Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:55, 23 October 2014

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

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

Spoken Misplaced Pages

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

• WT:NPOV

Archived discussions

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004

Archive_002 Closing out 2004

Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005

Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005

Archive 005 to November 13, 2005

Archive 006 to December 4, 2005

Archive 007 to December 30, 2005

Archive 008 to December 27, 2005

Archive 009 to January 16, 2006

Archive 010 to January 23, 2006

Archive 011 to January 25, 2006

Archive 012 to January 26, 2006

Archive 013 to January 29, 2006

Archive 014 to January 29, 2006

Archive 015 to March 8, 2006

Archive 016 to March 10, 2006

Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006

Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006

Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006

Archive 021: Jun 2006

Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)

Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006

Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006

Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006

Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006

Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007

Archive 28: Mar - May 2007

Archive 29: May – Sep 2007

Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008

Archive 31: Feb – May 2008

Archive 32: May – July 2008

Archive 33: July 2008

Archive 34: July – Sep 2008

Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009

Archive 36: April – Aug 2009

Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009

Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010

Archive 39:

Archive 40:

Archive 41:

Archive 42:

Archive 43:

Archive 44:

Archive 45:

Archive 46:

Archive 47:

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.

Why Bother?

I've used this site for almost 10 years and it's clear from the number of times that right, wrong, real good, true etc. are put in quotation marks that Misplaced Pages is dominated by postmodern existentialists and it's not human to be neutral anyway (it's called the illusion of knowledge). So really, where is the neutrality around here? Not in the Ethics in the Bible article, that's for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.32.141 (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is edited by a multitude of users, having a bewildering variety of religious beliefs and world views, therefore Misplaced Pages cannot affirm that my God is better than yours, since this would mean that it would have a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/Shinto bias, depending upon which god is seen as better than other gods. Claims of absolute truth in the realm of religion lead precisely to "my God is better than yours". Misplaced Pages has found a workaround for this namely it describes facts (i.e. what is consensual among scientists and/or journalists) and facts about opinions (i.e. scholarly analysis of notable opinion). Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for converting people to the one true religious way. That's why Misplaced Pages editors do not simply state they own opinion, but they always have to render verifiable information based upon reliable sources, obeying WP:UNDUE: there are objective ways of assessing such verifiability and reliability of sources, but hell would break loose if each editor would be allowed to insert his/her own opinion about what is true in respect to something. As stated above, in matters of theology we have agreed to disagree, and like it or not, professors and great philosophers who stand up for atheism have expressed notable criticism of the ethics of the Bible. So, the problem is not that such criticism is expressed, it has every right to be rendered, but that those who see something better in the Bible have not sought verifiable information for reliable sources of their liking in order to include it in the article. By reliable sources I do not mean apologetics, since Biblical inerrantists are known to defend the Bible despite rationality and to use any sort of sophism and rhetorical tricks in order to deny valid, objective criticism. You cannot simply ignore the objective fact that the Bible has real problems.

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the “inerrancy” of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text. This is why we don’t find any scholars that subscribe to “Biblical inerrancy” (to my knowledge) on the show.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series

John Goldingay, focusing specifically on inerrancy, summarizes the concern this way: "A stress on inerrancy cannot safeguard people from a slippery slope that carries them from abandoning inerrancy to an eventual reneging on all other Christian doctrines. Indeed, it more likely impels them toward such a slope. The claim that scripture is factually inerrant sets up misleading expectations regarding the precision of narratives and then requires such far-fetched defenses... that it presses people toward rejecting it." I think the same dynamic applies not only to inerrancy specifically but to biblicism more generally.

In such cases, the difficulty is not necessarily the fact of antibiblicist critiques per se. The real problem is the particular biblicist theory about the Bible; it not only makes young believers vulnerable to being disabused of their naive acceptance of that theory but it also often has the additional consequence of putting their faith commitments at risk. Biblicism often paints smart, committed youth into a corner that is for real reasons impossible to occupy for many of those who actually confront its problems. When some of those youth give up on biblicism and simply walk across the wet paint, it is flawed biblicism that is partly responsible for those losses of faith.

Insofar as these biblicism-caused outcomes are undesirable and unnecessary, we have another good reason to seek better alternatives to biblicism. In this Peter Enns is correct: "We do not honor the Lord nor do we uphold the gospel by playing make-believe."

Biblicism simply cannot be practiced with intellectual and practical honesty on its own terms. It is in this sense literally impossible.

— Christian Smith, The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture

So, in order to defend the Bible one must start by calling a spade a spade. I don't deny that the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant is theologically notable, it just isn't a serious scholarly position. See WP:ABIAS for details: biblical inerrancy would produce sarcasm and ridicule in every major US university. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"You cannot simply ignore the objective fact that the Bible has real problems." -- This (and everything else in the above comment, which is pure opinion) is exactly the kind of thing that would be rejected by Misplaced Pages's standards if they were actually consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.175.7 (talk • contribs) 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not treat theological views upon historical events as historical facts, e.g. the Pope seeks to establish what Catholics should believe, but not what Pentecostals should believe. Historians aim to establish objective knowledge about past events. Upon the fallibility of the Bible the mainstream historians make the call, and they have made the call and Misplaced Pages simply reports it as fact. In Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton and Sorbonne it is taught as fact that the Bible is fallible, and this is what Misplaced Pages states in its own voice. There are true believers for whom evidence and arguments don't matter, Misplaced Pages isn't censored for their satisfaction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Topics relating to personal belief should predominantly be written about by people who hold those beliefs. To allow others to dominate pages relating to the beliefs of others leads to an inaccurate representation which quickly becomes accepted by the wider internet community. As of 2014 Misplaced Pages is the source that often appears at the top of Google when one searches for the of definition on a topic.

The diplomacy of articles relating to religion can potentially be ensured by forcing contributors to use words such as, "... believe", and to disallow contributions from individuals who do not identify as having that belief in their Misplaced Pages profile. To keep these pages scholarly contributors could be disallowed from quoting scholars who critique the topic but force them to quote scholars who do hold those beliefs and are viewed within that community as an authority on the topic. To prevent smear campaigns the NPOV rules could disallow pages on one specific religious tradition to mention other religious traditions unless they can demonstrate a non-hostile connection. To prevent every page from turning into a debate criticism on any topic could be reserved to a section on criticism rather than throughout the topic. Misplaced Pages has a reputation as an objective source. But that doesn't mean it's methods for achieving that objectivity require no improvement. The aforementioned changes could allow contributors to simply represent their belief system without being prevented from free and accurate expression by the current NPOV rules, which are sometimes abused.

For example the Misplaced Pages page on Intelligent Design mostly features the opinions of it's critics and little information about the topic itself or it's content. It's rife with generalizations eg, "Educators, philosophers, and the scientific community have demonstrated that ID... lacks empirical support and offers no tenable hypotheses." Any attempt to correct this is disallowed even when it follows the NPOV rules as well as anything currently contained in the article. It is also a case of unsupported attributions as mentioned in the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch yet attempts to correct it have thus far been removed rather than edited.

Also, subjects considered to be fringe theories should be termed as fringe theories rather than pseudoscience as it is a contentious label that carries connotations that would bias the reader. The term "fringe theory" expresses the fact that it isn't widely held or believed without those connotations.

Intensive edits should not be easily removed as they are the product of a high degree effort. To allow other editors to instantly remove this creates an opportunity for cyber bullying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShonaMcc (talk • contribs) 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish to enter the debate, but could editors who do comment here please adhere to WP:Talk page guidelines, in particular by signing their posts using the four tildes, and by indenting their comments with the appropriate number of colons in front of each paragraph: Noyster (talk), 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:ShonaMcc: see WP:LUNATICS. It is a statement upon alternative medicine, but the advice should be taken to the heart in respect to all fringe theories and pseudoscience. As Bart Ehrman said, there are professors of Buddhism who aren't Buddhist, professors of Hinduism who aren't Hindu, professors of Judaism who aren't Jews, professors of Marxism who aren't Marxist, etc. In the TTC course upon the historical Jesus he says there is no requirement of being a Communist in order to study Das Kapital, therefore there is no requirement of being a Christian in order to be a scholar of Christianity. According to WP:ABIAS, Misplaced Pages reflects scholarly and scientific knowledge about every topic, so when discussing Christianity it renders the views of Christianity scholars who live by publish or perish, because they decide what is being taught as fact about Christianity in the main US and European universities. There is no violation of NPOV by describing Intelligent Design as pseudoscience: the very department which employs prof. Behe has issued an unanimous statement (without Behe) that Intelligent Design isn't science. Nor is ID taught as science in any university worth its salt. Biologists consensually accept evolution as fact, and any empirical science rejects by default explanations relying upon supernatural agency. Bible study are no exception form this rule, and as Ehrman said:

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions! There are other reasons for thinking the Gospels were not written, say, in the 60s though — one of which is that the well-traveled and widely conversant with all things Christian Paul does not appear to know anything about them….

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

References

1. . en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 30 September 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
2. "Misplaced Pages:Academic use". en.wikipedia.org. Retrieved 30 September 2014.

Another reason for avoiding significant criticism and controversy sections

The policy seems to suggest that criticism or controversy sections are only problematic when they could give the impression that a person or idea is well-respected or widely accepted, and that all criticisms thereof are fringe. However, such sections can also be a bad thing if they tend to create the opposite impression: by listing so many criticisms of different aspects of an idea in one place, including fringe criticisms, they may leave the reader with the false impression that it has been completely discredited, or that its flaws are so numerous that no reasonable person could support it. They may also act as a criticism magnet (or even sometimes a WP:COATRACK magnet), encouraging editors who don't like the subject of the article to pile on as many criticisms as they can find citations for (possibly leading other editors to overreact by pruning criticisms too aggressively). Putting the criticisms in context, in appropriate sections, could assist the reader to more objectively assess the weight and significance of the criticisms, and their credibility in the context of other facts/claims/statements cited in the same section, and assist editors to more objectively assess whether an excessive number of fringe or minor criticisms were being added. Of course this is partly also a problem that stems from the idea of listing only criticisms, but omitting counter-arguments to those criticisms, which is a problem that is orthogonal to article structure. But I think the (intuitively obvious) possibility of criticism sections lending undue negative weight to an article should be explicitly mentioned - ironically, to create more balance in this policy page!--greenrd (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, DUE, and articles specifically about thought systems

Recently I invited Jimbo to participate in a discussion about how the article about ACIM had been "attacked" so many times by editors who were repulsed by the belief system, that the article itself no longer had anything left to say about the belief system itself, and had essentially become little more than a an empty WP:COATRACK for criticism about the belief system. This discussion with Jimbo was held at: the ACIM article talk page. The most recent editor to "attack" the ACIM article had seemingly rightfully read the section about WP:DUE and from that section had determined that Misplaced Pages is in the business of censoring out any non-mainstream views in articles specifically about non-mainstream views. (See this discussion I had with this editor about this at this editor's talk page.)

I can easily see how this last editor had come to believe that to "attack" the ACIM article in the way that he did, within an article specifically about the ACIM thought system, was proper Misplaced Pages policy after reading the current DUE policy. In the light of Jimbo's stated views on this, and as a result of what seems to me to be a certain missing piece in this policy regarding articles specifically about "thought systems", I would like to propose the following new policy:

Balancing articles about thought systems

In articles specifically reporting on a given "thought-system", such as a religion, a philosophy, or even a conspiracy theory, such articles should be written to provide the reader with as "well rounded", "well informed", "neutral", "fair" and "objective" of a perspective on the given thought system as possible, even when some of the "thoughts" within the given thought system may not be considered as mainstream, or even plausible.

Within such articles specifically covering a given "thought system", should the given thought system seem to include any controversial or widely disputed thoughts or beliefs, nonetheless within such topic-specific articles, such controversial beliefs, and the reasons for them, should still be listed in a reasonable fashion within the given article, alongside whatever documented controversies which may accompany them. Within such topic-specific articles, if possible, the voice of the thought system should be represented in a generally neutral tone, and if suitable, balanced against whatever relevant criticism may exist, thus giving the reader the ultimate ability to determine for him or herself the merits or demerits of whatever controversy or dispute may exist concerning such thoughts or beliefs.

Comments? Scott P. (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

No. There is enough trouble from POV pushers as it is, and almost anything could be regarded as a "thought system". The proposed wording would result in many articles being rewritten to assert the beliefs of proponents in the first half of the article, with actual encyclopedic content about what mainstream science reports as an afterthought at the end. However, of course an article about X should explain what X is. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Then which Wikpedia Policy were those who attacked the ACIM article in violation of? Might you have any suggestions as to how to better word it then? Scott P. (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) One of Jimbo's comments at the discussion you link to contains "...This will then be consistent with how we treat such subjects universally throughout Misplaced Pages." Which may indicate policy doesn't need amendment on this point.

I suppose the piece you suppose to be missing can be found in the WP:ABOUTSELF policy (and doesn't exclusively apply to "thought systems" and the like). So no, this addition to the policy is unnecessary, it is already covered elsewhere, and tries to introduce on the policy page a fairly unreadable portion of text, which is only about the application of a general policy explained elswhere to a very narrow case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ACIM makes the "exceptional claim" that it was "written by Jesus". Therefore, per WP:ABOUTSELF, the thought system contained in ACIM should not to be self referencing. Unless I can find a policy that would address what happened specifically to the ACIM article, then I must assume that the article should not be "principally about the ideas in the book", no? Scott P. (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no "exceptional claim" in describing what is in the book:

• "The book is written by Jesus" would be an exceptional claim;
• "On p. xxx of the book it is asserted that Jesus is its author" in an article on the book, complies to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy from every angle (provided that "xxx" is replaced by the correct page number, or alternatively the page number is mentioned in the reference).

Compare e.g. (from Anne Catherine Emmerich#Clemens Brentano's visits): "Brentano's writings on Emmerich says she believed that Noah's son Ham was the progenitor of "the black, idolatrous, stupid nations" of the world. The "Dolorous Passion" also reveals a "clear anti-semitic strain throughout", with Brentano writing that Emmerich believed that, "Jews ... strangled Christian children and used their blood for all sorts of suspicious and diabolical practices""

References

1. Melissa Croteau, Apocalyptic Shakespeare: Essays of Vision and Chaos in Recent Film Adaptations, McFarland, 2009
2. Paula Frederiksen, On the Passion of the Christ, California, 2006, p. 203

All of this standard practice, no policy update needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Still, WP:ABOUTSELF does not at all address the primary issue, which is about the "balance of the article". Jimbo says that the ACIM article should be "principally about the ideas in the book", yet BAL says that the article should be "weighted" in favor of mainstream views. In this case, such a "weighting" has made the article into a WP:COATRACK. Which part of BAL should have prevented the article from becoming a WP:COATRACK? Scott P. (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Once the source is accepted as a viable source on itself in a thoughtful application of WP:ABOUTSELF, the current WP:NPOV provisions, without needing any modification or amendement, can do the rest.

Again, Jimbo Wales referred to current practice, which would be a first clue that no amendment of policy is necessary --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reply to user:Blue Boar immediately below regarding the advice provided in the subsections of WP:NPOV, namely in WP:Due, and in WP:Valid, about how best to deal with such "small minority views". Nowhere do I see in WP:NPOV any advice that the voices of alternative views ought to be stated clearly and reasonably in Misplaced Pages (while still reporting on significant criticism as well). I see this in everyone's personal interpretations of WP:NPOV, but nowhere in the actual text of WP:NPOV itself. Why not make things easier for all and put this wording into the actual text? Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• No amendment to the policy is needed... rather what is needed is a better understanding of how the policy should be implemented at articles on fringe topics. It is important to understand that Due Weight changes depending on the context... In the context of an article about a set of beliefs, it is appropriate to give a fair amount of article space to explaining "what do believers actually believe"... In fact such an outline should probably be the first section of the article. However, the information should be presented in language that makes it clear that we are talking about "belief" and not accepted fact. Belief is opinion... and Statements should be phrased as such - with attribution (along the lines of "Adherents believe that <insert belief here>"). And... in outlining the beliefs, it is important to give more weight to beliefs that are "common within the fringe", and less (or no) weight to beliefs that are "fringe within the fringe".

Once that is done, then the article can outline what skeptics say about those beliefs. This is also opinion... and so criticism should also be phrased with attribution. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

What you are saying about context here makes intuitive sense, yet the text of the policy only speaks of context while advising that editors should use it as a tool to counter fringe arguments. Wouldn't it be easier if the actual wording of the policy explicitly discussed the possibility that context (can in some articles) require that a fringe theory be clearly and thoroughly discussed?

In current Misplaced Pages policy, I see many policies which seem to support user Red_Pen's interpretation that Misplaced Pages "only present what the academic mainstream has found worthy of covering". After reading WP:Due, and WP:Valid it would seem that all articles representing non-mainstream views should be either deleted or heavily censored to primarily represent mainstream views about these subjects. WP:Due says, "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." WP:Valid advises that "claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax... should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship."

I see no Misplaced Pages policy stating that each of the above articles needs to, as Jimbo stated, "principally be about the actual ideas in the book (or thought system)". Please direct me to a Misplaced Pages policy that specifically clarifies what Jimbo said about such articles. I can find none. Yet all of the articles mentioned above do in fact "make a comparison of their subject matter to accepted academic scholarship," and "do belong in Misplaced Pages" in my humble opinion. After reading the two policies in question, I cannot blame various users for following them to the letter and totally trashing the ACIM article. Please enlighten me as to which policy would clearly direct them "not to trash the ACIM article". There seems to be a major disconnect between policy and actual practice here, thus the need to have these questions addressed and answered more clearly in WP policy.

Why couldn't Jimbo point user:Red Pen to any clear policy statement to support Jimbo's views on this? Either someone else needs to point me towards a clear and definitive policy on this (which Jimbo himself seemed to be unable to do), or else if one does not yet exist, then a clear and definitive policy on it needs to be written, so we don't waste any more of Jimbo's time, or our time, rehashing what should be a simple open and shut case of policy discussion. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to say something like this: Many adherents of this faith believe X, which they believe that members of this group have always believed; 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. This way, views are presented without being criticized or endorsed." is in Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion. Is this of any help? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is in Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Information suppression: "Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:... Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:... Not allowing one view to "speak for itself",..." — which links to Misplaced Pages:Let the reader decide (one of the ideas Jimbo referred to in his comments at the ACIM talk page.) --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Francis S. for pointing out those two policies. They definitely would seem to counter WP:Due and WP:Valid to a certain extent. Still, neither of them clearly presented Jimbo's belief that such articles should be "principally about the actual ideas in the book (or thought system)". I have just made an edit attempt to incorporate all of these ideas, and particularly Jimbo's incisive statement, into WP:Due, that I hope might help to clarify many similar such future questions. .... and despite the fact that this edit was just deleted, I would still appreciate any further comments on it below. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo is but one, relatively inactive, editor. He can argue for modifications to NPOV just like the rest of us. There's no "because Jimbo said so" override. --NeilN 21:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that Jimbo's leadership of Misplaced Pages no longer exists does not make an argument against my proposed edit. If you might have any actual specific reasons that you feel that this proposed edit should not be made, those specific reasons would be very much appreciated here. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott P., this a core Misplaced Pages policy. Please stop making ill-thought out changes to it. Propose specific wording here first and wait for feedback. --NeilN 21:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Scottperry, I have reverted you three times now at the Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view page, as seen here, here and here. Like the page states, "This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." WP:Consensus is key in this case. And like others have stated above, your proposals for this policy are not needed. I agree with that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts and elaboration on the actual reasons for your reversions and disagreement would be most appreciated here. It is fine and helpful that you reverted it, but it seems to me that if you provided some actual specific input on this talk page concerning the actual ideas being tossed around here, such might also be helpful. E.g., I disagree with your reasoning specifically because.... Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Still, an article about a notable "fringe theory" such as one about the Flat Earth theory itself ought to be principally about the Flat Earth theory itself -> Totally unneeded. Every article is principally about itself, criticisms included.
• should not engage in Information Suppression, simply because the Flat Earth theory may be generally considered to be a rather "fringe theory". -> No, we're not the encyclopedic equivalent of TLC. We don't highlight the theories of obscure crackpots.

--NeilN 22:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

So then Neil N., I take it you would totally agree with WP:Due's unqualified statement that "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article," no? It would naturally follow that, if you had the ultimate authority, you would simply delete the crackpot fringe theory article about Flat Earth, and be totally backed up by WP:Due, no? Scott P. (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Only if I was a complete moron who didn't see the theory had a firm place in history. --NeilN 23:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly my point about the need to tweak these policies a little. WP:Due in its current state, would advise us to delete an article which has obvious historical value, as well as notoriety value in the current day, does it not? But you say it is perfectly fine to have a policy that is so totally out of line with actual Misplaced Pages practice? I am confused on the need for any policies at all if they are so poorly worded that we are unable to follow them. Scott P. (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to read more closely: "For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief." --NeilN 23:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, someone has already 'tweaked' the policy to save the Flat Earth article, but what about for example, the theory that wearing a tinfoil hat is beneficial to one's health, a belief that has no real historical value, yet one that does have notoriety, and one that is not specifically mentioned in the policy? WP:Due would advise us to delete that article, despite the fact that it definitely has notoriety, no? So why not rewrite WP:Due to say something about how subjects with notoriety should be included in Misplaced Pages, instead of allowing the poor wording which directly conflicts with other policies to remain? Scott P. (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, read more closely. You're confusing WP:UNDUE with WP:N. WP:UNDUE does not mention deleting articles anywhere. --NeilN 00:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Due states without qualifications that "if a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." That sounds like advice to delete to me.Scott P. (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, delete the viewpoint from an article, not delete the article. We're going to delete the Flat Earth viewpoint from Figure of the Earth and put it in an ancillary article. --NeilN 00:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

So then how do we delete the tinfoil hat theory from the tinfoil hat article and put it into an auxilliary article? Hmmm.... I'm going to have to put on my tinfoil hat and think about that one for awhile. Good night my friend. Scott P. (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You're making even less sense now. The first sentence of the article makes it clear it's discussing the hat in relation to the theory. --NeilN 01:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott, I get what you're saying, and I would like to hear suggestions on how to improve it (on the talk page where consensus can be built). Might it be accomplished through minor tweaks here or perhaps adding to WP:FRINGE instead? I think the pertinent content in the tiny minority view sentence is "except perhaps in some ancillary article". The preceding part of the sentence is describing weight in mainstream articles or the scope of larger topics. If the WP:SCOPE of the auxiliary article (that meets WP:N) is the specific fringe theory, such as the tinfoil hat article or ACIM, then describing the proponent viewpoint is due weight (it becomes an important viewpoint for the scope) and paramount to the article, as would be mainstream criticism specific to the article scope. For an article specifically about that topic, it is no longer a tiny minority view within that scope (itself). I think we try to described this in the second paragraph "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. ..." I guess the thing that perhaps is unclear is that an auxiliary article about a fringe topic should not treat the fringe viewpoint with the weight of a tiny minority view within it's own article. Weight changes with Scope. Morphh 13:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We say: "The tinfoil hat people believe X.(source, preferably third party explanation) X is only believed by tiny proportion.(source) The Mainstream says W shows that X is not accurate(source). And Mainstream says Y about X.(source) And they also say Z about X.(source)"

Part of the issue is that most tinfoil hat theories have very little third party analysis. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would expand that a bit... In an article on Beliefs of tinfoil hat people, it is appropriate to say "The tinfoil hat people believe X₁. (source)" It would probably be appropriate to say "A minority of tinfoil hat people believe X₂.(source)" However, if X₃ is only believed by a fringe of tinfoil hat people (fringe of the fringe), then it would be UNDUE to mention X₃ at all... even in the article about the beliefs of tinfoil hat people. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarify due and undue weight

Does this policy means that if we have a reliable source A then we can not use it until we also have a reliable source saying B? // Liftarn (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

If you know that a sizable proportion of the experts hold A, and that another sizable proportion hold B then you should add both. If B is not held by a sizable proportion of experts then there is no reason to include it. And if you know that A is only held by a minority position you should not add it, even if you have a source, if the majority position B is not already fully detailed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What is we have an article in a reliable saying A happened and no article criticising the reporting is yet found. Could we add that A happened? // Liftarn (talk)

I have found what seems to me to have been a rather significant change in NPOV policy that was made about 10 weeks ago without any consensus about the change having been agreed to beforehand on this talk page. I believe that this "unconsensused" policy change may have been the cause of some of the confusion discussed just above about WP:Due This change to policy can be found:here.

While this July 30th policy change might at first seem to work OK for most articles, it seems to me that it does not apply well to articles about "fringe topics". As is typical policy for any such proposed changes to WP policy, I propose further discussion and attempting to minimally reach some type of a consensus here amongst us on this talk page, regarding this July 30th policy change, before accepting any such significant yet still "unconsensused" change to NPOV policy, simply due to the fact that nobody "caught" the change until now. Scott P. (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this change makes any difference at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Liftarn, it depends on the source and what it's saying. Are you dealing with a self-published source? A primary source? A non-independent source? If the answer to any of those questions is "yes", then reporting its contents might be undue.

So imagine that some quack newsletter says that drinking gasoline cures cancer, on the grounds that the newsletter editor drank a teaspoon of gasoline as a kid and hasn't been diagnosed with cancer yet. Everyone agrees that this is a lousy source (self-published and primary) with garbage content. The most you could say with a source like that is, "In 2014, Quacks R Us said that drinking gasoline cures cancer". You don't need to bother finding a source that specifically refutes it, because you shouldn't include that anyway.

But often, for non-garbagey stuff, it really is better to wait for an independent, secondary source, either written by an expert or based on information gathered from experts, to look over Source A. In that case, you don't need to wait for "a reliable source saying B", but you do need to wait for a source that gives an opinion on Source A (which could be agreeing or disagreeing with it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What about an independent secondary source that is a trade paper, but not a peer-reviewed journal? // Liftarn (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "misleading" material

So this language got added since the last time I patrolled this page:

Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.

I'm not sure exactly what problem this language is trying to address. Our usual standard is "WP:V not WP:TRUTH", and this language undermines that important distinction. Of course, I've done a fair share of rewrites, in the interest of clarifying an otherwise confusing passage, which sort of meet this criteria. But giving free reign to POV warriors to remove information simply for some vague "good reason" because, in their opinion, that information is "misleading" is a terribly large loophole. -- Kendrick7 00:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

"WP:V not WP:TRUTH" has been deprecated. It's pretty rare you'll see it cited these days. "We must get the article right." from WP:BLP is what we strive for. --NeilN 18:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that what it means is not "please remove stuff if...", but rather the opposite: "do not remove stuff unless..." As the project has become more oriented towards maintenance instead of expansion, we have acquired a number of people who believe that they're supposed to revert anything that isn't perfect. WP:PRESERVE applies to them, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree, and will remove the new language if there's no objection. -- Kendrick7 02:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I object. This language is not "new" as it's been there at least since Jan 2011. If I think an addition is misleading, I'm going to remove it. Per WP:BRD, discussion should occur on the talk page. --NeilN 05:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this response. Do you want to keep this potentially misleading line? Do you think that removing it will make it impossible for you to remove material that you object to? And have you ever actually read BRD, including the bit that says you can't force anyone to follow BRD? BRD isn't aimed at reverters. It's not an authorization to violate WP:PRESERVE (that's the very old core policy that says you're supposed to collaborate and fix stuff, instead of being lazy and removing anything that's imperfect). It's an explanation of one (not "the only") strategy for experienced editors who find themselves stuck in a particular type of zero-progress dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't find it misleading at all. And c'mon, "imperfect"? You are trivializing what we deal with. Question: When was the last time you did recent changes patrol? The amount of POV pushing edits that come through is significant. Personally I feel my first responsibility is to the readers. Problematic material can be removed and worked on on the talk page (if the editor in question isn't simply doing a hit and run). --NeilN 05:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, but in my experience, clever POV pushers are just as capable of removing a POV they disagree with as they are of making an affirmative edit towards their POV. I've always considered my first responsibility to the readers as well, and as such, we should present all reliably sourced, verifiable points of view and let our readers figure it out. Giving an out to let editors remove POVs that are simply, in their opinion, "misleading" is a huge mistake, and I'm embarrassed that it took me 3+ years to notice. -- Kendrick7 01:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say, I and WP:FRINGE don't agree with this view. --NeilN 13:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?

According to this proposed change to WP:Due: "proposed change", that was first proposed on July 30, but that has only just now been first brought up for a "consensus discussion", it would seem to me that such a change to WP:Due would unneccessarily require the "weighting" of all articles about "fringe topics" against such topics, which seems to me to be rather "against" the overall "spirit" of balance in articles that Misplaced Pages strives for. Your opinions about this "proposed change" would be appreciated here. Scott P. (talk) 04:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think your definition of "balance" is the same as Misplaced Pages's definition of balance. --NeilN 05:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Neil N, I take it that your answer to the quesiton posed above would be, "Yes, all fringe articles should be weighted in opposition to the fringe topic", no? Scott P. (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Per WP:FRINGE/PS: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." (emphasis mine). --NeilN 05:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Neil N, then you still have not yet squarely answered the question being posed. What then is your answer to the question posed? Accept the proposed WP policy change that is described in this section, or discard it? That is the question that this section is meant to address. Scott P. (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The change was briefly discussed in the last archive and as WhatamIdoing stated, it makes little difference (i.e., changing it back will not give you the "balance" you desire). So, unless someone has a particularly good point, I do not care. --NeilN 05:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott, I don't understand the question you've asked, so if I were Neil, I'd avoid answering it, too. Perhaps an example would help. Does your question mean something like "if you're writing about the thoroughly discredited idea that the Earth is flat, then the article should indicate that this is a thoroughly discredited idea"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The "proposed policy change" in question would seem to me to advise that the "balance of the evidence" provided in the Flat Earth article should be "anti-flat-Earth'. This seems a bit awkward to me, as people do not typically go to the Flat Earth article to find anti-flat-Earth material. Rather I would think that they probably most often go there primarily to find the "pro-flat-Earth" theory plainly and intelligently laid out (or at least laid out as intelligently as possible). Still, whether or not you might agree or disagree with my rationale here, the main question in this section is simply: do you agree with, or disagree with this "proposed policy change"? Scott P. (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV is an important policy and proposals to change it should not be phrased in the form of riddles. Just say what you propose to change in the policy as it is now written, and why. The "why" should address the question of what problem is being solved, preferably with an example of the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you accept or do not accept the proposed policy change being discussed here in this, the first fully aired consensus discussion about this proposed change. An example of the problem is given in the paragraph I added just above. I do not accept the proposed policy change. Do you accept or not accept? This is no riddle. Scott P. (talk) 10:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "...has only just now been first brought up for a "consensus discussion"..." — incorrect, the consensus discussion is here: Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section, concluded 3 months ago... and was linked from the edit summary (before archiving, so not so difficult to trace, is it?) Please get your facts straight before beginning a discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In the discussion referred to, that occured 3 weeks before the actual edit, I saw no consensus, only one pro-change voice (yours) and one anti-change voice (Flyer's). I would normally expect a consensus to result in an immediate edit that conforms to the "consensus". The 3 week delay between the brief discussion between two editors about the proposed change, and the actual policy-change-edit itself seems rather odd to me. Scott P. (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So far I see only one "do not accept" vote here, and one "I don't care" vote. Scott P. (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

??? Consensus on the 30 July edit is OK.

Consensus can change would be a better avenue for your purposes I suppose.

So I see a lot of objections I don't understand. For me its fairly simple. Let me explain in a few steps with an imaginary example. Suppose someone publishes a book called The Theory of XYZ:

Step one, inclusion criteria

Should Misplaced Pages have an article on The Theory of XYZ? There need to be third party reliable sources for a separate article on The Theory of XYZ to be possible.

Step two, scenario 1: "all third party reliable sources are dismissive about The Theory of XYZ"

The Theory of XYZ, its author, its fan-website, etc. are all primary sources. For the purpose of the article on The Theory of XYZ, they are also self-published reliable sources. I repeat that for the article on The Theory of XYZ, the book itself has two main characteristics as a source for the article's content:

• it is a reliable source;
• it is a primary source.

The primary source material used for the article on The Theory of XYZ should not be overwhelming in comparison to the article content derived from third party reliable sources.

From this follows, that when a fringe is only approved by the insider adherents of the fringe, and all external reliable sources are dismissive of the fringe it would be difficult to write an article that in balance is "favouring" that fringe. Which is logical. If I say I'm a great guy, and the two only external sources mentioning me, let's say the New York Times and the Pravda, both write I'm not a great guy, I don't expect Misplaced Pages to write an article that comes to the conclusion "Francis Schonken is a great guy".

That doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should not explain the concepts and content of The Theory of XYZ (as said The Theory of XYZ is a reliable source for the article on The Theory of XYZ), but primary source material is limited: it should not overwhelm third party reliable source material.

Step two, scenario 2: "some third party reliable sources write favorably about The Theory of XYZ, the others mainly criticism"

In this case it is unavoidable that there would be more positive material about The Theory of XYZ in its article than negative material. How come? (a bit simplified but using some pie-chart like mathematics to make it clear): up to 50% of the article on The Theory of XYZ can still be based on the source itself. Up to 50% is not overwhelming the third-party based material. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that 30% of the third party sources is positive comments about The Theory of XYZ, and 70% negative comments. That means 50% positive material derived from the primary source in the article, and the other 50% of the article contains 30% positive material. Total sum of positive material in The Theory of XYZ: 50% + 50% x 30% = 65% of positive material. I said the mathematics is a simplification, but shows the objections made by Scott P. are unneccessary (unless I don't understand what Scott P. tries to say). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of consensus is that it is not two unreconciled opposing editors, nor does it automatically occur when Flyer might have accidentally missed your 3 week later reversion of his edit. So I take it, Francis, that this would count as your I approve of the edit vote, no? Scott P. (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no vote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) @Scottperry: "So far I see only one…": If you insist: +1 for the wording shown in your diff and currently in the text. +1 also for the assessment that, taken together with WP:UNDUE and other parts of WP:NPOV, that wording doesn't amount to any practical change at all. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So far I see nobody except Francis that has come out clearly in favor of the edit being discussed here. Does that mean that you wish to close this discussion as advocated by Francis, that you vote to approve Francis' edit or what? Scott P. (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Scottperry: I didn't think I my response to your call for votes was so difficult to understand. Writing slowly: yes, I approve of Francis' edit, and I think it's immaterial. I don't know what gave you the idea that I want to close anything. Or more slowly: no, it never occurred to me to close this discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize but I have never seen the (ec) notation before and I do not know what it means. I thought it was a typo. What exactly does it mean (aside from the fact that you apparently seem to feel that I am Exceptionally Confused)? Scott P. (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It means edit conflict. - Aoidh (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

First thoughts - I think the edit sort of contradicts the purpose of the section. I think the intent was to say that even though there may be a lot of reliable sources (as we increasingly become more digital and produce more source material for any given event), such in the cases of recent, it should be considered with regard to the significance of the subject. I tend to think of this as the long term encyclopedic (historical) viewpoint. This is particularly important in BLP articles which cover a person's life. One event in today's digital age could produce more sources then the rest of the person's history combined. The weight in the "body of reliable sources" may not account for quality, depth, or importance - a material's significance to the subject, even if not covered significantly by the wider body. Morphh 15:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Morphh - how would you define "significance to the subject" without using sources that show that significance? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, Everyone but yourself has agreed that a discussion needs to be had about this edit here, and others besides myself have cast specific votes on this. Please do not try to hide my edits, or to close a vote that others are involved in without their agreement. Please "unhide" the bottom section that you just hid? Do you really want Misplaced Pages to be a place where policies (and therefore articles, and therefore content, and therefore the whole project itself) are/ is only decided by those who can best stifle the views of others? Scott P. (talk) 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion, yes (I'm on your side there); Vote: no. If you want a vote I suppose the closest you could get is by calling an RfC (and even that isn't a vote). Note that for an RfC the question asked to your co-editors would need to be posed in a neutral fashion (i.e. not tendentiously). Even that didn't work thus far in this section. Could you make it a neutrally asked question for starters? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, the rest of UNDUE and other aspects of NPOV make that point already clear. The purpose of WP:BALASPS was to add a common sense caveat to the rigid requirements. The change almost negates the section - not entirely as the section now contradicts itself in the next sentence by saying "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". So if you change that too, what is the purpose but to parrot what is already stated? You changed the meaning of the section - one which has stood since 2010. I don't agree with it and I think more discussion should have taken place. Morphh 14:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "the rest of UNDUE and other aspects of NPOV make that point already clear": apparently not, compare the example I gave at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section.

Re. "common sense caveat to the rigid requirements": the requirements of WP:NPOV are common sense, so I don't understand "common sense caveat".

What I say is that the sentence before the update was (probably in good faith, but nonetheless) used as an escape to WP:V and WP:NOR, and in fact also to the remainder of WP:NPOV. The edit should have been uncontroversial, as it was no more than avoiding a perceivable disparity between WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. The fact that it apparently needs to be discussed at length points to popular misconceptions, not to something wrong with the text or common sense of these policies as such. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that this has anything to do with WP:V or WP:OR. The section is about weight in reliable sources and I described the common sense caveat in my prior edit. Sometimes we have to look beyond what pushes a media headline and equally weigh the retraction that appears a week later on page 6. Sometimes quantity doesn't equal quality and sometimes, while well sourced, recent news is insignificant for the weight it would represent in the overall topic. Morphh 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, "The purpose of WP:BALASPS was to add a common sense caveat to the rigid requirements" is essentially flawed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, again, please stop trying to hide the edits of others, and no, as you well know this entire "discussion" is merely a huge exercise in futility, and a huge waste of the time and resources of everyone who has so carefully commented here, if there is no vote, which appears to be exactly your intention, in order to keep your un-consensused Misplaced Pages policy change that you appear to have slyly inserted while Flyer was not watching, reverting his vote/ edit against your proposed policy change, which had been cast by him three weeks prior to your seemingly rather stealthy reversion. Please "unhide" my edits. Why is it that so far, all but one here (Morphh) are seemingly unable to question any of Francis' actions, yet so many here seem to be quite good at reverting any other stealth-edits, or blatant-obfuscation-edits (see hidden conversation above: there is no vote) by anyone else? (This entry originally written at 09:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)) final revision of this entry: Scott P. (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC) (sorry, it sometimes takes me awhile to get all of my thoughts into writing, I shall try to avoid taking so long in the future)

??? So many incorrect statements that I don't know where to begin. Really, this discussion is going nowhere if the approach is based on statements showing contributors not getting their facts straight. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding talk page etiquette concerns: see Misplaced Pages:Refactoring and Misplaced Pages:Hatting. On the topic of voting m:Don't vote on everything might be of some help.

I'd prefer to get back to a discussion on content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of guessing what Flyer22 thinks, why not invite her to participate in this discussion? --NeilN 13:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get the ping via WP:Echo, Neil, but I just read parts of this discussion section, and I agree with Morphh about why Francis Schonken's edit should be reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How to write an article on fringe topics

1. Establish notability... to do this, we must ensure that the theory is discussed by reliable secondary sources that are independent of the theory. If the only sources we can find are written by major adherents of the theory, then notability is not established (in which case we should not have an article on the theory) Assuming we have such sources....
2. Explain the theory ... The first section of the article should explain/describe what the theory actually is. This section is likely to be primarily supported by sources written by proponents/adherents of the theory. In the context of a description, this is appropriate. The POV of this section will (of necessity) lean towards the fringe viewpoint... that is OK as long as we phrase this description with attribution so the reader knows who is saying what. NOTE: be careful not to give too much weight to "fringe within the fringe" sub-theories. Stick to describing what the "majority within the fringe" believe.
3. Explain the mainstream view... once you have what the theory actually says... then you can have a section to explain the criticisms of the theory. This is where you make it clear what the mainstream view is. This section "balances" the first section. That said, it should also be phrased with attribution, so (again) the reader knows who is saying what.
4. Don't try to "prove" or "disprove/debunk" the theory... let the sources do that. Keep the article descriptive... laying out: "this is what proponents say... and this is what the mainstream says". That's true neutrality.

Finally... in an article that is about a fringe theory it is not necessary to give equal space to both viewpoints. Indeed, it is often appropriate for an article about a fringe theory to give more space to the explanation of the theory than it does to the explanation of the criticisms. That's OK. As long as we don't neglect the criticism, the article still take a neutral POV. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice - though I'd alter #3 to avoid specifying a criticism section. If the article can be broken down by major topics of the article, it may be better to weave the criticism into each of those sections. Morphh 14:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure... It could be structured that way... however, it makes it ore difficult to write. I have also found that your suggested structure tends to encourage editors to slip into a "point/counterpoint" mode... as fans of the theory try to add minor details (in an attempt to "prove" that the theory is accurate), which then need to be "debunked" by mainstream counter arguments. This can make it more likely that "fringe of the fringe" points will be raised, which leads to more debates about whether sub-theory X, Y or Z should be mentioned. I find you end up with a tighter and ultimately more neutral article if you structure it the way I suggest. But that's just my opinion. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Good points - you may be right. This might be a good addition to WP:FRINGE. Morphh 15:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like #4 goes against WP:VALID: "Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." --NeilN 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's true in mainstream articles or on articles that cover a larger topic, but articles that specifically cover the viewpoint of a minority or fringe topic should not be a coatrack for an article on the majority viewpoint. I think the second paragraph of undue tries to make this point "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." Morphh 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Your first sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. What is the "article on the majority viewpoint" for Homeopathy? --NeilN 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In such cases, it would be the primary views presented in the larger topics of Medicine, Chemistry, Heath or in articles of ailments of which Homeopathy is argued to cure. Essentially, any article that is not specifically about Homeopathy should not present Homeopathy as if it were mainstream (or even presented at all), but an article on Homeopathy should cover itself sufficiently from all views, regardless of it's scientific validity. Morphh 15:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. The article on Homeopathy is the appropriate place to present the mainstream viewpoint on Homeopathy in detail. --NeilN 16:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it shouldn't. I just stated that it should cover the proponent views of Homeopathy in detail as well and that this is the only place it should detail them. In other articles, Homeopathy should get little to no mention, but in an article on Homeopathy, it should get covered in detail expressing all majority and minority views on the subject, to include the majority and minority views of proponents. Morphh 16:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So we're back to "articles that specifically cover the viewpoint of a minority or fringe topic should not be a coatrack for an article on the majority viewpoint" making little sense. Detailing why mainstream science views Homeopathy with skepticism is not a coatrack. --NeilN 16:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the main discussion was about treating a fringe topic as a tiny minority viewpoint in the article on the fringe topic. Homeopathy should not be treated as a tiny minority viewpoint for the purposes of WEIGHT in an article on Homeopathy. In this article, the fringe viewpoint should be given sufficient weight to cover the topic in detail. Morphh 16:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Go into detail, fine. But content should very clearly reflect this is a fringe theory and include mainstream views on such details. --NeilN 16:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct - as described by UNDUE:

"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Essentially, describing Homeopathy (as viewed by it's proponents) is significant and important to the topic and that viewpoint should not be excluded strictly due to it's relative weight as a proportion to the prominence in reliable sources. As if we went solely by weight in proportion, the fringe viewpoint would get little to no coverage in an article meant to cover those views. Morphh 16:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think people are confusing due weight and due space. In an article that is about a fringe view, it is appropriate to give more article space to explaining what the fringe view actually is. That is (in the context of the article topic) due space. Due weight, on the other hand, can often be achieved by including a short paragraph (or even a single sentence) makes it clear that "mainstream scientists/historians/etc think all of this is bullshit". There is no need to repeat "scientists think this is bullshit" in every paragraph.

To you all an example of a very good, neutrally written, article about a fringe topic... I suggest that you see our article on Alchemy. The article makes it clear that the modern scientific community thinks alchemy is pseudoscientific BS... yet the article does not give equal space to that mainstream view. The bulk of the article is focused on explaining what alchemy is (in both a historical and modern context)... yet the reader is never mislead into thinking that alchemy is in any way accepted by the modern scientific community. The article gives due space to the topic, without giving undue weight to the fringe viewpoint. Or to phrase that in another way... the gives due weight to a fringe topic, without giving undue space to the mainstream view. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference here. Topics like Alchemy and Flat Earth have no (or almost no) modern day proponents. Topics like Homeopathy do have a significant modern day following and currently make claims that are either refuted by or not proven by science. --NeilN 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

So what? It isn't the job of an encyclopedia to "prove" or "debunk" beliefs... our job is primarily to explain what the beliefs are. I'm not saying that we should ignore the mainstream viewpoint, or present the beliefs of the homeopaths as if they were accepted. Of course we should mention that scientific consensus is that homeopathy is so much bullshit. But we can make that viewpoint clear (and give it due weight) without giving it equal article space. Indeed, all that is really needed is a short paragraph saying (effectively) "the consensus of the scientific community is that all the claims made by propnents are so much BS". Again, due weight is not the same as equal space. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In a large, expansive article such as Homeopathy, we need to say more than just "mainstream science says it's BS" - we need to go into why science says that. Achieving balance with explanations about staged dilutions and shaking, we need to mention avagadro's number.

There is also a problem with use of the words "majority" and "minority". The number of people who believe in homeopathy by far exceeds those who do not. But we're not interested in what people believe so much as what the scientific evidence is. So "majority" means the majority of acceptable reliable sources (in this case WP:MEDRS). SteveBaker (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's were I disagree. A neutral article is one that avoids getting into "why" people hold the views they do... and sticks to explaining "that" they hold the views they do. More to the point... That X holds a particular view is verifiable, and thus rarely OR. Why they hold that view often not verifiable, and is frequently OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Steve makes a valid and very important point. "Majority" and "minority" refer to reliable sources, not the general public. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

But the why is important. Otherwise it's just, "you have your facts and I have mine." --NeilN 18:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No... the why isn't actually important. And it should never be you have your facts and I have mine... as soon as editors start to make it personal they are definitely no longer writing from a neutral point of view. It should always be about what the sources (pro and con) say they believe. Let them explain why they believe it. All we have to do in note that they do believe it. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. The "you and I" doesn't refer to editors, it refers to sides of a topic (e.g. homeopathy adherents and the medical establishment). --NeilN 20:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an apparently novel question: does anyone think it might be worthwhile, in a section entitled "How to write an article on fringe topics", to solicit input from editors who actually have experience writing articles on fringe topics? There is a wealth of experience available regarding what works and what doesn't work. MastCell  19:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well... that's sort of why I started the section... to share my experience writing articles on fringe topics. Granted, the fringe topics that I focus on tend to be in the realm of pseudohistory and not pseudoscience... but the concept of how to write a good article should be the same no matter what the topic. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reversion of July 30 edit

Reverting the July 30 proposed policy change. As no evidence of a "clear consensus" on the July 30 edit could be found ocurring at the time of the edit, and as to this day there is no evidence of a "clear consensus" on this edit, per the stated policy that "policy changes should not be made without consensus" I therefore am now reverting the proposed policy change made without a clear consensus back to the earlier pre-proposal policy. (first posted 04:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)), Last revised to remove discussion regarding good-faith Scott P. (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, there was nothing wrong with the July 2014 consensus. As noted in the thentime discussion, the edit was for all intents and purposes in line with https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Flyer22&curid=11230502&diff=616164474&oldid=616078534#Main_type_of_editing_style

Again, Misplaced Pages:Consensus can change is a better approach than trying to "prove" I did something wrong at the time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea this argument had been going on for so long. --John (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Francis Schonken made the edit in bad-faith. The Four Deuces (TFD), BullRangifer (Brangifer), I and Francis Schonken expressed concerns regarding people commonly misunderstanding what being neutral means on Misplaced Pages and therefore thinking that being WP:Neutral means treating the minority view with the same weight as the majority view. This is clear at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Name of policy. For example, I recently addressed here (when replying to Srtª PiriLimPomPom, with Trystan weighing in afterward) and here (concerning a WP:Class assignment) that being neutral on Misplaced Pages means something entirely different than what it means in common discourse. I think that Francis Schonken was trying to help. Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to know that that was your sense of this. In that case, I will edit out that part above. Thanks much for that Flyer22. Scott P. (talk) 06:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

For others, this is what Scottperry means; I was replying to that. Scottperry, per Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Own comments, when others have already replied to your post, it's usually best not to edit that post in a way that can take the replies to it out of context. In the future, consider striking the parts of the post you've changed your mind about, and then adding a new comment beside or underneath that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, and realizing the dilemma that I sort of created there, I did just try to clarify in the signature section that the stricken section had included discussion about "good faith". Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

By "striking," I mean what Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines#Own comments addresses; I don't mean removing the material. But I appreciate that, when you altered the aforementioned post, you noted that it was different than the original. Flyer22 (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL to this, Francis Schonken. If we... If Misplaced Pages were that old... Flyer22 (talk) 07:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Caught red-handed! I knew it!! Someone with more than 30 years under their belt! :-) Scott P. (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)