Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 27 January 2015

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.

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)

Does this policy actually allow editors to offer opinion and speculation as matter-of-fact simply by virtue of popular opinion? The "undue weight" ruling seems to hang a lot on the vague term "viewpoint". Name-calling and conjecture about the motivations of others are "viewpoints". Can these be presented on Misplaced Pages as objective research if they are heavily linked in order to constitute "due weight"? SteveG700 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this say that minority viewpoints should not be acknowledged, even if they could be correctSandKitty256 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.143.173 (talk)

Taxation is coercive by being involuntary; this is not commonly accepted due to the doublethink enabled through 12 years of indoctrination supported by taxation, which is what government's existence is dependent on. If the majority of people agreed that 2 + 2 = 5, would that still be worthwhile encyclopedic knowledge? Additionally, is not morality inherently a value statement and not neutral? Shyguy76767 (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (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)

Would you be against adding the clarifier of "scientifically" misleading material, if WP:FRINGE is your concern? For those of us who edit in the realms of politics, religion, and other such less academically rigorous areas, this policy constantly drifts towards a purely scientific worldview in ways that I feel I'm constantly having to fight a rear guard action against. As I've complained before, by the literal terms of the policy, we can barely excuse having articles on Zoroastrianism or the Whig Party since those are effectively just tiny minority viewpoints. The sum of human knowledge extends well beyond whether or not the earth is flat. -- Kendrick7 22:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Kendrick7 If you read the section above you'll see that WP:DUE has nothing to do with if an article should exist or not. That determination is made by notability. We could have an article on an ancient Babylonian belief system, which no one follows today, if historians have written about it. As to your suggestion, can you give some examples of removals citing this policy that you found dubious? --NeilN 15:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BALASPS

I moved the discussion under the main thread, but renamed it to something more appropriate to the overall topic. I also simplified my proposal as mentioned in my other post. I find it more legible then "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Morphh 17:02, 28 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)

That's why I got "sucked into" this policy debate myself. I focus on religion articles, and particularly in a certain article about a certain somewhat "fringe" book called A Course in Miracles. After Francis' recent change to the policy, I started finding various editors coming over to that article and totally "trashing" the article, taking out the voice of the book altogether, and replacing it with essentially negative "mainstream views of the book". There was absolutely nothing left of the actual "voice of the book" in the article when they were done with it, and they used Francis' policy change ("the article must only reflect the mainstream view") to justify doing that. I ended up even getting Jimbo to comment on what had happened in that article's talk page, and he agreed with me that something had gone very wrong. But Francis.... even after pointing out what Jimbo had said about that article, couldn't see how his policy change had caused the trashing of the article. I guess he had sort of identified himself with his policy change, I don't know.

I myself then probably over-identified with my own "just cause" of trying to fix this. It was only when user NeilN pointed out to me that I was over-reacting, that I realized he was right. But... sorry about the aside. Now that the policy is back to where it was, I can finally feel safe to go back over to that article and begin fixing it, re-inserting the actual "voice of the book" without the fear of having all of my edits about the book being totally trashed according to "Majority View". I haven't even bothered to edit that now "trashed article" for a few months, so bad were the "trashers of the article". If you guys wanted to start a section about fringe articles, I'd be happy to try to contribute if asked. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "the article must only reflect the mainstream view": this has nothing to do with the July 30 edit. Jimbo said nothing about that edit, nor did he say anything about the "mainstream view". The edit did not "change" anything (unless, as said, the prior version was inadvertently used as an escape to WP:V, WP:NOR and the remainder of WP:NPOV, which never was the intention of that policy section).

Really, I'm all for helping you out at the A Course in Miracles article, if your description of what went wrong there is correct. But it has nothing to do with the July 2014 clarification, or at least, should not have anything to do with that edit. I don't know who has been misreading the policy before and/or after the change. It doesn't speak about "majority view", not before and not after the change.

WP:BALASPS was never about minority and majority views of the general public, not before, and not after the July 2014 update, as also MastCell pointed out above, and I'm glad the July 2014 edit makes that clearer, to avoid all misunderstandings.

I think what went wrong at A Course in Miracles was some editors not accepting the book as a reliable source in the article about the book, but as said before (already in a section higher up on this page) this refers to another policy, i.e. WP:ABOUTSELF, not to WP:BALASPS. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

1 + 2 (make sure the theory has coverage in reliable secondary sources and explain what it is) apply to all articles about theories. While it should be clear that the article is describing a view held by a small minority, I do not think that necessarily means we have to explain the majority view except where secondary sources on the fringe theory do so. For example, we probably would not need to provide much information about why the view that Jesus was reincarnated as a Chinese woman in New York City is dismissed by the mainstream, but we should include the views of mainstream writers on the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 and moon landing hoax conspiracies, since writers have chosen to explain the weaknesses in their theories. So that basically is following point 4.

I have no problem with using writings by proponents of theories as sources, provided they are reliable. If for example an article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, then the editors have shown confidence in the writer's ability to get his or her facts right and the reviewers have checked the paper for accuracy and reasonableness. But that of course only applies to some fringe theories, those held by a minority of scientists which conceivably could be tomorrrow's orthodoxy. The best known fringe views however are irrational and their proponents use facts selectively or use discredited information to support their theories. So their proponents cannot get published in reliable sources.

Then their are academic writers who publish papers in the academic press but also promote unsupportable views in non-academic publications. That causes problems because some editors say because the writer is an expert that he or she is a reliable source and therefore their fringe writings should be considered rs.

TFD (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, A Course in Miracles, the book itself, *is* a reliable source for the Misplaced Pages article on A Course in Miracles. This has nothing to do with mainstream and/or minority views, and also rather relates to WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY, than to WP:BALASPS. Yes, editorial discretion is probably needed too to find a good balance in the article, as also general guidelines on fringe topics are probably indispensable too. But this all falls under application of current policies and guidelines, which in no way need to be "re-invented", rehashed, or whatever. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

→ see Talk:A Course in Miracles‎#‎Synopsis requested --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a reliable primary source about itself. What is needed is a reliable secondary source. In general primary sources should be avoided. However if the editor wrote an article for a peer-reviewed journal explaining the views of the writer, then it would be a reliable secondary source, no different than if an opponent had written it. But note how the publisher wrote require the article to be written. "In the book, the author argues there is the voice of Jesus inside us all. These views have attracted criticism because...." not "There is the voice of Jesus inside us all." The first is a factual statement about an opinion. The second is an opinion presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ultimately, that last comment is the key to writing neutral articles on all fringe topics. Present the reader with factual statements about various opinions that are held... don't present the opinions as if they were fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, no: a reliable source is a reliable source, whether it is a primary or a secondary source. When summarizing the content of a book, and there isn't a secondary source providing such summary, the primary source often suffises (within the constraints of WP:PRIMARY), and there's no need for a secondary source.

This is a popular misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. In most circumstances reliable secondary sources are preferred over reliable primary sources, but reliable secondary sources are not always needed. See my proposal at Template talk:Primary sources#WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB caveat.

The other thing is the tone of a Misplaced Pages article. Articles should not be written from a "in universe" perspective, not for articles on fiction, not for any opinion, philosophy or religion related assertions, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Note that in some circumstances primary sources are even preferred over secondary sources. Let me give you an example: Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders is a somewhat unwieldy name, so most reliable secondary sources would shorten it. As there is no consistency among these various shortcut names, Misplaced Pages uses the name as it is in the primary source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:23, 24 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)

I also believe the original edit Francis made was in good faith, but I find it improper that this version is being forced (edit war restored and page locked) when a majority disagrees with it and a consensus for the change in the July 2014 notification never existed. The version that's been in the policy since 2010 should be reinstated while this is under review. WP:CONLEVEL applies here, which typically requires higher standard of participation and consensus for changes on policy pages. The July edit did not contain such participation or discussion on the merits of the change and I don't consider this a minor edit, as I think it really changes the meaning and purpose of the section. I'm not saying Francis did anything wrong (it was there for all to see), but now that objections have been raised (delayed as they may be), we should fall back to the long established consensus and give this further discussion. Morphh 13:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Really? Still trying to win this on "points" and not on content?

FYI: the first sentence of WP:CONLEVEL reads: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Signs of such consensus on a wider scale, e.g.:

Note that for one of your remarks on the current content of the WP:BALASPS section I couldn't say "untrue!", so I started a new subsection about that below: #July 30 edit (continued). Let's see whether someone has a good idea on how to remedy that.

Well, currently there's no consensus on the previous version of the WP:BALASPS section, so it's not possible to revert to (another) no-consensus version. I'm also not too worried about the wider consensus of the ideas that led to the July 30 update to that section. Let's see whether we can find a better wording, with any imaginable wide & narrow consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a long established consensus on the prior version and twice as many editors prefer that version to your version in the current discussion, but you're already aware that I thought your reverts were improper for this particular case as I discussed on your talk page. I would have preferred more discussion on it. I'm just letting everyone else know my thoughts on the matter. Morphh 13:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

... and what would be your contribution to finding a new consensus, or is this about running around in circles about "we had once another consensus. And before that another. And before that maybe still another, that lasted for seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

9 July edit

I oppose this edit. The change seems intended to encourage a deletionist point of view, including multiple attempts to remove material, and rejection of article expansion in proportion to the number of sources available. Yet there is no deletionism when it comes to how the policy is handled -- this edit balloons it with irrelevant material, which is harmful to the cause of getting editors to actually read and follow the important parts. And showcasing "Mel Gibson DUI incident" in a core Misplaced Pages policy -- what kind of BLP practice is that??? It is also not clear what is being recommended -- specifically, does it oppose expanding the article with details about the election of the Pope (as if it is refuting a strawman that you have to use sources only about the one thing that occasioned the timing of their publication)? My feeling is that it is meant to be read that way when we decide on it in the abstract, yet it will be used by professional deletionists (by which I mean, people who cannot be proved to work in paid PR/reputation management) to argue against the inclusion of any material they find politically inconvenient. The whole thing is muddled, abusable instruction creep and needs to be stripped out. Wnt (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many of the ideas for this BALASPS section are still live, but I would like to say in general that I strongly disapprove of policies or interpretations thereof that encourage people to chop down sections of an article to an arbitrary length, rather than expanding the missing sections. Nor should NPOV be making any comment whatsoever on what is notable enough for a separate article; that's a different policy. In general, when there is a wealth of reliable sources that permit an interested individual to expand a section to the point where it's "taking over the article", this is now a notable topic, and creating the new article to allow a WP:summary style reduction is the best way to preserve that work and fulfill Misplaced Pages's function. But because sections will naturally tend to expand from the point where they are almost ready for a new article, therefore bulging at the seams, to one where they have been trimmed down to a summary of a separate article, it follows that there can be no fixed formula to dictate the relative length of each section. Purely accidental considerations of the amount of work done and the overall article structure can greatly affect their length. Wnt (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That edit (9 July or July 9) was reverted 5 minutes later, then discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Balancing aspects section. I see no need to rediscuss something that has not re-appeared in that form again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

July 30 edit (continued)

Morphh made this objection regarding the 30 July change to the first sentence of the WP:BALASPS section (see above):

... the (WP:BALASPS) section now contradicts itself in the next sentence by saying "disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"

Can we look at WP:BALASPS again from this angle? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually like the "disproportionate to their significance to the article topic" language. It makes it clear that just because there is a brief flurry of news/blog-sphere coverage focused on some minor aspect of a broader topic this does not mean that we should give that minor aspect of the topic more weight. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To me it doesn't become clear that that is meant until after reading the next sentence. As such, the part of the WP:BALASPS sentence in Morphhs quote above looks more like finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What if we referenced WP:NOTEVERYTHING within reliable sources when discussing significance? In my view, I could have one or two sources that are very complete (detailed and covering all significant areas, such as biographies) then have 10 recent news articles that cover a particular event. While the event should be well covered, it should not dominate 90% of the article. The event's weight to it's significance to the overall topic should be considered. Morphh 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

My opinion would be to just delete the section for policy simplicity if the meaning of "significance to the article topic" was replace with "weight in reliable sources" as I don't see that it would offer any additional meaning to UNDUE. I'm open to other wording that might allow for both. Morphh 15:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC - WP:BALASPS

This RFC is to help with determining if this edit to WP:BALASPS is preferred, discuss the merits, problems it might create or cures it might solve, and consider compromising alternative language. See prior discussion (Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?) Morphh 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose, I think the edit contradicts the purpose of the section, which was intended to cover issues of WP:RECENT and advise editors to also consider the historical viewpoint for a topic when evaluating weight in sources. I find this particularly important for WP:BLP. 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 depth, and sometimes, while well sourced, recent news and material can be insignificant for the weight it would represent in the overall topic. In my opinion, if we changed this policy to remove significance to the subject, the section would have little value and would just be repeating prior UNDUE material. Morphh 15:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment :

  I fully support that edit, and I don't see it as a policy change of any kind but a clarification of existing practice. (...) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

- while I think the edit is good, I think a robust discussion can and should be had. Such policy wordings can be quite important in subtle ways. I see this as not a change to policy but a clarification to how it works in practice. But consensus should be sought.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I am not opposed to finding a better solution, but as is the edit is an improvement to the policy page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Jimbo. The edit clarifies existing policy; it does not change or alter the spirit of our current guidance. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support, though I think the wording is a bit, er, wordy - to the extent that it can be borderline confusing in the double negative. Maybe something along the lines of "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, instead striving to treat each aspect in accordance with the body of reliable sources on the subject." clarifies a bit. Then again, I could be overthinking it. --Rachel.dicerbo (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Francis Schonken, when you made the original edit on July 9, you included a couple examples, which I think were great examples of that policy's intent. But I think the change described here, that accompanied the examples, would negate the examples you provided and tell the user to do the exact opposite. Can you explain why that would not be the case and how it helps the reader come to the conclusion offered in those examples? Thanks Morphh 14:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It's about the difference between the highly visible media, and the reliable sources as a whole. Because the media get flooded at a moment something remarkable happens, it's important to keep in mind there are probably a lot of prior sources, every bit reliable, that don't surface any more, for instance when limiting a search for sources to that day's internet.

The direction I'm thinking for the WP:BALASPS section is to point out that two types of sources can put Misplaced Pages content off-balance:

• Self-published/primary sources, which also relate to the "in-universe" problem for the writing style sometimes. This is also particularily relevant for the fringe/no fringe issues. Involved policies: WP:PRIMARY (e.g. "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them"), and WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:BLPSELFPUB (for these last two policy sections most prominently the fifth and last point in the list). (I'm not speaking about using self-published/primary sources in articles where they're not allowed, that's already dealt with in those policies as such and doesn't relate to the balancing of aspects)
• Ad-hoc sources that on a superficial level obfuscate the general focus(ses) of the underlying body of reliable sources. The two examples I added on July 9 were rather about that.

I think this should be clarified to help editors. That the "body of reliable sources" may (and often should) include self-published/primary and "ad hoc" sources, but these shouldn't disturbe the balance. (I added "and often should" thinking of Jimbo's "...the best and most reliable source for what a book says is the book itself" (same diff as for the one above the Jimbo quote in the !voting section above))

I just re-read WP:BALANCE and better understand your argument now that we're doubling something here in the already very long policy: I wouldn't mind those two sections being joined (again), if the points I made above are made somewhat more explicit (also keeping Flyer22's original K.I.S.S. remark in mind). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see the thoughts of other editors, but don't want to leave you waiting for a response. I don't see that the vision described here is getting across in the edit. To me, this edit just repeats the first sentence of UNDUE of "proportion to the prominence", but the purpose as described by the examples and existing text in BALASPS was to say that in some cases, proportion to the prominence can be skewed, as you mention here. I don't know that many users make a distinction between highly visible media and would just consider it the weight of the body of reliable sources. Instead of restating proportion to prominence, the section should help explain when one should restrain from using the "weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources". Significance to the topic, while perhaps a little vague (NPOV sometimes is), was one simple way to do that. Morphh 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I don't see that the vision described here is getting across in the edit." — indeed! That's why I fully support Jimbo's invitation not to stop with the July 30 edit. The July 30 edit was the bare minimum, just to avoid this would be perceived as an "exception" granted to fringe topics. That it was perceived thus, and that the edit was thus necessary (and at a fundamental level uncontested and no change to the policy) is illustrated by what happened in the early hours of this discussion above. But indeed, that edit wasn't really anything of much consequence yet and we should try to get our eyes on a further improvement. You know, I've never doubted that, when I pushed the "Save page" button back in July, I was weighing the net benefit of the energy that would go in it then, and didn't think it worth wile then, but now see there isn't much of an alternative than trying to get on the same page with all of you and go ahead with it. (Note, I didn't say "my page", maybe I need to change page, and I have no idea, not even remotely, whether this was something Jimbo Wales might have had in mind when he encouraged discussion and new participants in the discussion)

Note that if I had a concise wording for my above ideas, that would make them come across to any non-suspecting reader, I'd already proposed it or would have tried to edit the policy page accordingly...

That being said, "significance to the topic": no, it has been misused in that sense, see example I gave in the July talk page discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative wording

One of Francis's concerns was that the prior content suggested "finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources". Here is a suggested alternative wording that I hope might address that concern but still maintain the purpose of BALASPS.

When considering weight of encyclopedic content in the body of reliable sources, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. ...

Morphh 16:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd could also see striking "should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but" and just leave it as "an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate..." if we want to consider brevity as I'm not sure it adds anything. Morphh 16:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you completely misunderstood. Imho "finding a balance between self-published/primary sources and third-party sources" is a good thing. The previous version made that less clear. That's also why the July 30 edit was an improvement: the section gets more sense because of that. I think that would have been clear if the previous discussion we had about this wouldn't have been ignored as if it never happened.

Further, replacing "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." by "When considering weight of encyclopedic content in the body of reliable sources, an article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." falls short of the ONLY objection made during the July 2014 discussion: "I prefer that we keep it simple..." (Flyer22). The alternative proposed by Morphh is not an improvement while it fails basic intelligibility for an average newbie and/or reader.

"When considering weight of encyclopedic content in the body of reliable sources, an article should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." ...still unpractical and convoluted wording that falls short of K.I.S.S. — still highlights that we're in the process of redoing a discussion that has been done. Recently. Still on this page in another section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Further: I think I'm going to close this RfC when all the previous discussion we had about this (in the archive that led to the change; in the lengthy section above) needs to be redone from zero. We need to at least connect this to the previous discussion, take account of what people said there (even when they are elsewhere during this RfC) without needing to redo every argument that has been made. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I moved the discussion under the main thread, but renamed it to something more appropriate to the overall topic. I also simplified my proposal as mentioned in my other post. I find it more legible then "with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject." Morphh 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The prior discussion was digressing and didn't address the edit. The majority that did comment on the edit, disapproved of it. So I thought this was a way to circle around and regroup and focus the discussion, not to get lost in another sub-sub-thread. Morphh 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, not all of it though, but maybe difficult to find. What do you think about what I wrote starting from #Step one, inclusion criteria above? --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't have an issue with it, though I would offer that in many articles a large portion may go to just describing the topic, which I don't see as pro or con. NPOV primarily covers opinions, so once the facts are described about The Theory of XYZ, you can present opinions regarding the belief or nonsense of it - those opinions may only make up 50% of the article. Regarding the weight of that 50%, I would defer to the second paragraph of WP:DUE, which might also be in conflict to your proposal of WP:BALASPS. Even though we make the mainstream view clear, sometimes we need to give a minority view (on an article about that view) a little more space as it's significant to the topic and should be covered in sufficient detail. Morphh 17:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is worthy of a fresh look with more people paying attention to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What I want here

Taking a step back, what is BALASPS supposed to accomplish? Well, the Misplaced Pages I want is one where if you summarize a bunch of sources and dutifully cite each one, that work will not be thrown away and will be reasonably accessible to the reader. Doesn't matter if they're fringe or common, primary or secondary, what country or language they're from, or if others agree with them; we want to keep the work. However, the highest-level article on a topic should look like it is a reasonable WP:summary style of an unlimited number of sources, without being skewed according to which sources the editors actually worked on. The way to get there, however, is not by fitting the article to a Procrustean bed where you discard good content outright. The way to get there is to split sections when you can -- acknowledging that when an abundance of reliable sources exist about one particular aspect of a topic, however fringe, it is by definition notable. Even so, since the transition between splitting a section and not splitting it is abrupt, and because some badly needed sections often have no work done on them at all, we can't expect the article to fully match the ideal. In such cases, tags for section expansion, or some other means of indicating deficiency of the most common POV, may be desirable to give the impression of boarding over the obvious gaps.

A source or viewpoint is never "fringe" in isolation. It is only "fringe" compared to another point of view. For example, creationism is a fringe view on evolution, yet the Bishop of Usher's dating scheme for a creationist timeline is a mainstream theory of creationism. Dealing with fringe material should never be a matter of exclusion, but of classification. "What article does this go under?" should be the question, not "is this too loopy to cover?"! Wnt (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not want this Misplaced Pages. --NeilN 12:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For me there are valuable ideas in what Wnt writes, and I agree to most of it (not the conclusion though, which also doesn't seem to follow from what was written before).

However, I don't see where this fits in our current discussion on the WP:BALASPS section, even less which version of that section (existing, previous, proposed before or proposed here for the first time) this affects to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The second paragraph isn't a conclusion, just a separate point. And I agree that the current discussion doesn't directly address this issue - yet it seems to have an indirect relationship. The July 9 (I think) edit I referenced above was an example of how it could be explicitly involved, but every time people here talk about "balancing aspects" I think some people are picturing splitting material and others are picturing cutting it, so I don't think we're all on the same page. Wnt (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It is neither about "splitting" nor "cutting" every time I read the section. I never understood where these ideas came from, that's why so much of the previous discussion is lost on me. I see a relation of WP:BALASPS to the WP:Editorial discretion essay, meaning WP:BALASPS is one of the policy-level principles that governs what is explained there. But even that essay isn't about a split-or-cut dichotomy when I read it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite following - confusion between WP:BALANCE & WP:BALASPS? Morphh 14:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no edit to WP:BALANCE being discussed here.

At least this misunderstanding explains the "why" of some of the digressions above, which I didn't follow in detail (I must admit). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the paragraph with BALASPS beside it. The use and abuse of that text to delete information seems common and obvious. Wnt (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

A question on NPOV

I would like to ask a question from editors not involved with the article Electronic cigarette. I have been reading a lot on NPOV and what I understand from that reading is that all viewpoints in reliable sources should be included. That the majority viewpoint should get more coverage. To help me understand this a question I have is, is it following NPOV to place 32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing, that evidence is unclear or unknown really NPOV. How about when they are used to oppose what is known? Does the age of the unknown or unclear statement play into this if its older than later facts? If this is in the wrong place I apologize in advance and if so would you please point me to the appropriate place for questions on this topic. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 20:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You need WP:NPOVN which is where questions like this are examined. At that noticeboard, people are asked to be specific because the only possible answer to the above is "it depends". Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

That link is for disputes. I would like information, from people who have not edited the Electronic Cigarette article. AlbinoFerret 06:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Being selective on who you want the information from suggests your question is not entirely dispute-free. Further, it is a misconception WP:NPOVN is exclusively for disputes: it is a noticeboard for any NPOV-related inquiries. It is a "discussion, request, and help venue" as the template on top of the page has it. This WT:NPOV page where you posted your inquiry, on the other hand, is only about the question: how can we improve the WP:NPOV policy page? I see no component relating to that in your question. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation on WP:NPOVN. It is a controversial issue, thats why I wanted outside information. AlbinoFerret 16:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOVN is only one of many "outside input" options mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help - bringing it up on a policy talk page is however not listed there, and maybe not so likely to yield the optimal result.

Please also have al look at WP:FORUMSHOP: going to another forum in the hope to get a different result is usually not recommended. I suppose that's the reason why most of us here are reluctant to comment on the content of your question: it allows you to choose the appropropriate forum, without shifting away from an ongoing content discussion (which would be the avoidable kind of forumshopping) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasnt forum shopping, I was simply looking for information. I know nothing would or could be resolved here. The only purpose was to get my head wrapped around the NPOV concept. I commonly ask questions like thins to make sure I am thinking right and not jumping into to deep of water. The only use would have been proving my personal understanding was either right or wrong, and an explanation from an uninvolved party to show me why. AlbinoFerret 16:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "To help me understand this a question I have is, is it following NPOV to place 32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing, that evidence is unclear or unknown really NPOV. How about when they are used to oppose what is known? Does the age of the unknown or unclear statement play into this if its older than later facts?" As pointed out above by Johnuniq there is no answer for such questions merely from policy like NPOV. "32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing" is possible. Depends on what other reliable sources say, but as your question seems to start from the assumption there are no such alternative reliable sources, "32 separate quotes from sources basically saying the same thing" is possible.

We also extensively replied to "If this is in the wrong place I apologize in advance and if so would you please point me to the appropriate place for questions on this topic", so I don't see what else there is to be said here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The last post by me wasnt a question or asking for answers on the topic. It was just an explanation of why I wasnt forum shopping. I think your post a few back ended this section as to the questions, sorry if I wasnt clear on that in my last response. I thank you for your time and response pointing out WP:NPOVN and why it was a better place for the questions I asked. AlbinoFerret 16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral and proportionate point of view

I realize that proposing to rename a central policy of Misplaced Pages may be quixotic. However there are real, practical problems stemming from the present name. When someone has the "everything must be neutral" frame of mind, s/he often entirely misses how weight and proportionality are essential to NPOV, even after being asked directly to re-read the policy. George Lakoff has written about how ideas "bounce off" a person's mind when they conflict with already-held views (e.g. "everything must be neutral").

If the solution is not renaming, then at least there should be some brainstorming, I think. I have proposed naming it the neutral and proportionate point of view for reasons explained in this essay, which others are free to modify.

Manul 20:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Manul, that being neutral on Misplaced Pages does not mean what being neutral means in common discourse, and that the title of the WP:Neutral policy should perhaps reflect this, has been addressed before; see Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 47#Name of policy. The Four Deuces (TFD), BullRangifer (Brangifer), Francis Schonken and I took part in that relatively small discussion. If you want wider input, you should add a WP:Requested move template to the top of your post above, or a create a subsection for that template and be brief in the description, and then advertise the discussion at related pages, such as the WP:Village pump. Flyer22 (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

As a related comment, I admit that I'm somewhat put off by the 'This policy is nonnegotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus' bit at the end of the lead. While this is certainly true, it is equally true for WP:V and WP:OR, and in fact the nature of WP:NPOV incorporates those two (in that relying on an unverifiable source or putting original research in Misplaced Pages is by definition also a violation of WP:NPOV). Stating that NPOV is non-negotiable without that clarification could give inexperienced users the impression that when they believe WP:NPOV and WP:OR or WP:V to be in conflict, WP:NPOV takes precedence. (To the point where I could easily see people citing that line and saying "yes, everyone else on this page says that what I'm trying to add to this article is unverifiable original research, but I believe leaving it out is a violation of WP:NPOV, and that means that your consensus that it violates WP:OR and WP:V is meaningless because NPOV takes precedence and can't be overridden by consensus!") --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Flyer22, since renaming a central policy of Misplaced Pages is a rather extraordinary thing, I figured I would get feedback here first. I notice you have written about the same issue. Even limited feedback would be helpful before proceeding. So ... "the neutral and proportionate point of view" ... what do you think? Manul ~ talk 20:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

All Sources Have Bias

Regarding this diff, how can you demonstrate that a source has no bias? There is no such thing as an unbiased source. Every piece of text created by a human is written because that human has an opinion that he/she feels must be expressed. Biases are not necessarily wrong or misguided. For instance, you are biased to believe the Theory of Gravity because you have never gone flying off the face of the planet, because perhaps you have seen experiments that produce data that numerically fits the equations of the Theory, and because plenty of people you respect and trust have told you it is true. However, this remains a bias (i.e. if a random person claimed to have disproven the The Theory of Gravity, you would reflexively find it difficult to take that person seriously, even before seeing their data). The entirety of the scientific endeavor is a mission to establish biases that are rationally-rooted in hard data, logical argument, and the reputations of the investigators. Even in the most reliable of sources, these biases can occasionally be misplaced, so it is important to recognize that nobody's judgement of neutrality is absolutely perfect.

Especially in the case of journalism, biases can even be reflected in the choice of what pieces of information to include or even what to not write. In this sense, it is impossible for any piece of writing to not reflect some sort of bias. For instance, the editorial choice of a newspaper to do an interview with but not reflects an inherent bias towards diverting attention to , no matter how "neutral" the questions asked are. If that media source supports , they may omit any difficult questions that would reflect this candidate's failures. If the media source opposes , they may neglect to ask any questions that would reflect this candidate's successes.

The point is, all sources have a bias that reflects the consensus beliefs of its authors and editors. There is no such thing as a perfectly neutral source. Even Misplaced Pages, with millions of peer-reviewing editors and an explicit focus on neutrality, ends up with segments of text that are easily recognizable (by one group or another) as biased. The inherently omnipresent nature of bias should be reflected in this article, rather than implying that there are biased sources and unbiased sources. Merely suggesting that unbiased sources exist harms the Misplaced Pages project by encouraging a bias against sources that are more honest about their own bias, in favor of sources that fraudulently present their own bias as the indisputable "neutral" point of view. TBSchemer (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit waters down the intent of the sentence and is untrue. Obvious example: sports statistics. --NeilN 20:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• There, the question is a matter of whose sports statistics are being reported, and whose are not. For instance, reporting statistics from NFL players, but not from players in any of the many other American football leagues reflects a bias in favor of the NFL. That doesn't mean it's an unreasonable bias. But it is a bias, nonetheless. TBSchemer (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• This is a frankly ridiculous argument. I'm not talking about systematic bias where baseball may have more articles than cricket. The MLB site is an unbiased site from which a MLB player's stats can be sourced. --NeilN 21:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical debate between editors about the player with the highest batting average. The MLB site lists only MLB players, and claims that an MLB player has the highest batting average in professional baseball. However, another smaller professional league has a player with a higher batting average, and their own site reports this. One group of editors claims that the MLB site is unbiased, and refuses to accept article edits containing statistics from the smaller league. Another group argues the reverse. However, isn't it important to recognize that each league has a bias to emphasize the importance of their own players? This is the sort of understanding that would encourage editors to compromise by including the claims from both leagues in the article, with proper attributions. TBSchemer (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Again, you wrote without qualification, "There is no such thing as an unbiased source." Is the MLB site an unbiased site for sourcing a MLB player's stats? Yes or no? --NeilN 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

TBSchemer, I disagree, and have reverted again. It's silly, for example, to state that sources are biased for reporting a scientific or medical fact. To me, reporting on facts are not a bias. Many sources simply report the facts, no matter if the source is biased in how it decided to present the information; and by "biased" in this context, I mean a source deciding how much of the fact to report on or something similar. Stating that a celebrity got married, for another example, is not biased reporting unless one wants to state that it's biased that the source decided to report on that matter. I don't see how your text is needed. If I hadn't missed your above post, I would have replied earlier. As for why others had not yet replied (noted in your revert of me): Well, your above post is three decent-sized paragraphs long, and such long posts are commonly ignored...even on policy talk pages; WP:Too long; didn't read is real. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not offended by the delay in discussion. I'm just glad that we have the opportunity to discuss the change now.
• The question of what is and isn't a fact, and which facts deserve reporting is a matter of bias. I used the example of the Theory of Gravity as an example of how a scientific fact can be held with bias (again, that doesn't necessarily mean the bias is misplaced). Another example more related to the ongoing scientific process is how scientists are generally biased to believe their own work is correct and impactful. Their careers depend on it, so scientists have a tendency to hype up the importance of their work. University press-release offices also have an interest in that bias, and this is how we end up with new popular science articles every other week of the form, "X, the New Superfood!" or "Y, the Cure for Cancer?" Again, this sort of bias isn't always misplaced, but this is why we have peer-review in the scientific process. The idea is that hopefully, the biases of the reviewers will cancel out some of the biases of the researchers, and you end up with an ultimately less-biased publication. However, this process certainly is not perfect, and biases shared between all the authors and reviewers will pass through unscathed.
• This is why I think it's important to emphasize that the more perspectives you have on content (such as in Misplaced Pages's "consensus" process), the less-biased the content becomes. But no source is ever entirely unbiased. Even sources that have internal review mechanisms have biases that are shared amongst their editors (example: any news establishment). TBSchemer (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is important to have multiple perspectives. I disagree with changing the policy to state that there are no unbiased sources, which, as Flyer22 states, is not correct. The rewording of the policy that TBSchemer proposes is well-meant but waters it down. I would suggest that any change to this fundamental part of the wording of the policy should be done only by consensus via the Requests for Comments process. I do not plan to publish the RFC because I think that the wording is all right, but I will go along with the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• This change seems based on a fundamentally faulty and misguided understanding of what bias is. (The theory-of-gravity example, for instance, describes Bayesian updating—a rational and empirically sound cognitive approach—rather than "bias"). More to the point, the issue is handled inartfully here. The question isn't really one of bias, but one of attempted objectivity. Some sources present, or aspire to present, an objective viewpoint (these include the reputable scientific literature and high-quality news media). Other sources make no pretense of objectivity (these include agenda-driven blogs and websites, and partisan publications). This distinction is an important one, and we shouldn't dismiss it with a glib phrase about the universality of bias. Finally, from a practical perspective, the proposed change will (either inadvertently or by design) open the floodgates to a wave of false-equivalency claims and crappy sources (as in "the New York Times is no better than ufo-sightings.com, because ALL SOURCES ARE BIASED!"). MastCell  22:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well said. --NeilN 22:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Biases are not necessarily inherently irrational. Biases do come about through Bayesian updating with differing inputs (everyone has their own experiences) and differing probability estimates (which are rooted in prior biases). The refusal to consider alternative points of view is, by definition, a bias, no matter how rationally that perspective came about. Again, biases aren't always wrong. If we didn't have any biases, then we would be overwhelmed by the need to evaluate every claim, no matter how minimal its chance of being true.
• Hence, bias is not what makes a source good or bad. For instance, the New York Times is well-known to have biases, that are reflected in their news reporting as well as their editorial columns. It is not the degree or direction of bias that makes the New York Times often a good source, but the many other factors discussed in WP:Reliable.
• Nevertheless, the New York Times is certainly not infallible, and it's important to recognize that other perspectives in other reliable sources exist and are not just overridden by the New York Times in all cases. It can be very disruptive to attempts to achieve consensus when editors are arguing over whether the the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal is more biased, when both present valid information through their own perspectives. One topic may be more objectively analyzed by the New York Times while the other is more objectively analyzed by the Wall Street Journal. The question is not a matter of who is more biased (as both sources have their own biases), but a question of whether each source has adhered to the highest standards of journalistic integrity in presenting that particular piece of content from their own perspective. I think there are plenty of components of WP:Reliable that we can point to in both of these newspapers that make them more acceptable as sources than ufo-sightings.com.
• I agree with you that there is a difference between content which is meant to be presented as opinion and content which is meant to be presented as news, but I think we should try to find a way to reflect that without implying that some news reporting organizations are inherently unbiased. TBSchemer (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how we currently imply in any way that some news reporting organizations are inherently unbiased, or what it even means to be unbiased, or why we should care? The first sentence of this policy reads "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Would it really be a different sentence if it read "representing fairly and proportionately all significant views published by reliable sources? You're making a mountain of not even a molehill here. NW (Talk) 04:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It can't be "proven" that all sources have a bias.

Conversely it can't be "proven" for a single source that it is ultimately bias-free.

As both (philosophical) contentions are irrelevant for the policy, this discussion is a time-sink without actual object.

So, oppose TBSchemer's proposed addition. Significant opposing views should be contained in article namespace, but all of that is currently carefully explained on the policy page without needing to have recourse to unsteady axiomas that have no practical effect on the matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of navel gazing philosophy, I think it may be correct to say that all sources have bias... however as a practical matter, I would oppose the edit in question. It does not matter whether all sources have bias (or only some of them). The addition is irrelevant tothe entire point of the sentence, which is to make it clear that it is OK for sources to have a bias. SOURCES do not have to be neutral on their topic. The point of the sentence is to tell our editors: Even if you think a source is highly biased - you can not say "this source is biased" and disallow it. That is the point of saying: "Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone." Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)