Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

---

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

---

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

tags

1. — message used to warn of problems
2. — tags only a single section as disputed
3. — message used to mark articles that may be biased. ( may be used for short)
4. Template:POV-title — when the article's title is questionable
5. — when only one sentence is questionable
6. — When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies

   What is the point of a neutral point of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   
   

   Back to the discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Self-contained definition of fairness of tone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality and tone:

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

missed edit summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updates to tone section

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

• I have changed the word dispassionate into impartial to make the policy mesh more tightly with WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK from the perspective that wikipedia does not get involved in disputed, it lets reliable sources do all of the telling. An article can be massively POV and still presented in a dispassionate tone, while changing a statement from a polemic one to a dispassionate tone does not necessarily remove the POV.
• I removed the word notable opinions for the two reasons cited in the discussion of this version. First, without an essay establishing a notability criterion for schools of thought beyond that in WP:UNDUE, there's no need to point to UNDUE from this section. Secondly, using the loaded word 'notably' immediately presents a problem with making the section susceptible to wikilawering to push fringe views into articles. Since some fringe groups have unquestioned notability, this could be used as a wedge to try to force those views into articles they do not belong in (based on the criteria in UNDUE) by arguing that they are notable. To fix the section only discusses the tone of schools of thought that are being discussed in the article, leaving UNDUE to stand alone in adjudicating which schools of thought deserve mention in an article or not, eliminating all possibility of conflict.

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

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

Religion section - Disputes between historians or scientists and religious views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested revision to tone section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tone: Unfair treatment?

Whereas previous long-standing language specifically called for "fairness" of tone and called for "sensitive" treatment of viewpoints one might disagree with, the current revision does the opposite and includes languague indicating that points of view shouldn't necessarily be treated fairly. Why in the world should we specifically provide for unfair treatment? I would recommend removing that language and coming up with a way of phrasing the policy that avoids saying we won't be fair. The intent of the policy was to present different sides' views in a way that presented their best arguments (from a viewpoint reflecting and fairly presenting what the viewpoint has to say and why people who believe that viewpoint hold it) rather than through the voices of critics or in a manner that strongly suggests no serious person would believe it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(original post; edit conflict)

The problem with 'fairness' as you describe it is that we need to maintain a balance between two competing interests and still satisfy the requirements of being encyclopedic. On the one hand, we have the majority, mainstream opinion, and on the other we have all of the schools of thought that are not in the majority. Based upon our three core content policies, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V we have to balance our interest with informing the reader about various groups and opinions with what we can verify and source. Since it is weight in sources that determines what is considered 'mainstream' or 'fringe' we also have an obligation to inform the reader about how 'weighty' in terms of reliable sources each set of arguments or schools of thought is. To that end we have to balance the requirement of informing the reader about a topic while not presenting the idea that all schools of thought are considered equal by the pool of reliable sources. Wikipedia does not treat topics fairly, it treats them neutrally. In relationship to the opinions of various groups on a given topic, neutral treatment means detail proportional to coverage in reliable sources. In articles dedicated to the groups holding those opinions NOTPAPER|there is no limit to the amount of detail that can be included, and so the groups' views can be presented fully. (As long as the presentation meets WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR) HatlessAtless (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OP changed statement, newer response)

Are you refering to the representations of an opinion in an article on another topic, or the opinion as held in an article dedicated to a group itself? Let's examine each case: In the case of reporting what group G believes about topic T, we report proportionally to representation in a reliable sources. We also use the best sources available. Next, in an article on group G, we report what the group believes, presenting all relevant, encyclopedic facts necessary to give a reader a clear understanding of the topic. For this, there is no limit to the amount of detail we can present (See WP:PRESERVE, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTPAPER) but it all must be verifiable. Since per WP:V the only inclusion we can justify is reliable sources, then if the only reliable sources publishing on a group's beliefs are the voices of critics, then that is how the article will read. Remember, the world at large is not 'fair' and we go not manufacture equality, we simply present the best arguments and how reliable sources react to them. If the only reliable sources of a group's opinions are criticisms, then the article will be critical. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha - I just recently added the statement you're complaining about, partly in response to various concerns expressed here that this section would be used to demand 'equal rights' for minority positions, and partly as a prelude to adding a bit about treating all positions civilly. haven't gotten to the second part of that yet, though. let me try to do that now and see it that satisfies your concerns. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think "civilly" is a useful adjective. In my view the WP:WEIGHT section indicates we don't give every view the same quantity of exposure, but the intent of the tone section is to try to give every view a similar quality of exposure within the space available. As long as we clarify that what we're trying to do here is present every view with a similar encyclopedic level of polish (or "sizzle"), we can avoid creating an obligation to give every view the same amount of real estate (or "steak"). I hope this helps convey the distinction I'm trying to make. In any event, saying we won't be fair strikes me as unwise -- I'm sure things can be said some other way. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the revision - see if it works. and let me say that I agree with you, but there's a contingent of editors who seem obsessed with the wp:weight duplication - every time I've suggested revising it, they object (I'm not sure why, really...). I just thought it was easier to keep it and work it in rather than bump heads over it. --Ludwigs2 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It does look better! Perhaps talking just a little bit more about what the policy is, and a bit less about what it isn't, might help, something like:.

::::Editors should be careful not to imply judgements or conclusions that go beyond what is present in verified sources and to present each view with a similarly neutral, polished, encyclopedic, and perceptive tone, even though not every view should get equal space, or be treated as equal to every other view, and even though extreme minority views should generally not be presented at all.

This way, the tone section also gets to describe the desired tone a bit more fully. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

well, that's kind of a run-on sentence...  :-) maybe this?

Editors should be careful not to imply judgements or conclusions that go beyond what is present in verified sources. They should present each view with a similarly neutral, polished, encyclopedic, and perceptive tone. This does not mean that every view should get equal space or be treated as equal to every other view, or even that all views have a right be presented (see undue weight); It means that where there is a debate about bias that cannot be resolved through other policies, editors should err on the side of caution, using the most civil and innocuous tone possible to convey the sourced information.

I think it's good to highlight the 'does not mean' part, to preclude some painfully silly arguments about including things that just don't belong on the grounds of fairness, but... and feel free to go ahead and edit it in yourself - that's how the process should work.  :-) --Ludwigs2 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I prefer your wording to the recent edit. Since there's been a recent edit about unrsolvable disputes, why not retain the language about civility without having to know whether a dispute will eventually be resolved or not:

Editors should be careful not to imply judgements or conclusions that go beyond what is present in verified sources. They should present each view with a similarly neutral, polished, encyclopedic, and perceptive tone. This does not mean that every view should get equal space or be treated as equal to every other view, or even that all views have a right be presented (see undue weight); In the presence of disputes, editors should err on the side of caution, using the most civil and innocuous tone possible to convey the sourced information.

--Shirahadasha (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)




I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "perceptive", since perception is the art of seeing WP:TRUTH. "Innocuous" is also misleading; the writing should not seek to be either weak or meek or unclear. It is possible to be diplomatic without sounding like a politician avoiding a question.

My main concern about making the tone section too "nice" is that it will invite people whining about tone instead of actually working on content of articles. If a view is overstated, the proper response should always be to provide evidence that it is overstated, not complain about tone. SDY (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

SDY - again, without totally disagreeing with you, the problem here is that issues of tone can rarely be resolved with evidence (if they could, they wouldn't be issues of tone, but rather issues of verifiable sourcing). for instance, if you say "most scientists reject a fringe theory" and I say "most scientists haven't bothered to look at a fringe theory", how could we possibly find evidence to resolve that? the difference is in the implication we're making of scientists' attitudes, and that's probably not reliably sourced anywhere (unless some social scientist went and did a survey...). my firm belief is that WP needs to err on the side of caution when implying attitudes, and that's a question of how we tone things to imply attitudes. better to be nice and look wimpy then to be forceful and look biased... --Ludwigs2 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss before changing

Folks, I reverted more deeply back to what the page was when page protection was added. We don't seem to have consensus here. Strongly suggest keeping the page reverted back to a state before the recent proposals and attempting to get a sizeable comment period and consensus on major changes. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, somewhat: activity is the best way to hash out a viable working rephrase, so lonmg as everyone isn't too revert-happy. Insisting on the long-standing version can be problematic in itself, where the long-standing version contains poor phrasing. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In general I agree with shoemaker, but given that this is a core content policy, rather than an ordinary paragraph, I also understand where Shirahadasha is coming from. By the same token, looking at the current wording (longstanding version), I have to admit that I like it a lot. HatlessAtless (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what version to which you are referring, but the version that is labeled "Fairness of Tone" has a lot of problems in that it equates equality and fairness with neutrality. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your view, but not enough people have weighed in to establish that it's the community's view. I've posted a notice to WP:PUMP that a discussion of some substantial changes to WP:NPOV, particularly the "tone" section, is underway at this page. We let discussion at an ordinary AfD go for several days before taking action. This is a major policy page that editors need to rely on. Having the text change rapidly as issues are debated can create chaos. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We've exceeded the length of time for most AfDs at this point. I think you might want to take an opportunity to read some of the sections that are a bit higher on this page. There has been a considerable amount of discussion on this issue. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Structure of tone section needs to focus on tone

When discussing the tone section of this core policy, I have noticed that we are wasting too much time alluding to other pieces of policies to resolve potential disputes. This is the exact opposite of the approach we need to be taking. If our knee-jerk reaction is to fix every possible conflict of our wording of the tone section by heaping on references to other policies, what we'll eventually end up with is a section that just references every wikipedia policy and helps nobody.

To create a good tone section, and to solve the problems it needs to solve, we need to identify wording situations that meet all of the core content policies and are defensible in terms of all other policies and guidelines and still maintain non-neutral tone. The situation with WP:UNDUE is a perfect example; the edit summary "moving unnecessary extra facts from "Views on X" section to appropriate section on group G per WP:UNDUE" is a perfectly good edit summary, and will not be strengthened by trying to somehow modify or clarify tone. If there is a problem with tone, fine, but let's not waste our time using tone as a commentary section on other sections.

We'll be better served by keeping the tone section stand-alone. Perhaps one of the first sections of tone should be: "Tone is highly subjective; if editors run across a section whose tone they disagree with, they should first consult the WP:List of policies and see if the section violates one of those." Then we can go into how a section could have non-neutral tone without technically violating a policy. I can think of a few:

1. An article could present all relevant facts about group G's opinions on a topic in terms of attributed critical quotes from reliable sources when both sympathetic and critical reliable sources are available. While this technically gives the reader the required facts about G's views, this can prejudice the reader that all coverage is critical, or sidetrack from the intent of the section, which is to provide G's views on X.
2. An article could present weaker arguments or weaker details rather than stronger arguments and details in a section that otherwise represents the views fairly. While all of the details and arguments merit inclusion in group G's article, the winnowing of what to include in article X was done to select unfairly against G.
3. In a long-running debate, an article could present old-arguments that have been thoroughly rehashed. This is particularly dangerous in cases of long-running debates between pseudoscientific groups and mainstream science. The pseudoscientific authors will continuously change, refine, and contort their arguments to avoid older scientific counter-arguments. At the same time, both sides of such debates will frame arguments in terms of thoroughly destroying an older source (Lee strobel going after Origin of Species while completely ignoring 150 years of evolution research anyone?). Failing to present latest arguments, or give an accurate snapshot of the current nature of a debate is also bad, but may also be properly weighted, sourced, attributed, and verifiable.

Please add other situations where an article is non-neutral in its tone while still meeting all other criteria. We should keep in mind that it is easy to quote other core policy sections to clean up articles, we don't need tone as well, we should keep tone focussed on tone. HatlessAtless (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tone is a very nebulous thing in a written encyclopedia. If this were a spoken encyclopedia, a section on tone would look much different and probably be a lot bigger. As it is, people interpret tone into wording. We must acknowledge that lots of interpretations exist. However, just because it is possible to interpret a certain sentence having a certain tone doesn't necessarily mean that the sentence has that tone. We should avoid obvious instances of sarcastic derision of ideas within article text, for example, but there are occasions where people react to perceived tone by rewording an article to a state that is not NPOV. This is the stickiness. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should go for more here than simply avoiding sarcastic derision. I'd suggest that WP:WEIGHT addresses the quantity of "steak" that different views get, but tone addresses the quality of the "sizzle". Even where the quantities should not be the same, there should a qualitative similarity in that each gets its best arguments and sources and a respectful and civil presentation, words are chosen that avoid disparagement, the overall tone is encyclopedic/reflective/perceptive/somewhat tolerant, the presentation ideally should have a certain polish, etc. The sizzle can be as important as the steak. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility in the tone of sources would be an issue for WP:RS, not here. If you think that choosing certain sources would violate NPOV then you are putting the editorializing before the research. That's backwards. What happens first is a collection of all the sources. Then people debate the reliability and prominence of the sources. Then those sources are characterized. Excluding sources because we don't like their tone is inappropriate. The tone of the text that we use to frame sourcing should be dispassionate, of course, but the tone of sources is not something that NPOV ever touches on. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

SA nailed it on the head here. There are plenty of ways to handle even the most openly POV of sources, even going so far as to neutrally word the source. We can attribute statements, even paraphrase instead of quote if necessary. That is handled in WP:NOR and in several of the cases in the conflict section of NPOV. My primary thought about tone is to provoke discussion of this type. Different readers will interpret different sections in different ways. Really, I think a tone should be less about identifying or correcting "POV tone" (since I think in almost all cases, POV tone in reality violates some other core content policy), but more about admonishing editors to be sensitive to the feelings of those readers who have beliefs and worldviews being challenged by the editor's sourcing, and to try to write in a way that won't offend them. That simple principle really does all we need to do for tone, everything else is covered in WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE and WP:WEIGHT. HatlessAtless (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The "tone" of Wikipedia has little to do with watering down or applifying other people's views on topics and a lot to do with separating those voices from Wikipedia's voice. Other places may have strong views. Other places may have weaker views. The point is that they shouldn't be Wikipedia's views. We have numerous policies and guidelines. This one is just about tone. All tone is is describing disputes without engaging in them (lifed off the NPOV/FAQ page). It doesn't take a lot to say that. Describe people's views accurately and without misrepresentation, and (as the NPOV/FAQ page also says) "all the major participants will agree that their views are presented sympathetically and comprehensively." That's neutral tone. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, we're in agreement in here. My only qualification to that statement is that I would argue that a polemic secondary source does not need to be quoted to have its view properly represented. It would not be misrepresenting a source to rephrase disdainful language into something more encyclopedic while preserving the facts the source includes, in the interest of keeping an overall impartial tone of a section. "The point is that they shouldn't be Wikipedia's views." I agree, but this also applies to "Their words shouldn't necessarily be Wikipedia's words" either. As long as we're in agreement that the exact wording a source uses in presenting its facts may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, the rest of your statement I 100% agree with. HatlessAtless (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly a polemic source may not need to be quoted. Then again, possibly it might. Sometimes accurately describing a really strong view requires us to demonstrate how polemical they are in the spirit of "let the facts speak for themselves" through a direct quote. An example would be (what most consider to be the really messed up) views of the Westboro Baptist Church. We could water down their poster slogans, or we can let them speak for themselves. Likewise, we could water down the critical response they've received, or we could let those views speak for themselves. If an overwhelming emotional response of complete disdain for such views as the Westboro Baptist Church exist, and are notable, it may actually be biased to quote WBC and not quote the disdainful language of the respondents. The disdainful language may be a notable fact about the opinion.

Who knows what's appropriate quoting/language until we're down in the trenches working on an article and have to make the call. It's a case by case basis. I think, considering this is core policy, a prime directive from which guidelines spring, we shouldn't be telling editors to water down other people's language through rephrasing. We should keep it about what NPOV really is, not taking sides, being impartial in tone, not watering down or rephrasing a source's tone. A source's tone is not Wikipedia's tone.

Their words shouldn't necessarily be Wikipedia's words, but the same is true in reverse. Their words shouldn't necessarily be excluded from Wikipedia because they're not impartial. As long as Wikipedia impartially presents the partial view, Wikipedia is neutral. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Impartial tone examples...

Example 1:

• View A: WBC has stated that they don't like homosexuals.
• View B: The homosexual community has stated that they don't like religious intolerance.

Impartial. Both views are presented with an unbiased, watered down tone. It may not be an accurate representation of the strongly held views, but at least it's impartial in tone.

Example 2:

• View A: WBC has stated that "God Hates Fags".
• View B: A representative of the homosexual community responded "Those bigots can go fuck themselves".

Impartial. Both views are presented with an unbiased, strongly worded tone. It may not be "sensitive", but it's fair, impartial, and in many ways a more accurate representation of the strongly held views, in the interest of letting the facts speak for themselves.

Both examples are completely neutral and impartial. We don't need to water down other people's views to be neutral, and we don't necessarily need to be "sensitive". We just have to be consistent in tone, applying tones to views unbiasedly. It's an editorial judgement on which of the above is more encyclopedic, but that's a style guideline, not a neutrality policy. WP:NOTCENSORED is just as much a policy as NPOV. "Not censored" pretty much implies that "sensitive" may not always be realistic. Here, in NPOV, we're only concerned with being unbiased. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Though in your case of the WBC, I'll point out two things. First, as a fringe group whose views are not taken seriously by reliable sources, we would generally not expect their views to be represented in wikipedia at large. Secondly, the WBC is notable primarily for the level of sheer hate, invective and provocation in their slogans. In most cases, especially cases of scientific, or pseudoscientific arguments that claim to be 'rational', the arguments do not need to include invective to represent the arguments fairly. Just because a scientist describes the 'misguided' views of people who believe in ID just before taking apart an argument presented by an ID supporter does not mean that the scientific argument contains the word 'misguided'. I agree that we shouldn't worry about censoring ourselves, as you so aptly pointed out with WP:NOTCENSORED, but by the same token, invoking WP:NOTCENSORED should never be an excuse to avoid asking "do we really need that inflammatory wording to faithfully convey the argument?" In the case of the WBC, the answer is yes. In the case of a scientific argument about ID, probably not. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

They're just two examples out of dozens of case scenarios. As much as scientists and IDers don't get along philosophically, they're much more civil with each other. One may call the other a "crank" (not a particularly impassioned view) and the other might respond with a "reductionist" name-calling. It's not really watering it down to describe the views in more traditional-encyclopedic language. (But again, that's not an issue of neutrality if we're consistent with both sides, my overall point. That's a style guideline, not a neutrality policy. If we're inflammatory with both sides of the dispute, we're neutral, eventhough we're pretty crappy as far as encyclopedias go -- tabloid-like.) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is actually somewhat of my point. It is possible to find reliable sources and texts on an argument whose overall tone is civil, but specific sources or parts of sources do in fact delve into some pretty nasty language. In the case of the overall civil debate about ID, for example, in The God Delusion, towards the end Dawkins goes into some pretty nasty arguments about how all religious thinkers are mentally diseased and such. I have also read some ID/creationist arguments making some pretty nasty fire-and-brimstone statements about scientists, pushing it far beyond just 'reductionist name calling'. Do we really need to quote Dawkins talking about how anyone who believes in God needs psychiatric help, in order to properly represent the scientific arguments he makes against ID? Just as we shouldn't water things down in the interest of maintaining fidelity to relevant arguments, neither should we include extra inflammatory language unless it is necessary to the fidelity of the argument. But then again, it seems we're in agreement about what we're trying to achieve and what we have to balance. HatlessAtless (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to quote Dawkins talking about how anyone who believes in God needs psychiatric help? Absolutely! It's a mischaracterization to quote him as an unbiased expert on the relationship between science and religion when he's anything but, and his more civil comments obscure the fact that he actually feels religious adherents are delusional. Let the facts speak for themselves. I don't particularly care for Dawkins exactly because he personalizes the issue, draws the conclusion that science = atheism, when that's not necessarily true, and uses shock tactics in his critique of religion (like calling his book The God Delusion). Not including that information misinforms the reader. He's notable enough to include in the topic of ID, we don't want to exclude him just because he's polemic, and we don't want to misrepresent him. Cherry-picking his civil comments out of his overall view goes beyond neutrality issues into mischaracterization of sources. You do not want to be saying in core policy to ignore notable facts about a view to make the source seem neutral, when the goal is to make Wikipedia neutral, not the sources. If the source isn't neutral there are several ways of making Wikipedia neutral anyway. First and foremost, point out the bias. Eg. "Richard Dawkins, a popular science writer and self-described atheist, has stated that 'religion is a mental disease'". There is nothing non-neutral about that. Wikipedia neither endorses nor rejects it. Further, Wikipedia clearly stated that Richard Dawkins has biases on the topic and is not impartial. He's an atheist. What Wikipedia did not do is mischaracterize Richard Dawkins by cherry-picking just his civil comments and ignoring that he actually feels religion is a mental disease. By all means, quote the head notable creationist saying Dawkins is going to hell too, or quote Dawkin's critics as saying he's too harsh, add further details for a well rounded article. Just don't misquote anyone. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)




Ahh, but here we end up in the same place again, from different routes. The relevant fact, that Dawkins claims religion is a mental disease, is quite different from the actual text of the book. You quoted Dawkins in a very neutral way, and did not try to insert his polemic into the article. This is what I'd rather incorporate than more biased language. We may or may not disagree on how relevant Dawkins' biased claims are in the context of ID, and how they should fit in the article. Point being that his statements are contextualized and attributed, which takes the teeth out of the POVness of Dawkins's statements. The inappropriate form would be something like "A leading evolutionary biologist has claimed 'religion is a mental disease' and 'teaching religion in schools should be outlawed as child abuse'", as that neither contextualizes nor attributes the quotation. In my mind, paraphrasing a source's statement to make it neutral is one method that can be used, like attribution/contextualization, to make almost anything neutral, as long as it is done carefully and faithfully to the facts being presented. Notice that in your own statement, you only used a 3-word quote from Dawkins instead of a hypothetical block-quote, and you took care to alert the reader before the quote that they were about to read something polemic and to be aware of that. That is exactly what readers should be doing, as you gave the taste of the poison while keeping it harmless. Bravo! HatlessAtless (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks : ) But I should say that "mental disease" was just an example. I wasn't actually quoting him, and wasn't trying to neutralize his words. It was a hypothetical quote. If he said "religious adherents should be beaten to death with a hammer, sliced into tiny bits, boiled in a huge kettle, and scattered to the ends of the earth", the same principles apply. Dawkins tone isn't Wikipedia's tone and the core policy shouldn't direct editors to tone down the source's rhetoric. There's plenty of other ways to make the article neutral. Any of Dawkin's quotes at Wikiquote[3] (even the really mean ones) could be neutrally included in an article so that Wikipedia's tone is neutral. Wikipedia doesn't have to sugar-coat it to be neutral. This first quote[4] (for example) is a really harsh, some may even say offensive, view of God. Nonetheless, Wikipedia could easily include it and remain neutral without changing the quote at all. Should we include the quote, should we not include it, is based on other criteria (like relevance), not neutrality, because we can always neutrally include it. Dawkin's tone isn't Wikipedia's tone. Source's tones have nothing to do with NPOV policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An example of where Dawkin's harsh "God quote" would be relevant may be in his own article, or in an article like New Atheist views on God. Point is that it's relevance that includes or excludes the quote, not Wikipedia's desire for a neutral tone. Relevance applies to the Westboro Baptist Church scenario also, as well as any other article where strong views are by prominence very relevant in the article. Accurately describing strong, harsh, or offensive views is all about relevance. When the harsh view isn't particularly relevant, it's not necessary to include it. When it is relevant, it is necessary to include it. None of that has anything to do with Wikipedia's tone. If wording were included in Wikipedia's tone policy that said "strive to pick the most neutrally toned sources or neutrally toned parts of sources, or reword sources so that they are more neutral", we're automatically either misrepresenting offensive views or mischaracterizing them as "not that bad". We'd be excluding them even when they are the most relevant part of an article. Whereas if we word it as "keep Wikipedia's tone impartial", we're correctly talking about Wikipedia's tone, and we're encompassing all the various views out there no matter how offensive they may be and safeguarding inclusion when they are relevant. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

At which point we come to perfect agreement. I think between the two of our statements we have expressed the balance of neutrality pretty well. Sometimes it is necessary to water down statements to eliminate unnecessary polemic, sometimes the polemic needs to be included to clarify a position and let the facts speak for themselves. I was certainly not stating that we need to exclude polemic in all cases, but simply that we must consider wording of fact and statement to be one of the points for tweaking to make an article neutral (while scrupulously maintaining the factual content). If the polemic is inextricably tied to the factual content, so be it, as you've pointed out so effectively. This will not be true of all cases, however, and we will have to work article by article to determine whether polemic is necessary to represent strongly held beliefs or simply extraneous to the arguments at hand. HatlessAtless (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The principles and examples I listed were also a response to some of the comments I read above that seemed to suggest we should avoid strong language as a general rule, all the time. Maybe, maybe not, but that's not an issue of neutrality. As long as we're consistent and impartial, for the purposes of neutrality it doesn't matter what language we use, the tone is neutral. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with this as well. so the question now, is how do we capture this in a policy statement? --Ludwigs2 18:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we attempt to describe what we mean by tone, which in my view includes the style and by which material should be described. It includes covering the subject in an encyclopedic style and manner, in a measured way that attempts to shed light rather than simply amplifying heat. This remains the case even when we're using sources that are themselves bitter and partisan. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That's again, style, not neutrality. This is NPOV. What we mean by tone is "impartial and unbiased". What we mean is "Wikipedia describes disputes, not engages in them." That's not a style guideline. Sources will be bitter and partisan in many cases. Core policy needs to be able to handle those cases just as much as it is able to handle not so strong or not so offensive views. Core policy must allow for accurate descriptions of offensive views when they are relevant to the topic. Views stand on their own merits. Any attempt by Wikipedia to neutralize or tone down other's views is engaging the views, which isn't neutral. When you say we shouldn't "amplify heat", I agree, but I must also say we're not here to turn down the heat either. If the burner's already on, turning them down is engaging in the dispute. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking around and I can't seem to find any policy that says we need to "tone down" source's views to achieve neutrality. I find policies that require us to be impartial and unbiased, consistent, true to the source, not cherry-pick details, be fair, be civil with each other, things like that, but nothing that directs us to reword sources so that they themselves are "sensitive" or "gentle" on the topic. We're directed through a content guideline (WP:RS) that extreme sources aren't the most reliable, which is kind of obvious, but it's a content guideline (lesser importance) written from the standpoint that such extreme views are minority views less likely to be relevant to the topic, and in fact must be directly relevant to be used. It's about relevancy, not neutrality. There's nothing about toning down viewpoints in sources as a criteria for neutrality in any policy or guideline that I can find. We're directed to be neutral in our language. We're not directed to water down strong views, or exclude them, when they're relevant or notable. Since I'm falable and may have overlooked something, has anyone else seen anything like that? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

now (maybe) you're beginning to see why I think it's important to keep (and maybe amplify) this policy section. there are hints to this all through NPOV (where they talk about fairness, and the avoidance of moralizing, and the encouragement of 'intellectual independence' - all of which point towards a less absolute tone about things) but you['re right, there's nothing direct. that's what we need to develop here.

Look, let's forget about editors and editing for just a moment, and think about readers. if a reader comes to wikipedia, starts browsing an article, and finds himself saying 'Good God, they're really kicking the crap (or sucking the hell) out of this topic' that is generically bad for wikipedia. there are no redeeming qualities to it at all. the reader isn't going to care that it's well-sourced, because the reader isn't going to know that it's well-sourced or even know what well-sourced means. the reader might approve or disapprove of the fact that some topic got kicked around (or generously lipped), and so he might like or dislike wikipedia for wikipedia's particular bias in that case, but either way he's not going to think wikipedia is a respectable source for information. At some point we have to stop and step back an judge whether we sound like we're kissing or kicking the topic's a$$, and if we do sound that way we need to remedy it regardless of other factors, because if we don't then nobody is going to take wikipedia seriously for anything. that is the nature of the beast we're working on. all of this squabbling over policy is worse than useless if readers walk away from their computers thinking wikipedia is a hack, yah? --Ludwigs2 06:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, those are content issues, not neutrality issues. What you're talking about makes for a very good essay, perhaps WP:RELIABLETONE, not to be confused with WP:NPOV, which is just about separating Wikipedia from the dispute, preventing Wikipedia from being part of it. Core policy presents principles and directives by which content guidelines are written. We don't have to promote choosing strong or harsh wording from sources when its not appropriate, but we do have to prevent precluding inflammatory or offensive tones existing in sources when it is actually appropriate and relevant to include it, simply by having "no comment" on it. No comment because it's not a neutrality issue. Harsh wording can entirely be neutral when it is appropriate and relevant. Several other content guidelines (like WP:RS) decide when it is appropriate and relevant. Possibly a WP:RELIABLETONE can even help with that. NPOV, a non-negotiable core policy, cannot cause censorship of relevant and appropriate material in the interest of being "sensitive", especially when there's plenty of other ways to achieve neutrality. Neutrality is impartiality, not sensitivity. In many cases (including the scenarios I've listed, plus more), Wikipedia would be less reliable having excluded such notable and relevant information. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarity: As a non-negotiable core policy that users are expected to abide by, what we currently have (as of this timestamp) is a policy that directs us to be "impartial" in tone. This applies to all case scenarios. If an article is inappropriately using sources that are harsh in tone, it applies. If an article is appropriately using sources that are harsh in tone, it applies. If an article is being inappropriate in choosing sources or comments from sources, we are not being impartial. If an article is appropriately choosing sources or comments from sources, we are being impartial. Above you said we should be looking for "less absolute tone about things". I feel that starts with core policy. Core policy should apply to everything if users are expected to abide by it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - let me just preface this by noting that I've been wrestling with ScienceApologist over on QuackWatch as he keeps trying to add qualifiers to the sources critical of QuackWatch (e.g, 'David Hufford, professor emeritus of Humanities at...' becomes 'David Hufford, cultural apologist for alternative medicine and professor emeritus of Humanities at...' or in its current incarnation 'David Hufford, Professor Emeritus of Humanities at [...] and writer who generally supports viewing alternative medicine as just a different culture'). there's no secondary sourcing for this (SA is getting it himself from an inspection of Hufford's CV), and it is not merely a content issue - it's an atempt to shift Hufford from being presented as an (assumedly neutral) academic to being presented as an (assumedly biased) AltMed supporter. Now SA would never admit to this, of course, but I think it's clear on inspection that he is trying to use the tone of presentation to influence the balance of neutrality in the article.

in other words, don't tell me this is just a content issue - tone and neutrality are deeply intertwined.

now if it's your intention to tell me that core policy is only interested in the writing of articles, and has no interest in the reader whatsoever, I'd like to hear some justification for that. it seems completely absurd to me, since the product is designed to be read. I know (for a fact) that if wikipedia were a 'for sale' encyclopedia (like, say, the Britannica) 'Fairness of Tone' would be the kind of thing that writers and editors could lose their jobs over, because the publisher would not risk its profit margin by allowing even a whiff of bias to enter an article and queer sales. Wikipedia is free, and openly editable, and that suggests we ought to have stronger policies about fairness, not weaker (because we don't have much of an ability to fire or sanction people for not being fair). maybe you're right that an essay is in order (and I'll see if I can write one over the weekend), but regardless this goes (much) deeper than that, and really ought to have some presence in core policy. --Ludwigs2 20:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ludwigs. As you know, I'm involved in that very issue. But I'm not sure it's about "tone". It's more about poisoning the well. My way of thinking about "tone" is that it is essential to represent sources accurately. I found Neal's examples, a long way above, useful. Sometimes it is not enough to say "A disagreed with B" or "A criticized B". It could mislead the reader into thinking a major disagreement was just a minor difference. We might need to say something more like "A was sharply critical of B", or "A disagreed with B on every point" or "A wrote critically of B in strong terms". Or quoting the exact terms can be concise, vivid and accurate: "Dawkins described ID supporters as 'raving lunatics'" (example, I expect inter alia he did but can't check right now). Itsmejudith (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia's NPOV policy care about readers? Absolutely. It cares because it wants to give readers all significantly related information about a topic, as impartially and unbiasedly as possible. That's the textbook definition of "fairness"[5] "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism" and the spirit of fairness as well. Keyword: honesty. PT Barnum famously said "I don't care what they say about me as long as they spell my name right." Fairness is getting it right. It doesn't matter what is said, as long as it's said with honesty and impartiality. Like Barnum, what readers probably want is the assurance that the views are presented accurately and honestly. Wikipedia cares about giving them what they probably want. Now an important distinction: Does Wikipedia give them what they want? Do readers really want honesty, or do they want the politically correct version? Here's where Wikipedia stops being concerned about what they want. Impartiality, unbiased, and yes, fairness, means readers will get complete honesty whether they want it or not. When relevant sources are not neutral, even mean, Wikipedia nonetheless publishes that with the same impartiality that they have for less controversial views.

About your beef with ScienceApologist. I have no idea whether David Hufford is "a writer who generally supports viewing alternative medicine as just a different culture". If there's a reliable source, it's relevant. If there's not, it's an unsourced statement issue. If (keyword: "if") there is a reliable source, the guy is biased to the topic. If we don't say he's biased, we're being biased ourselves. We're assuming a false-neutral tone, trying to make it seem like the guy is unbiased when he isn't. That's engaging in the dispute and being a party to it. We're misrepresenting Hufford. We describe disputes, including source's biases, we don't assume biases ourselves. You'd expect an article to say Martin Gardner is "a science writer who generally supports viewing alternative science as just pseudoscience", pointing out his biases, wouldn't you? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Note on Balance

I used "balance" in this section in a non Wikipedia sense, but the use is confusing and as a Wikipedia term, incorrect. WP:Notability does not refer to material in the article but to criteria for the article's inclusion itself. Apologies. I am traveling and can't be on-line very often and for long so this is a stop gap edit. The section could be better explained.(olive (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC))

This may be a better version than my edited earlier versions. Because there have been no comments on the changes I made earlier, I am adding this to the article where editing by other editors can take place directly if needed.(olive (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC))