology, and that was removed also. (As, to be fair, were the links to Bronze Age finds). 
But what is left now could almost be a publicity release from the publishers. Not quite, but almost.  And that doesn't seem neutral to me.
One of the problems is one discussed before, this is so way out few scholars have spent any time looking at it. Thus there are virtually no critical reviews or articles.  I've spent quite a bit of book time looking at the archaeology, I know a professor of linguistics who has looked at his linguistics, I know someone who has visited some of the sites in person.  But all of this is unpublished original research, verboten on Wikipedia. So is there any way out of this situation where the Wikipedia article is not giving a balanced view of the arguments even if it is describing the book accurately? Thanks. --Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Say "this book has received no reviews in academic periodicals" (assuming that to be the case). Make sure of that though, with help from a librarian, and give the source used to determine this. The reader will understand. DGG (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV and Books 

message: I found this in Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations:
:"If a person is wondering whether or not to believe p, can't we offer him reason to believe it as help?" Yes, if your help is neutral. But do you also offer reasons for not believing p? Do you pursue with further reasons for p if the first fail to convince?
Maybe it could be added somewhere in WP:NPOV? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-11-26 13:57Z
AN INDIVIDUAL IS FREE NOT TO BELIEVE.... BUT THEY ARE NOT FREE TO ABUSE OR OFFEND... STOP OFFENDING MUSLIMS... STOP OFFENDING PROPHET MUHAMMAD... REMOVE PICTURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD IMMEDIATELY ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.46.210 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good summary quote 

message: I feel as if the inclusion of "images" in the Undue weight section is a little tacked-on. While I agree with its inclusion, it is haphazard to present this concept without elaboration which matches the context of "images"- my concern is that the section notes that it applies, but it doesn't really explain how specific cases should be treated. 
Images are quite different from text, and I believe they should get some sort of treatment here which allows the editor to follow policy directly instead of simply going over the rest of the text and assuming that "since [inapplicable note] can't really apply to images, I can overlook this, and since this concept is generally applicable, I should stick with this". This can lead to quite a bit of overstepping in several directions, because there is still a question of "how applicable" the majority of the policy text really is to the inclusion of certain images.--C.Logan (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to distinguish between three concepts: the world "out there", our ideas about it, and the language we use to convey these ideas to eachother. Like words, images are a tool to convey ideas. The policy reads: Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. So the images, when they are not neutral to a debate, should be distributed as such. Now, what more clarity would you like, since I do not understand what vagueness you are referring to?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaboration needed. 

message: ;WP:NEUTRAL : The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. 
;WP:NPOVFAQ : [is it] possible to describe disputes in such a way that all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively[?] 
This needs clearing up: the FAQ suggests views should be worded sympathically on both sides of the debate; the article says it should not show sympathy. I can imagine this both be true, but it is not very clear. Any native speakers for suggesting improvements? I think wikipedia should treat all nontiny views with respect (and sympathy as such), but endorse none (no sympathy as such)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The result you've described (treat all viewpoints with respect, but endorse none) is what's intended. Each viewpoint should be treated sympathetically; the resulting overall article should be neutral. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thx. Are you a native speaker? Perhaps make an edit to WP:NPOV to make it more clear! It is currently confusing, it seems.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Try meself, then.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 02:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sympathetically? 

message: I was wondering what the second sentence means by "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content ..." SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's referring to lists (which might not be considered articles). There's also images, spoken versions of certain articles, etc. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 13:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic content? 

message: I've undone the alteration of the section caption. I feel that:
::The neutral point of view
is more clear. NPOV has two meanings: it is a qualifier for an article, and it is a viewpoint which is not an opinion but a perspective. The word "the" has extra meaning and extra clarity for me, and that should imo overrule naming conventions.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The''' neutral point of view. 

message: I posted a question above late in the discussion but I fear that it may have gotten lost, buried above the many discussions which follow it. If anyone uninvolved in the immediate dispute has both the time and the inclination, I would appreciate reading some of your input. Thanks so much. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You posted many questions and the link you gave does not go anywhere. I do not want to read through pages of nonsense and guess what you want answered. I think you are not understanding UNDUE, which can also have consequences across all of Wikipedia. We do not want to have 20,000 minihomeopathy articles here. So that is the concern I suspect that you are not quite getting. Also, there is a question of how notable the use of homeopathy is in a given article.--Filll (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you want doesn't matter, does it? Has anyone request 20,000 edits to include minihomeopathy articles? Or is this hyperbole?  Anthon01 (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Filll, perhaps you are not clicking it correctly, but my link should take you to the section above entitled: "Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV? It is a pretty direct single question which if you would like to answer, I would appreciate it. That said, rather than stating that I don't understand UNDUE, I think it would be safer to say that I don't understand your understanding of UNDUE. Please feel free to elucidate your understanding with citations from the actual policy. Much thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Applying WP:UNDUE to this specific question: if one can only find this information in reliable sources discussing homeopathy, undue weight may well be a reason to keep it out as a tiny minority view. If it is found in reliable sources discussing deadly nightshade, inclusion should reflect the weight given in those sources. Involved editors may also want to consider Infophile's comment above (diff). The encyclopedia can be skewed by a limited group of editors going through a lot of articles to add or remove the same (type of) content. This editing pattern may not be uncommon as I have observed it on several occasions. Such changes are best discussed one article at a time. Avb 15:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be skewed by addition and omission. Scholarly books and articles mention belladonna's use for making homeopathic belladonna in their "uses" section. I think that is enough for adding "belladonna is used for making homeopathic belladonna" Anthon01 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question [[WT:NPOV#Does_the_inclusion_of_this_text_in_anyway_violate_WP:NPOV|above]] 

message: What happens when when you have a topic that conflicts with mainstream science, but where mainstream science's contribution is so small that it's actually the minority view?
For example, where you have a something fanciful that many people believe is true which is highly notable because it has substantial media coverage and popular culture coverage, but which has never been scientifically investigated because scientists just shrug their shoulders and say "nah, that's not possible". Making the unscientific popular view the majority view and the scientific opinion the hard to WP:V minority view?
How does undue weight apply. Do you approach the topic from the mainstream perspective even though there is no real mainstream perspective to speak of, or do you approach it from the majority perspective even though it is unscientific because it is the perspective from which weight applies?
More specifically, what happens when the topic is only notable because of the unscientific majority belief? - perfectblue (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends how something is presenting itself. If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion. However if a subject presents itself as a belief, with more of the article dedicated to aspects of this belief rather than claims of effectiveness or method of action, then the scientific opinion matters little to the subject. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - if no such claims are significantly made, then no such evidence is needed, but the reverse applies equally. LinaMishima (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fringe status is with respect to a particular framework. The Great Story, for example, is an excellent example of fringe theology, opinion representing itself as theology which isn't accepted as legitimate by mainstream theologians. The same story might not be fringe with respect to a different framework. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to point-out that our project is not to write a scientific encyclopedia, so the initial discussion is perhaps a false dichotomy.  We're simply writing an encyclopedia.  Take for example Ginseng.  This plant/herb is mentioned in literally dozens of what you might call health food, folk medicine, and homeopathic uses and yet receives not much attention in the way of peer-reviewed medical uses.  Although we consider peer-reviewed journals to be a more reliable source than not, in a case where there is scant peer-review, we simply have to go with what we have.Wjhonson (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: LinaMishima, sadly, I've fought this battle many a time on pages with editors who seem to believe that every topic should be tackled solely from a scientific perspective, which is a bit silly since this most often occurs on pages about urban myths and legends where there is no scientific perspective other than "it's just a myth". I'd like something written into policy to stave off people trying to treat myth and science in the same way. So long as the introduction makes clear that the page is about a myth it shouldn't matter that there is no scientific credibility in it. - perfectblue (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comment above If a subject wishes to present itself as being scientific, then it must be presented giving weight to the majority scientific opinion seems to contradict WP:WEIGHT which says Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So appropriate reference is the correct reading. Anthon01 (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Anthon is agreeing with me - that if something presents itself as a myth, legend or belief then it should be addressed first and foremost as a myth, legend or belief, whilst if something purports to be a science, then the appropriate frame of reference is that of science. If someone can suggest a means to enhance the wording of the section to make this 'framework' aspect clear, perhaps we could discuss clarifying this? LinaMishima (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know where you got the impression that he is agreeing with you, considering that he explicitly disagreed.  I disagree as well. This idea of a 'framework' under which 'a subject wishes to present itself' doesn't appear in the policy for several good reasons.  One being that 'subjects', such as don't possess the ability to 'wish' nor do the poseess the ability to 'present themselves'.  People, that is editors, must present the topic, and the frame of reference (another way of saying point of view) under which they must be presented is not a scientitific or mythic one but a neutral one, which represents fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources).  Undue weight also quite clearly says that it applies to "Articles that compare views", and then goes on to state that, as Anthon01 has already quoted, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."  Note also that nothing in the NPOV policy treats the scientific view as a special case in any way. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not, but LinaMishima is correct regarding how topics are generally addressed here. The goal is to write an encyclopedia that could function as a respectable reference work. Topics that identify as "scientific" are generally treated from a scientific-majority perspective. ArbCom has codified this widespread practice in one of their more oft-cited decisions: "Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work." In other words, on "scientific topics", there is a fairly clear overlap between SPOV and NPOV. The difficult detail, as always, is what constitutes a "scientific topic", and that can only be resolved on a case-by-case basis and not by generalities. MastCell Talk 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The scientific point of view is not a competing policy with WP:NPOV.   The WP:SPOV shortcut links to a page that says it is: A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear.  Dlabtot (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SPOV was rejected as a separate policy because of concerns that it would be applied outside strictly scientific fields, and because its salient points were already better covered under WP:NPOV. Nonetheless, the "scientific" point of view does overlap dramatically with the neutral point of view on scientific topics, given the goal of creating a useful and respectable reference work, as ArbCom has affirmed. MastCell Talk 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you rightly point out, SPOV, is not a policy, it is a point of view.  Therefore it can't by definition, 'overlap' with the policy that states how it, and other points of view, should be presented.   If you want to claim that ArbCom "has affirmed" otherwise, you should provide a quote or diff that says that, not one that says something quite different from your assertion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read the ArbCom ruling . Overviews of scientific topics are expected to be in line with respected scientific thought. Discussions of the SPOV proposal are somewhat of a red herring here. As for the discussion at hand, you seem to be advocating an 'absolute point of view', that there is such a thing as a truly neutral and purely objective view on anything (the closest thing to this is logic, which is the basis of the scientific method...). As irrational beings with instincts, emotions, upbringings and opinions, with experience of but a single ball of rock (in almost all cases), we simply cannot ourselves be the arbiters of what the absolute point of view is (however tragic this inability may be). As such, the best we can rationally achieve is an impartial point of view, including all opinions upon a matter in accordance to the prominence of each in relation to the others and those within related and interworking fields of study with relate to the subject to hand, and with respect to the direct topic at hand rather than those which relate but are not directly the subject in question (the wording of this entire passage is, I admit, utterly awful). What ultimately governs this coverage is, and may be widely observed to be throughout wikipedia, the notability of the various aspects of a subject (as much as a generally prefer to avoid notability). This is why we do not devote the majority of the article on a religion to the 14th century discussions over the importance of cheese to the faith (unless, of course, this forms the basis of the faith). Similarly, this is why we talk about the impact that a person themselves had in greater depth to that of their son's impacts upon the world. I could go on and on, but it should be clear that some form of determination has to be drawn as to what gets covered within an article, it is simply impossible to compartmentalise subjects in individual articles otherwise, and similarly those matters of greater importance to a subject must be covered in more depth. If someone reading this is feeling very kind, they may wish to translate much of the waffle here into plain english, it is most hard to write about such subjects without using terms such as neutral, impartial, weight, and so on! LinaMishima (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since I never said or implied anything that remotely approximates what you say  I "seem to be advocating", I don't have any response to your response to an argument I did not make. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

text: As i understand it, Wikipedia has expressly rejected favoring scientific points of views as opposed to other points of views. Views are significant with respect to (a) sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant) and (b) contribution to general culture/knowledge etc. Scientific points of view have made a major contribution to general culture and hence scientific points of view are essentially always significant, but religious, humanistic, philosophical, and other points of view are often significant as well. Viewpoints need to be represented as such. One good reason for including more than one viewpoint is that different viewpoints influence each other and can change each other over time. For example, half a century ago environmentalism was thought to be a non- or even anti-scientific point of view, whereas it is now commonly thought of as a scientific point of view. But non-scientific thought about the environment affected the cultural environment in which scientists did their work. The ArbCom ruling is limited to theories that purport to be scientific (if they claim to be scientific, then that claim must be backed up by mainstream science), and doesn't apply to general culture and other viewpoints that don't claim to be science-based. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well put. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: You say: "sheer numbers (the most common popular viewpoint is generally significant)". Are you suggesting science articles need to include the popular consensus or are you refering to popular viewpoints among scientists? If the former, that makes little sense when wrting an encyclopedia. What is your rationale for throwing all ideas, even those long discredited into the pot?  This approach seems more like a history of science approach to writing about science. David D. (Talk) 03:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP favors the scientific consensus in whatever field of science an article is about.  But the reason isn't that this is most scientific, but that within the sci field -within the subject range of the article- it is most notable.  If an article isn't about science, then notability is followed in other ways.  And certainly, in an article on evolution for instance, it wouldn't be complete without a mention of dissenting views.  But the consensus in the scientific field of evolution takes up the vast majority of the article. It's about the notable presented neutrally.  Science doesn't really even have to be considered as such.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue V Fringe 

message: This talk page is for discussing the policy itsself, not its interpretation in a specific case. Such a case may be an example of where the policy needs improving or discussing, but this Homeopathy debate has run off-topic, and has now become distracting to this page history, so I move the discussion to a subpage.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 08:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So go ahead and propose new wording for the policy, since you are so certain you are correct.--Filll (talk) 13:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy, NPOV and Minority Topics 

message: I've done the bold thing and created Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, which was the last core/major policy whose implications seem to get fought over all the time and lead to no small number of edit wars. Lawrence § t/e 16:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! Anthon01 (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard]] 

message: I will now offer an explanation for how undue weight should be applied in articles pertaining to these kinds of situations. For the purposes of this explanation, it is necessary to define a few terms:
#The subject of an article is considered to be the thing that is represented in title of the article. In the case referenced above, the subject is deadly nightshade.
#The category of an article is considered to be the broader topic to which the subject is considered a specific instance. In the case referenced above, the category is plants.
#The connected idea is the contentous fact, statement, or point-of-view asserted to be of import to the subject. In the case referenced above, the connected idea is the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade. 
Undue weight states as an opening sentence: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." This is the sense in which the connected idea needs to be evaluated. Effectively, it is the prominence of the connected idea with reference to the subject that needs to be established in order to justify the inclusion or exclusion of an idea per the undue weight clause. I will note that this is different from the prominence of the connected idea with referece to the category. While a minority or fringe opinion may be prominent relative to a category (e.g. astrology is prominent relative to astronomy) the same minority or fringe opinion is not necessarily prominent to all subjects in that category (e.g. there is no reference to astrology on the radio astronomy article).
The only way to determine the prominence of a connected idea with respect to the subject is to find reliable sources that assert the prominence of the idea with respect to the subject. What makes a reliable source? A reliable source in this instance is any mainstream independent source that is about the subject in question. Note that sources which are about the connected idea or dependent on the connected idea are not reliable for establishing the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. For example, a homeopathic desk reference on plants is not a reliable source for establishing the prominence of the connected idea of the homeopathic use of deadly nightshade to the subject of deadly nightshade. However, a mainstream field guide to plants that mentions that deadly nightshade is famous for its application in homeopathy would be a mainstream independent source that could be used to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In the case of deadly nightshade, there have been two separate problems plaguing the sources offered for inclusion by those hoping to establish the prominence of the connected idea to the subject. In some instances, the sources referenced were not about the subject of the article but rather were about the connected idea. In this case, the connected idea is clearly a fringe subject (inasmuch as homeopathy is pseudoscience) so such sources are subject to extra scrutiny. So a book on homeopathy that mentions deadly nightshade only shows that deadly nightshade may deserve mention in some article devoted to homeopathy. According to fringe guidelines, sources that are strictly about fringe material cannot really be used to establish the prominence of fringe material with respect to a mainstream subject. I have summarized this idea succinctly as the principle of one-way linking. Alternatively, some of the sources offered by those asserting the prominence of the connected idea to the subject were purportedly about the subject of the article (or at least the category of the article) but were not independent of the connected idea. So, for example, a book on the homeopathic uses of plants does not establish the prominence of the homeopathic use of plants outside of the purview of those interested in homeopathy. In order to establish prominence fairly and neutrally, it is necessary to find a source that is independent of homeopathy which asserts the prominence of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. If no independent mainstream sources can be located which assert the prominence of the connected idea to the subject, then the connected idea does not deserve mention in the article.
There is precedent for the application of this principle where the connected idea was found to be prominent through the use of mainstream independent sources on the subject. A particularly relevant example for this discussion where proper sourcing was done to establish the prominence of a connected idea to the subject of an article was what happened in the domesticated sheep article. In this example, User:VanTucky was able to point to a mainstream, independent source that mentioned that certain sheep producers had employed homeopathy in the health maitenance of their flocks. This effectively established the prominence of the connected idea of homeopathic remedies for sheep ailments to the subject of domesticated sheep. There is now an appropriately weighted sentence in the article which discusses the implications of this connected idea to the subject.
ScienceApologist (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This sums it up accurately. In the case of Deadly Nightshade, one might think that if homeopathy was important to deadly nightshade it would be easy to find independent articles on deadly nightshade which mention homeopathy. In fact, no one has been able to find one so far, casting continuing doubt on the significance of homeopathy to the topic of deadly nightshade. Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I contend that the Oxford Book of Health Food is such a source. My contention was confirmed at WP:RSN by every outside editor. This book satisfies your desire to have an independent reliable source - a bar which I believe you are setting WAY too high. Regardless, your high bar has been met with this book which fully supports this statement for inclusion: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Deadly nightshade "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns". -- Levine2112 discuss 18:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  My understanding was that this book was not proven to be a reliable source on the importance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade, only the importance of deadly nightshade to homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite the opposite. This is a from a book about health foods (of which I guess Deadly Nightshade can be considered). And this is from an article in said book about Deadly Nightshade specifically, not about Homeopathy. Hence, if anything, this source shows the "importance" (more like "relevance") of homeopathy to deadly nightshade. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are free to add your own views to the tutorial if you disagree with the portrayal so far. Stephen B Streater (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This rant, mistakenly labeled a tutorial, is so wrong in so many ways, it's better left alone to sink under the weight of its own bombast. The real issue here is summed up quite well by  below. Dlabtot (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it was very clear and well argued. If you can't pinpoint any errors, then I can accept that. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, sure, pretend that it is "without error". Like wisdom engraved on tablets and handed down by God. That's a good one. Dlabtot (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  There's a perfectly good undue weight tutorial at WP:UNDUE. That's what people should read if they want to be tutored in undue weight. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one is saying you have to explain your criticisms. Equally, your link to WP:UNDUE is helpful. Particularly this comment by Jimbo: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In the UK and US, homeopathy is used by 1 in 50 who have medical treatment - ie some fraction of this in the population at large. And deadly nightshade could be some miniscule fraction of this. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Homeopathy article should be discussed at Talk:Homeopathy, Belladonna, at Talk:Deadly_nightshade  They are not subjects in which I have any interest. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone brought the discussion on the relevance of homeopathy to deadly nightshade here. That is what we are discussing now. If you have no interest in them, I suggest you don't join in. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight tutorial

message: The plant is used to make a homeopathic "remedy," but nothing from the plant ends up in it.  Electronics are used to make paper, but nothing from the electronics ends up in the paper.  It is reasonable to mention electronics in an article on paper making, but it isn't reasonable to mention paper making in an article on electronics.  Likewise, it is reasonable to mention the plant in an article on homeopathic remedies, but it is undue weight to mention homeopathy in the article about the plant. MilesAgain (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An analogy 

message: I want to point out that WP:SIGNIF is currently simply a redirect to WP:N, but as the above discussion (and other discussions that have occurred from time to time) makes clear, determining significance of points of views is different from the notably of subjects. I would encourage making WP:SIGNIF a stand-alone guidance and putting an articulation of what is involved in determining which viewpoints are signficant there. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It almost seems as if some who are involved in this current brouhaha just don't "get" the concept that a minority view could be significant, and still be absolutely WRONG!  LOL.  Well, duh.  Yeah, a lot of the significant viewpoints that people have and have had throughout history are indeed totally WRONG! No wonder the world is in the state it is. Nevertheless, I think Wikipedia must present all significant points of view published by reliable sources, and we can let the facts speak for themselves. Dlabtot (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. There's a longish article in Wikipedia on Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations. And another on Flat Earth Society, and yet another on Young Earth creationism. Another on Free energy suppression. These are minority opinions important enough to have articles devoted mainly to them as major topics (most of the contra evidence actually exists in other articles). So? SBHarris 03:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly. All that has been demonstrated in this particular case is that belladonna is significant to homeopathy. There might even be enough material for an article on all the experiments people have done which show that there is no benefit to scarlet fever patients from taking belladonna. But what has not been demonstrated is that homeopathy is worth a mention in the belladonna article, any more than the numerous other subjects which belladonna is important to are mentioned. Just because a subject (like homeopathy) is notable, it doesn't mean that it is important to everything it uses. Another subject like this is Jamie Oliver, a celebrity chef in the UK. He cooks leeks, peas, beans, goose etc, but is not mentioned in those articles. Similarly Homeopathy uses belladonna, but is not mentioned in that article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Permit me - with all due respect - to show a possible flaw in your comparison using Jamie Oliver. Jamie Oliver is a person notable for cooking. Much like Samuel Hahnemann is a person notable for homeopathy. Now your comparison would be applicable if we were trying to include information about Hahnemann in this article. But we are not. We are trying to include information about his profession. So, using your analogy, would we be more likely to see mention of "cooking" in the beans article or "beans" in cooking article? Clearly - and you can check this out for yourself to be true - cooking (as a use) is mentioned in the beans article, but beans are not mentioned in the cooking article. A direct comparison reveals that homeopathy (as a use) should be mentioned in the belladonna article, while mentioning belladonna in the homeopathy article would be a little too specific. There's really no beans about it. -- Levine2112 discuss 10:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a good point. Of course a lot more people eat cooking than use homeopathy. Here's a proposal: I'll come up with a (non-cooking) publication on beans which mentions cooking, and you come up with a (non-homeopathy) article on DN which mentions homeopathy. Then we will all be happy. Isn't it surprising that it is proving so hard to find such a DN publication? I had assumed that they would common, but every day which goes by makes me realise that homeopathy is less relevant to the subject. Stephen B Streater (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I have already found such a book (a non-homeopathic book, not the non-cooking book). Remember The Oxford Book of Health Food? I found this quite readily. So in your opinion, can we include the info now? -- Levine2112 discuss 18:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you mean the sentence: As far as can be discovered, there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What absurd lengths people will go to claiming sourcing! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps people come to Wikipedia to check claims of homeopathic use though. If it is mentioned elsewhere in sceptical publications, we can think about giving similar weight here. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt is that homeopathy is relevant to botany. That's why the botany department of the Natural History Museum has a botany project called "plants and Fungi used in Homeopathy". We therefore have a perfectly adequate non-homeopathy source, i.e. a botanical one interested in classification, which can be used to source the use of various plants in homeopathy.Number48 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here's another source that contains general information on DN which includes homeopathy anongst it's medicinal uses. .Number48 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we have a number of articles which give perhaps 5% of their medicinal use to mentioning homeopathic uses. To me, the OUP one looks like it would be one of the better references in WP (as a whole) to a sentence about 1 or 2 lines long, perhaps added to a renamed Obsolete medicine section - perhaps renamed Other medicinal uses. This would not give undue weight as an entire section (which it does not receive in the references), but will demonstrate the issue has been considered by the world outside homeopathy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the sentence could read as such: According to The Oxford Book of Health Foods, Belladonna "is included... in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns" however "there is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine." Sound reasonable? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see the need for so many qualifiers. Jefffire (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would be your suggested wording? -- Levine2112 discuss 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reference will make it clear where it comes from. We could say: Belladonna is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How significant is the absence of evidence? Have studies disconfirmed or just not been performed? —Whig (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Studies have been performed for various claimed uses, and have all showed no discernable effect. I quoted an early one a few days ago. When making medical claims, the onus is on those making the claims to provide evidence that they are not just talking rubbish. We can't include a claim in this encyclopaedia just because some one said it.Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, of course we cannot include non V/RS claims. But it goes both directions, we can't make non V/RS negative claims either. —Whig (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given the source we are using, I think Stephen B Streater's wording is acceptable. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  "eye of newt and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog are frequently included in  witch's brews, despite the absence of scientific support for their use."  do you see the problem here? As soon as we say, "witch's brews", it is unnecessary to go further and point out that there is no scientific support.  It is a statement that those things are included as ingredients, not a statement that witch's brews are effective.  The question of  whether or not witch's brews are effective does not even arise. But are witch's brews effective? Res ipsa loquitur.  Dlabtot (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but my point is that the source which we are using for Belladonna actually does say: There is no experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathic medicine. I figured why not include it? Especially if it is a compromise that will appease those otherwise wishing to keep this information off the page. Of course, if a reliable source was produced which negated the statement - a source which showed that there is experimental evidence to support the use of belladonna in homeopathy - then, of course the statement should be removed. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree - later experimental evidence trumps a prior lack of experimental evidence. The difference between witches brews and homeopathy is that some claim that homeopathy is supported by science, so a clear statement it is not is required. Putting homeopathic uses in WP automatically gives them some credence, and we wouldn't want people to think that the homeopathic claims were scientifically supported when they are not. PS The recent reduction in obsolete medicine section solves another undue weight issue! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I'm speaking strictly in terms of what is the best style to use.  Homeopathy is quackery; rational people understand that; non-rational people aren't going to change their minds because every time homeopathy is mentioned in Wikipedia (if ever, lol), we add a disclaimer that says it has no scientific basis. Such a disclaimer is simply unnecessary. But I recognize that given the ongoing battle raging on many pages, questions of what the best style for an encyclopedia to use are considered somewhat secondary. Dlabtot (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with you comments regarding style. Unfortunately style in this case takes a back seat to compromise. Anthon01 (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I think the consensus (though not necessarily unanimous view) is now to include a proportionate mention. The warning balances the fact of the entry. I have added this to the article (!) as I think any further debate will be more balanced between different views from this point rather than the lack of mention position of the article. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  To answer your specific point, the article in the original source thought it was worth mentioning , and as we are using this as our reliable source, I think we can safely mention it too. Not mentioning it may risk accusations of editorial bias. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SIGNIF]] 

message: I don't understand how a statement about people's beliefs or behavior could be regarded as non-fringe only if the belief or behavior itself is considered scientifically justified. If the use of belladonna for folk or homeopathic remedies is a significant human use of the plant, and this can be reliably documented, judgements about the reasonableness of the beliefs or behavior involved would not seem to matter. Since human beliefs and behvior are often characterized as unreasonable, omitting statements about them based on opinions of their accuracy/value, rather than on objective considerations such as observed frequency of occurrance, would seem to pose WP:NPOV difficulties . Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. But here we can do better, by providing a wikilink to the article about the beliefs, so people can explore the idea for themselves. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are editors who will not have it, and so it is their on POV that will prevail. Anthon01 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with SBS; we should provide a link to homeopathy so interested readers can go there and learn more - that's the advantage of an electronic encyclopedia! -- Levine2112 discuss 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  And I don't want to get in revert wars with editors who seem to be ignoring NPOV in this particular instance. Edits such as this seem to me to be disregarding NPOV (and V and RS). -- Levine2112 discuss 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific justification 

message: There is a lot of talk above. More editors favor inclusion than not. Those that are against inclusion maintain that the NPOV policy should be interpreted such that a source must be presented which shows not that Deadly Nightshade is notable to Homeopathy but rather that Homeopathy is notable to Deadly Nightshade. I have asked for passages from NPOV which justify this rationale and still have not see an answer. Meanwhile, many references have been provided all confirming that Deadly Nightshade is in fact used in the preparation of a homeopathic remedy. This usage has been notable enough to be researched in a few dozen studies published in notable scientific journals, and written about in both homeopathic and non-homeopathic books; most relevant to this discussion is its mention in the Oxford Book of Health Food and its description in Medline. Using these sources, we can easily devise a sentence which in effect would read: Deadly nightshade is included in homeopathic preparations for acne, boils, and sunburns despite the absence of scientific support for its use. It's neutrally worded from the sources and totally verified. The question which we would like answered here remains: Does the inclusion of this text at Deadly nightshade in anyway violate WP:NPOV? If so, how? Please be specific. If not, can we please include this text and move onto something better? Please! :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 03:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, it's no worse than any of the other mentions of uses for Deadly Nightshade (though whether that section at all should be there is another debate). If those stay in, there's nothing wrong with a mention of homeopathy. The reason, I suspect, that there's such a big deal about this is because there was a massive push by a group of pro-homeopathy editors to include mentions of homeopathy across the encyclopedia, in only tangentially-related articles. If these mentions had been made by neutral editors, I doubt there'd be much of an issue. But then the "defense" started to overflow, and so now you have another group trying to eradicate mentions of homeopathy wherever possible. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   Chicken or egg --- who started it seems pretty irrelevant.  Thank you for weighing in on the question of whether inclusion of this material is appropriate. I agree with your assessment that it is.  Dlabtot (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Infophile: So let's agree with the other group of editors, the ones who are trying to expunge homeopathy, that only the most significant use of plants for homeopathy will be supported for inclusion, significant based upon the standard used here with belladonna. Anthon01 (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just leave those articles alone? At this point, any edit from either of these groups is just going to look like POV pushing. Leave these articles the way you found them (with regards to mentions of homeopathy, other positive edits can stay), and fight your battles elsewhere. (To be honest, I'd prefer the fight to stop completely, but I'm trying to be realistic.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: We have discussed this in detail on another thread, Homeopathy cannot be described as fringe in that it is used by millions of people and is part of the mainstream of medicine in some countries. —Whig (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." That description applies to homeopathy in relation to mainstream medical science, regardless of what proportion of people use the medication in one or two countries. The term fringe may seem unfortunate, but that's what the guidance page is called. .. dave souza, talk 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except, as I have pointed out, homeopathy is perfectly within the mainstream view in its field of study in India. —Whig (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the inclusion of this text in anyway violate WP:NPOV