Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:34, 27 September 2011

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

Spoken Wikipedia

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

Shortcut

WT:NPOV

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

UAF

section refactored to Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#UAF

NPOV and categorization of articles

The present version states This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.. I was wondering if there's any specific articulation on how exactly NPOV policy is to be applied to these other formats, in particular external links and categories. I am asking because recently I've noticed a bit of an uptick in "POV pushing by category inclusion/exclusion" - in other words, instances where users try to disparage a subject by including their articles in "nasty" categories.

Do sources, or anything like that, have to be provided for an article to be included in a particular category, given that this may be controversial? What about in the case of BLPs? Volunteer Marek 12:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove a category saying something like "wording potentially incorrect/POVed & not supported by sources, please explain on talk". AFAIK we don't have a specific tag to indicate what type of material may be POVed/uncited in the article, so there is, to my knowledge, no template "the categories in this article may not be neutral." Perhaps we should have one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 15:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like vandalism to me. Jojalozzo 16:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not vandalism, since there could be a legitimate reason for disagreement here. And re:Piotrus, I was wondering though if there's any specific description of how NPOV applies to categories (and for that matter See Alsos etc), somewhere. A template like the one you suggest would follow from such a policy description. Volunteer Marek 16:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen WP:LABEL cited in discussions about whether a category is appropriate, although it doesn't actually refer to categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, come to think of it, WP:BLPCAT is really what I think you are looking for. I'm not sure there's anything about categories unrelated to persons, although I can certainly imagine POV issues with respect to non-person categories. (Category:Pseudoscience comes immediately to mind.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I'm curious about Wiki policy on dates--I've found a mix of both Christian-relative dating convention and standardized neutral dating convention. I've also encountered some people who deliberately go from page to page, changing all CE and BCE to AD and BC. Personally, I consider the former to be neutral and the latter non-neutral (although one can hardly be accused of deliberate bias when growing up with this style as the only option). In some instances, such as articles pertaining to Orthodox Judaism, the usage of Christian referential dating may well be offensive to other users who are likely to search for or edit these articles (as many, if not all, Orthodox Jews have a proscription against any references to Christianity, Jesus or even a cross). Other modern encyclopedias tend to stick with the non-Christian convention in their more recent editions. As such, NPOV position should be to prefer standard non-Christian date references. Let me put it in terms that anyone can understand--since, personally, I do not hold any beliefs that would make Jesus or Jesus Christ or some other named individual or deity from 2011 years ago "My Lord", I find the AD and BC designations inappropriate in all contexts other than those on the inner workings of Christian churches (with the exception of titles or quotations taken from other sources). This does not mean that I would accuse anyone who prefers Christian-relative dating convention a "bigot", but I would certainly prefer neutral nomenclature. On the other hand, in professional circles, someone who insists on such nomenclature may well be considered bigoted and unprofessional. Since some US conservatives actually consider the AD and BC labels integral to their ideology, repeated and pervasive changes of dating nomenclature may indicate persistent bias. Alex.deWitte (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the principal stylistic guidance is at WP:ERA. I, too, have noticed that this issue comes up a lot on religion-related pages, and I suppose I agree with you that there can be POV issues associated with the system selected on a given page. At the content level, it may be best to deal with the issue page-by-page, but I think that an editor going around and mass changing against consensus, as you described, could potentially be disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing to WP:ERA--that's the page that eluded me and sifting through all the style manuals is a daunting task when time is at a premium. The page-by-page scenario is a good ball-park strategy, but, eventually, even this approach will lead to conflicts. I wonder about the accuracy of the style article, however, as they accurately say that AD and CE are "traditional", but, in fact, they are traditional only in some kinds of sources (mostly European and Colonial sources, but many post-colonial sources have now turned away from that convention). I also believe that a more accurate description is the decline of or moving away from the AD/CE usage rather than "wider use" of CE/BCE. As I mentioned previously, in some fields--particularly those that deal with dates regularly--such as history, anthropology, archeology, etc.--the CE/BCE convention is standard, although some subfields (e.g., Biblical archeology--mostly in Christian-oriented journals) maintain the traditional labels. And the move has generally been deliberate, not merely due to "wider spread" of the neutral convention. In most cases, it won't matter--e.g., the Sack of [ostensibly Christian] Rome may well be tagged "410 AD" (or just "410" where it is not ambiguous) without raising anyone's ire. I would not make a change in such an article, unless there was a lot of editing to be done in it anyway and some of the errors included incorrect date tags, e.g. "A.D." or "BC 500" rather than "AD" and "500 BC". In general, I would like to see the WP:ERA revised, eventually, but that time has not come yet.

--Alex.deWitte (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

On Talk:Robert P. George, a number of editors are claiming that a given source should be discounted as having a conflict of interest because he is gay. Where is the best place to look in existing policy to once and for all dismiss this argument? Kansan (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLPPRIMARY, RSN et al. In case the issue is about a book written by anybody (gay or not) containing personal opinion about another individual in whose BLP the book is being used, it cannot be used as per PRIMARY which quotes that "Do not base material purely on primary sources." If there's a reliable source that quotes this primary source book, then yes, this book source can be used to augment the primary source. And this is policy; for BLPs, much more. Wifione ^Message 15:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A specific issue can be raised at WP:NPOVN. For example, ask whether a specific edit or specific text in article Robert P. George satisfies NPOV given that the source is questioned. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is WP:V: "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral." But as Johnuniq said this is not the right forum for this question. If more discussion is necessar use WP:NPOVN. I'm not sure whether Wifione's comment is applicable to your question. Sullivan's book is not a primary source. Brmull (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRY?

Why does this clause say in the intro say "try:" " and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three" They are "core." Try, therefore, is an inappropriate request. I move to strike "try." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say strike the whole clause - having told people they are "core", they will know what to do next, if they want to. Most editors can happily remain only vaguely aware, if at all, of what's written on these three pages, and will get on perfectly fine. We don't want to put people off editing by implying that they ought to read reams of Wikipedia introspection before they start.--Kotniski (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points, I think. Let me suggest another alternative: change the clause to "and editors are expected to comply with all three." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting WP:UNDUE policy (3)

This is a reopening of a continuing discussion regarding how to interpret undue policy. Here are links to the previous discussions: [1], [2].

general question: When does a view represented by a single reliable source merit inclusion?

specific example: The particular question revolves around the use of this source: Immigration and the Economic Status of African-American Men. The source in question is novel research published in an academic journal. Does the existence of this research article demonstrate sufficient weight to merit discussion in Immigration to the United States?

My interpretation of WP:UNDUE hinges on the third item in the bulleted list: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.. Other editors have made the argument that "UNDUE refers only to giving exaggerated emphasis on a minority viewpoint". As currently written, the policy is not very clear on this nuance, and I think the policy should be clarified in this regard so that this sort of confusion can be avoided in the future.

I invite opinions and comments on the specific issue, but more importantly, I would like feedback on how to work towards making the policy clearer. Thank you. aprock (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aprock misread the rules which clearly favor publication in scholarly journals and presses. If a scholarly book has only one author--most do--then Aprock would reject it by his reading of the "rule". The rule is designed to minimize fringe theories that have not been accepted by scholars. Scholarly publishers have teams of editors, editorial boards and reviewers who inspect every submission closely. Their consensus in publishing an article or book is a demonstration that leading experts endorse publication as valuable (even though the reviewers might disagree with some of the findings). That is how scholarship works. The article in question was coauthored by famous professors holding endowed chairs at Harvard (George J. Borjas), U of Chicago and U of California and appeared in April 2010 in a leading British economics journal that has been published by the London School of Economics for 75+ years and is near the top in terms of citations by economists. (its editorial board represents 24 tenured professors at many universities including London, Columbia, Amsterdam, Penn, Liege, Barcelena, Copenhagen, and Stockholm.) No fringe there. The Primary Sources used by the article = US Census, 1960-2000. The Borjas article cites 21 other articles in major journals that have worked on this topic and mostly come to roughly similar results. Rjensen (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, this discussion is not about a book, but rather novel research with a single publication. But responding to the general point, I think it is correct to say that a scholarly book which presents novel conclusions, and which has no secondary sources that establish the weight of that book, should in general not be used as a basis for adding content to wikipedia. Note that the policy being discussed here is WP:UNDUE, not WP:PSTS or WP:FRINGE. aprock (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rjensen. I'm not clear in this particular instance why Aprock feels that the scholarly article in question represents an "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" (?). I feel the "Undue" policy is fairly clear, overall -- and that it means we should not give undue emphasis to a minority viewpoint, but be fair in giving topics attention in proportion to their importance and consensus. But "undue" is one of those things which can be interpreted in different ways depending on what a user believes. The sense of "undue" is balance -- keeping things in perspective; is this what others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it all comes down to the question of "how do you identify a minority viewpoint". Lacking any other criterion, I suggest that a solitary academic source without any secondary sourcing should generally be considered outside the mainstream. Research explores the frontiers of knowledge. It does not define mainstream upon publication. aprock (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to understand what you're trying to say here. Why do you think that the George J. Borjas study is a "solitary academic source"? To be published, it has to be approved by editors and colleagues, since it is a peer-reviewed journal; it is not a work done in isolation by with tacit approval of numerous others. It is not self-published on a vanity press (if it had been, then it might qualify as a solitary primary source). It is neither census data nor a press release: these are primary sources. Rather, it is a published study in a peer-reviewed journal. To argue that this particular article is "outside the mainstream" seems unfounded, based on the credentials of the academics who did the study and their associations, as well as the reputation of the journal they published in. And your claim that "research explores the frontiers of knowledge" -- well sometimes it does, but often times it re-looks (re-searches) what's been studied before, to look at it again, but from a new perspective, with new eyes. That's perfectly fine. What Wikipedia does not want is original research -- namely new findings and information that us Wikipedians bring to the table. But it is perfectly fine for us to quote published research done by parties such as academics, newspaper reporters, music critics and such -- these sources are once-removed from the primary data (interviews with subjects, computer tabulations, market research reports, other articles) and therefore are acceptable secondary sources. So I am having trouble figuring out what you mean, or if you're serious about raising the issues you raise.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:50, 26 September 2011 edit Aprock (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 9,805 edits m →‎Interpreting WP:UNDUE policy (3) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:34, 27 September 2011 edit undo Tomwsulcer (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers 22,248 edits →‎Interpreting WP:UNDUE policy (3): still trying to understand what you're saying Next edit →
Line 133:		Line 133:

	::::I guess it all comes down to the question of "how do you identify a minority viewpoint". Lacking any other criterion, I suggest that a solitary academic source without any secondary sourcing should generally be considered outside the mainstream. Research explores the frontiers of knowledge. It does not define mainstream upon publication. [[User:Aprock\|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock\|talk]]) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)		::::I guess it all comes down to the question of "how do you identify a minority viewpoint". Lacking any other criterion, I suggest that a solitary academic source without any secondary sourcing should generally be considered outside the mainstream. Research explores the frontiers of knowledge. It does not define mainstream upon publication. [[User:Aprock\|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock\|talk]]) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

			:::::I'm still trying to understand what you're trying to say here. Why do you think that the [[George J. Borjas]] study is a "solitary academic source"? To be published, it has to be approved by editors and colleagues, since it is a peer-reviewed journal; it is not a work done in isolation by with tacit approval of numerous others. It is not self-published on a vanity press (if it had been, then it might qualify as a solitary primary source). It is neither census data nor a press release: these are primary sources. Rather, it is a published study in a peer-reviewed journal. To argue that this particular article is "outside the mainstream" seems unfounded, based on the credentials of the academics who did the study and their associations, as well as the reputation of the journal they published in. And your claim that "research explores the frontiers of knowledge" -- well sometimes it does, but often times it re-looks (re-''searches'') what's been studied before, to look at it again, but from a new perspective, with new eyes. That's perfectly fine. What Wikipedia does not want is ''original research'' -- namely new findings and information that ''us Wikipedians'' bring to the table. But it is perfectly fine for us to quote published research done by parties such as academics, newspaper reporters, music critics and such -- these sources are once-removed from the primary data (interviews with subjects, computer tabulations, market research reports, other articles) and therefore are acceptable ''secondary'' sources. So I am having trouble figuring out what you mean, or if you're serious about raising the issues you raise.--[[User:Tomwsulcer\|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer\|talk]]) 02:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)