Misplaced Pages

talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:26, 28 July 2009 editRicoCorinth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,566 editsm /* Trying to change NPOV, because "it would help to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:05, 23 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,312,165 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 68) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{shortcut|WT:NPOV}} {{Talk header|WT:NPOV}}
{{Policy-talk}} {{Policy-talk}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 36 |counter = 68
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(14d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(40d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Notice|header=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 ] (any neutrality-related issue) or the ] (undue weight given to a minority view).}} {{Notice|header=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 ] (any neutrality-related issue) or the ] (undue weight given to a minority view).}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_1.ogg}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Press
| subject = policy
| author = Nishant Kauntia
| title = The Edit Wars: How Misplaced Pages earned the ire of the Hindu Right
| org = '']''
| url = https://caravanmagazine.in/media/wikipedia-earned-ire-hindu-right
| date = 30 November 2020
| quote =
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 9 December 2020
| subject2 = policy
| author2 = Syeda ShahBano Ijaz
| title2 = How Conflicts and Population Loss Led to the Rise of English Misplaced Pages’s Credibility
| org2 = ]
| url2 = https://politicalsciencenow.com/how-conflicts-and-population-loss-led-to-the-rise-of-english-wikipedias-credibility/
| date2 = 29 May 2023
| quote2 =
| archiveurl2 =
| archivedate2 =
| accessdate2 = 30 May 2023
| subject3 = policy
| author3 = Aaron Bandler
| title3 = Misplaced Pages Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”
| org3 = ]
| url3 = https://jewishjournal.com/news/united-states/376157/wikipedia-editors-place-a-near-total-ban-on-calling-gaza-health-ministry-hamas-run/
| date3 = 25 October 2024
| quote3 =
| archiveurl3 =
| archivedate3 =
| accessdate3 = 26 October 2024
}}
{{Archive box|search=no|box-width=250px|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|
{{#tag:inputbox|
bgcolor=transparent
type=fulltext
prefix=Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/Archive
break=yes
width=27
searchbuttonlabel=Search
}}


<div class="infobox" style="width: 20em;">
;Archived discussions
: ] Discussions before October 2004 : ] Discussions before October 2004
: ] Closing out 2004 : ] Closing out 2004
Line 31: Line 76:
: ] to April 09, 2006 : ] to April 09, 2006
---- ----
'''Note:''' Edit history of 001-017 is in 017. '''Note:''' Edit history of 001–017 is in 017.
---- ----
: ]: Apr 2006 : ]: Apr 2006
: ]: Apr 2006 - May 2006 : ]: Apr 2006 – May 2006
: ]: May 2006 - Jun 2006 : ]: May 2006 – Jun 2006
: ]: Jun 2006 : ]: Jun 2006
: ]: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ) : ]: Jun–Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)
: ]: Jul-Aug 4 2006 : ]: Jul–Aug 4 2006
: ]: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006 : ]: Aug 4 – Sept 21 2006
: ]: Sept 22 - Oct 2006 : ]: Sept 22 – Oct 2006
: ]: Nov - Dec 2006 : ]: Nov – Dec 2006
: ]: Jan - Feb 2007 : ]: Jan – Feb 2007
: ]: Mar - May 2007 : ]: Mar – May 2007
: ]: May - September 2007 : ]: May – Sep 2007
: ]: Oct 2007 - Feb 2008 : ]: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008
: ]: Feb - May 2008 : ]: Feb – May 2008
: ]: May 2008 - July 2008 : ]: May – July 2008
: ]: July 2008 : ]: July 2008
: ]: : ]: July – Sep 2008
: ]: : ]: Sep 2008 – May 2009
: ]: : ]: April – Aug 2009
: ]: Aug – Nov 2009
</div>
: ]: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010
: ]: Mar - Apr 2010
: ]: Apr 2010
: ]: May 2010
: ]: May - Jun 2010
: ]: Jun - Oct 2010
: ]: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
: ]: Apr - Nov 2011
: ]: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
: ]: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
: ]: Sep 2014 - May 2015
: ]: May 2015
: ]: May - Jun 2015
: ]: Jul - Nov 2015
: ]: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
: ]: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
: ]: Aug 2017
: ]: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
: ]: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
: ]: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
: ]: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
: ]: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
: ]: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
: ]: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
: ]: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023
: ]: Aug 2023 – May 2024
: ]: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
: ]: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
: ]: Aug 2024 – present
}}


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


== Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality ==
== UNDUE ==
For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?

At least once a day and usually more often, I see UNDUE cited by editors to justify removing material they simply don't like. Because they don't like it (or, often, because they've never heard of it), it jumps out at them as UNDUE, but that's simply a result of their own POV or lack of knowledge. I'm not sure what we can do about this, but it's so prevalent, and such a misuse of this policy, that it's worth raising to see whether we can tweak the wording to reduce the chances of it being abused in this way. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
:Obviously I don't want to turn this into a rehash of any specific content dispute, but would it be possible to give 1 or 2 examples of the problem you're seeing? It might be useful in terms of deciding what, if any, policy changes would address the issue. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

:I'm in agreement with SlimVirgin. This is not using policies in the spirit of how they were meant or perhaps someone is under the impression that their view is more in the majority than it actually is (systematic bias). Quoting from the text (emphasis added):
:*]
:*]
:The "support" in this case is generally tribes and communities secluded from the rest of the world. In this case it is simply a fact for them and to be quite frank they really don't care as it makes no impact on their lives one way or another. I think we can agree that everybody who reads it is educated enough not to hold a different view so there's not any real problem there. Anybody who continually tries to "push" a view that the earth is not flat would just antagonise me as that is NOT the information I am looking for in an article on the flat earth.
:But then we get to the more contentious articles. I think the "allowed" should be changed to "should" first of all. Then the second paragraph I quoted is ambiguous and contradictory. It's simply not possible to properly deal with an article if someone feels they have to continually state that it is the minority view. More than that it's quite easy, as I already said, for someone to thik their view is more prevalant than it actually is.
:Then there's the problem of how to deal with articles of a scientific nature. Some think that only the scientific opinion is valid, I disagree. Some issues are as much in the public realm as they are in the scientific and if the public opinion varies much from the scientific one an article should state so or it can't be claimed as expressing a neutral view. More than that is the issue of what happens if the public lose faith completely in the scientists. Should everybody continue to insist that the scientific view is the only relevant one? That's not neutral, it's bias. Unfortunately the nature of[REDACTED] makes it unable to be unbiased. The US is NOT the world and consequently the opinion of the US scientists or groups of scientists for that matter is not the only opinion that exists. If scientists start setting up conditions to exclude other scientists and only include themselves somebody has to play the referee and the only one that makes sense is public opinion. ] ]|] 19:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

::The section n Pseudoscience has been part of policy since the day this became policy. It was spun off to a sub-policy for a while, but recently remerged as part of a reworking of the sub-policy. Much of it is still identical to then. So, yes, science is privileged; otherwise, we would not be writing anything that could reasonably be called an encyclopedia. Britannica does not present evolution as a lie by Satan, and neither do we. ] (]) 01:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

:Peh. Translated from ]-speak to normal language: She's upset that her ideas of what undue weight means contradict with the vast majority of other editors, including the Arbitration Committee's rulings on pseudoscience and the paranormal, so she sticks her fingers in her ears and claims nobody but her understands what undue weights means, and the problem couldn't possibly be her so she wants to change policy to reflect her rather skewed ideas. See, for instance, her complaints over on ] where she claimed that the term "pseudoscience" is "meaningless" and that only "ignorant" people use it... despite the fact that plenty of reliable sources use it and ArbCom specifically stated outright that the term is appropriate when cited. Nothing to see here except an editor grasping at straws to try to push her already soundly rejected views onto the project. ] (]) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::This is not an inappropriate venue for criticising or attacking another edtior, Dreamguy; I highly recommend you redact your comments and stick to the editorial content and provisions of the policy this talk page is related to. ] <small>]</small> 02:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:::Nah, attacking people seems to be the norm around here and AGF is only pushed onto the noobs so "established" editers can continue pushing their warped views without criticism. Absolutely no good faith was shown to me when I started so I'm no longer assuming, if someone wants it they have to prove to me that they deserve it. And if someone attacks me I will attack back, afterall in every normal place I have been before it's the instigator that's wrong and not the people simply defending themselves. I suggest[REDACTED] falls in with the rest of reality. ] ]|] 15:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

::::With respect, this is a project page and it therefore seems inappropriate to name and criticize specific editors in such a fashion. If you feel you have a valid complaint about another contributor there are several more appropriate venues to discuss it. Please do consider redacting the personal portion of those comments so that discussion can more productively focus on the topic at hand. Thanks, ] <font color ="green">]</font > 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:::::Never said this was appropriate. My comment is meant more as a criticism against the way things are usually done. I would like for DreamGuy to rather substantiate his ideas than to throw around wild unsubstantiated accusations. Simply removing stuff will not solve anything and only protects the people that made the comments. There's the old adage you can't unring a bell. SlimVirgin raised a valid issue I think and I don't see anyone besides me really trying to address it. Shoemaker's Holiday similarly discussed another tangent rather than the real issue. But while he brought it up I see no reason not to comment on it as a perfect example: No Britannica does not "present evolution as a lie by Satan" but I haven't seen anybody here suggesting we should. What I do see is that real and professional encyclopedias like Britannica and Encarta don't have a need to call creationism pseudoscience but here it is labeled as such in the second paragraph. Can anybody else see the simple fact that while[REDACTED] claims to be an encyclopedia "its" policies do not reflect those of a real one? ] ]|] 16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Btw. this is called neutral point of view and not neutral scientific point of view. ONLY a policy that is itself non-neutral would demand scientific "consensus" to be the deciding factor while public opinion that is much more widespread is thrown to the wayside or not mentioned at all. ] ]|] 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

:It seems quite proper that science articles (and all related science-type topics) are governed by mainstream scientific consensus because quite frankly, only the opinions of scientists count on these matters; other people may have opinions, but they are not ''informed opinions''. If Creationism supporters refered to the topic strictly as a religous belief, there would be no need to label it psuedoscience. Only because the supporters insist on claiming it is scientific does it become necessary to clarify the subject as psuedoscience. This is entirely proper because Creationism is not only unsupported by evidence, it fails to define itself in terms that admit the possibility of scientific treatment. Possibly Creationism isn't the best example of Undue Weight issues, because I'll willing agree that I have seen the problem SV describes in other areas. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== Copyediting ==

Hi folx, I've done a bit of copyediting and clean-up to the top of the 'Explanation of...' section. I've divided my edits into groups to make it easier to digest (or revert) them. For the most part, I've tried hard not to change the underlying meaning of any sentence or paragraph, but in a few cases I felt the meaning was pretty unclear, so to write more clearly required me to extend the ideas a bit. I hope my changes will be well received by the many who are sure to audit them. :)

The most significant change I made was to modify the definition from "conflicting perspectives ... ''should'' be presented fairly" into "'''must''' be presented fairly". I think that's only fair. I replaced one or two (but not nearly all) other 'shoulds' with 'musts'. Also, I clarified (extended?) the concept of undue weight by explicitly pointing out that perjorative mentions imply a preference, and reinserted mention of the idea that NPOV does not mean "NO Point of View".

In any case, I think this article is becoming a rather difficult read after many years of tweaking. I think it needs quite a bit more copyediting, but I'm not so confident in my editing that I want to spend 4 or 5 more hours before I've "tested the waters", as it were. But if nobody vociferously disclaims my work so far, I plan (hope) to come back in a day or two and go over the entire article with an eye on simplifying sentence structure and generally making this article easier to read (as I feel policy pages, in particular, should be as clear and simple as possible (but ], of course!)). I look forward to feedback. ] (]) 08:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:I have not looked in detail at the wording of this section for a long time, and I agree that it is very repetitive and could do with pruning. For example one specific thing I noticed when looking at your differences. "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor opposes its subject: it does not endorse or discourage specific viewpoints. " Better writing would couple "endorse and oppose" and "sympathizes and discourage" together. --] (]) 09:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

:: PBS, . I hope I understood you correctly. If not, just revert it. ] (]) 14:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Not really "endorse/oppose" "<s>sympathizes</s>encourage/discourage" are opposites. The initial wording mixed the two and the current version is not much clearer. --] (]) 16:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Fixed, I think. ] (]) 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

Ok, I'm proceeding with more copyedits and such, and the section on article naming has me a bit baffled. In particular, almost the entire second paragraph seems obscure. I've detailed my questions here,

*"This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue."
:My first thought was that this sentence really needs an example or two, but I honestly couldn't think of any good ones. Suggestions?

*"A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. "
:What does that mean? How does a neutral title 'contextualize' the topic? Also, ] seems to say that titles should reflect the most common usage and be "optimized for readers", so doesn't that trump the need for neutrality, at least sometimes?

*"The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs")."
:Baffling. Might cover ''what'' same material? Isn't covering broader material and renaming articles as suggested precisely what ] tells us ''not'' to do?

*"Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."
:They do? In way, exactly?

If anyone can help clarify what's being said here, maybe it can be edited into something better.

I've also copyedited the sections on Article structure and Undue weight; please check my work there to make sure you agree with it. :) ] (]) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

== How do we flag an article to dispute its neutrality? ==

I have moved my question about a specific article to the Noticeboard. But I would still like to know where those notices come from, such as "the neutrality of this article has been disputed" or "this article does not cite any sources".
] (]) 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

:For articles, you add <nowiki>{{POV}}</nowiki> to the top of the article. But you also need to go to the article talk page and describe how you think the article is biased. A tag without discussion helps no one and will usually get removed. FYI: is the general link to article templates, and is the link to POV templates. Hope that helps... ] (]) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for your prompt reply, very helpful! --] (]) 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

== Mental reservation ==

It seems that one of the most common criticisms of the NPOV policy is that it gives editors the feeling that they are under a kind of forced ], which is a Jesuit doctrine that is meant to create doctrinal orthodoxy. Maintaining a feeling of prolonged mental reservation can actually be bad for your health, and I think this is one of the reasons that so many conflicts have erupted on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 05:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

== A bold proposal ==

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: ] Thanks, ] | ] 15:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

== Scientific consenus ==

My edit was reverted. I request that someone put the words "of scientists" back in. The ] article linked in that sentences states, "Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community '''of scientists''' in a particular field of study." A section I added that sought to explain how scientific consensus is related to the mainstream view of society was also reverted.. --] (]) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:Not all mainstream views of society are influenced or related to scientific consensus, a point which I still have to get across in another thread. If it is to be readded in should be expanded to also make this clear and I will support such an attempt. On your first point I agree though that scientific consensus is the majority view of scientists (and ONLY scientists) towards a topic. ] ]|] 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::The best ''anchor'' for additions to any article is ]. Any good faith editor will think twice before deleting content that has a strong reference. ] <font color ="green">]</font > 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I gave a reference: ]. --] (]) 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::::I think he was referring to content to '''articles''' in general. Unfortunately that still does not address the problem itself. ] ]|] 20:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== A Minor Problem ==
I recently noticed an interesting comment on a webcomic called xkcd. It postulated that there could be some events that Misplaced Pages could not cover neutrally, and gives an example. I think that there may need to be a provision for the possibility that a Misplaced Pages article may affect the very subject that it describes. While the given example is admittedly unlikely, the premise itself remains valid. ] (]) 18:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== Request to have WP:UNDUE updated to reflect proper etiquette concerns ==

I wonder if those who run Misplaced Pages might consider updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Misplaced Pages etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial.
What I'm concerned about is that some editors invoke this in order to put a chill on debate on the Talk pages, e.g., "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier." A Holocaust denier is someone who wants to spread the manifest falsehood that millions of people were murdered. The average person whose edits manifest a potential issue over WP:UNDUE are people who have merely not sufficiently demonstrated that a substantial minority of people agree with some specific statement. I'm okay with the principle of WP:UNDUE, it's the tenor of the discussion that I have a problem with.
We shouldn't be here to belittle people's edits, but to tell them what will fly and what won't. In the specific case I've confronted (on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis page) I've found that some elements first criticized as WP:UNDUE turned out not to be as reliable sources began to report on those elements in more detail. In other words, the "Holocaust deniers" turned out to be people trying to report a dimension of the crisis but simply not having enough evidence yet to make their point. It was legitimate of people to make edits citing WP:UNDUE until those sources emerged. It was not legitimate of those people to compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis.
Is there something that can be added to this policy to make it clear that name-calling and guilt by association are not okay according to WP:UNDUE? ] (]) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:Actually this is already covered by ]. Somehow some people still get away with this form of attack causing numerous good editors to be driven away so only the uncivil POV pushing cabals remain. Ironinally the best way to deal with this is to ignore ] and call a spade a spade like it's done in the real world. Fortunately wp is losing it's grip and credibility more and more in the real world. Many of us no longer accept any reference to it in debates so the cabals have essentially only succeeded in driving people away from their articles. ] ]|] 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for the comment, and I agree it is covered elsewhere. What I'm saying is that I think the suggestion to be more civil should also be right in the text of WP:UNDUE, because this is the policy people are citing as they blast people with guilt-by-association innuendo. ] (]) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Actually I have seen people fly right past one paragraph and refer only to the next. Your intention is good but if you are hoping that duplicating some of the information here will work I can tell you now it simply won't. The problem editors know very well that they should not be doing what they are doing, unless they are new which happens very rarely. This is more the unwillingness of the people in charge being too soft to do anything about it than the ingorance of the editors. ] ]|] 22:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
::::From what I've seen, I don't doubt it...but it would help '''me''' to be able to say "Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says ''right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing'' that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed. ] (]) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

== Less emotionally-charged example ==

While I think that ZK is misreading the policy, I do agree that it would be better to use a less emotionally-charge example to illustrate the principle. Thus I changed the statement from denying that the Holocaust occurred to denying that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. ] (]) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:That is completely separate from this. ZK is also talking about another policy and not misreading this one. ] ]|] 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
::Well, yeah, I find it hard to figure out just ''what'' he's talking about. But the point remains that mentioning Holocaust denial tends to bring emotional reactions, so it would be better to use a more mundane example. ] (]) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree. ] ]|] 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


The guidelines that come to mind are:
::::My concern is that WP:UNDUE doesn't contain within it an express warning not to condemn other editors to guilt-by-association. My point was that calling someone a "Holocaust denier" when the debate concerning content on a particular page has nothing to do with the Holocaust. I would have the same problem if someone were called a "moon landing denier" when discussing content on a page having nothing to do with the moon landing or even space travel in general. The point of that kind of language is to stigmatize the editor and conduct ''argumentum ad hominem'', not merely correct a page so that it doesn't give undue weight to theories supported only by a tiny minority. If this is said in other policies, fine, but I see editors using WP:UNDUE as something which sanctifies their incivility.


0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.
::::In the particular case of the page ], upon which I've been working, I've seen WP:UNDUE brought up reasonably, with positive effects on the page, when people were not able to demonstrate that opinions are held by a more sizeable minority. However, when people have been able to find sources backing up their claims, they receive no apologies for being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers. I'd like a policy that allows people to make the proper WP:UNDUE criticisms while reining in the bullies. ] (]) 04:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think that the Apollo moon landing hoax is a good choice: I added the example (as part of a minor attempt to clarify the wording), and merely wanted to choose something almost everyone could agree was clearly an extreme minority view and wrong. But if it's giving the impression of an accusation of anti-semitism when the policy is linked to, it's not serving its purpose very well, and a different clearly-wrong minority claim - without the emotional baggage - will be better. ] (]) 15:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. ].
::::::Zachary, do you have any '''''diffs''''' that establish that someone is "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier,'" or of "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"? I'd hate to think you're writing something that's clearly '''''untrue'''''.
::::::Please, show us a ''diff'' where an edit has "impl that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
::::::Please provide the ''diff'' for this direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
::::::Please provide the ''diff'' that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."
::::::What y'all are '''''not being told''''', is that there was a military ''coup'' in Honduras. Members of the coup-spawned government denied that it was a coup. Most Interested Persons have been fighting for the elimination of the word "coup" everywhere it appears in Misplaced Pages, even though all the reliable sources -- that ''I'' have seen (''WP'', the ''Times'' in Britain, ''AP'', ''Reuters'') -- have been regularly, simply referring to the coup as a "coup", '''''knowing''''' that the de facto government denies it was one.
::::::The Most Interested Persons fought for changing the ], and a single admin changed it, and it was ].
::::::''I'' -- as one of "]" -- have argued that there are more people that deny ''the Holocaust'', than that deny the coup, but we have an article called, ]. Zachary Klaas was on the other side of that "extremely small minority" argument.
::::::I've not been "bullying", by making this argument -- and there's nothing "defamatory" about it. There has never been any "accusation of anti-semitism." You're being ''conned''. Klaas has written about what he thinks I ''think'', or why I've posted things, and his mind reading has been ''inaccurate'', both times.
::::::Helping Zachary Klaas censor people's valid arguments is an extremely poor reason to change a ]. Klaas admits, here, that this ''is'' his reason for wanting NPOV policy changed: "it would help to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says ''right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing'' that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' " -- ] 18:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The only place here you are mentioned is in your comment itself. He did not campaign to "change policy" as you put it. By him own admission he knows it is already a policy so nothing would change in effect. ] ]|] 18:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.
::::::::Re: "He did not campaign to 'change policy' ".
::::::::He wrote, "updating WP:UNDUE to indicate that, although giving undue weight to the claims of actual Holocaust deniers is, of course, a good example of what this policy is trying to prevent, it nevertheless is bad Misplaced Pages etiquette to imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial or engaging in anything akin to Holocaust denial." -- ] 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::It's awkward wording, but I think he just meant that people were interpreting being linked to that as saying they were, or were as bad as, Holocaust deniers. ] (]) 18:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the ] article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.
::::::::::That may be -- I don't ''buy'' it -- but it ''does'' request a change to a 5P policy.
::::::::::I haven't seen ''anyone'' "imply that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial" but I'm satisfied to wait for the diffs.
::::::::::And -- to be more '''''truthful''''' -- the claim was "extremely small minority," not just "WP:UNDUE". -- ] 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: I personally don't have an issue with changing the Holocaust denier text to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax text. However, in principle, I agree with Rico that we should try to establish a community consensus before changing one of the 5P policies. No big whoop. Somebody start an RfC (or whatever) and let's get this ball rolling. -- <b><font color="#996600" face="times new roman,times">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 19:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::It's already policy so there's no net change in policy. And please try to make less edits and use the preview button, it's hard being bombarded by edit conflict alerts. ] ]|] 19:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't see the consensus for both of the changes, and I think controversial changes to a ] should be discussed here first -- especially in the case of a ''con job''. (Have the diffs been provided?) -- ] 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.
(unindent)There's only one change made Holocaust -> moon landing. 4 agree with the change, you seem to be the only one not agreeing and on the point that we shouldn't "make changes without consensus" rather than giving an opinion. While there's no problem let it stand. And there's no reason to tell me not to revert again when I have only reverted '''once''' and you have reverted '''twice'''. Also please as I already asked use the preview button instead of making 10 edits per comment ] ]|] 20:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following ]. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.
:]. Read ]. Levine2112 believes we should get community consensus. There's not been time to achieve that. We've only been discussing this for an hour and a half.
:I wouldn't have had to have rereverted if you hadn't violated ]. -- ] 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. ] and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?
::There is no reason to refer me to anything you think I should read. I did not violate anything: ''BOLD, revert, discuss cycle'' is an essay NOT a policy. You are the ONLY one opposing the change on the "merit" that "there is no consensus". No voting is needed when nobody has opposed it. ] ]|] 20:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.


:(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on ] had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) ] (]) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
=== Diffs requested (from the Honduran coup debates) ===


== the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles ==
* Someone "calling someone a 'Holocaust denier'"
How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere.
* Showing "people ... being unjustly labeled Holocaust deniers"?
"the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/]/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively.
* Where an edit has "impl that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial".
] (])
* This direct quote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."
*This is done to establish notability. ] (]) 22:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
* One that shows how "those people," "compare their adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis."
*Is it accurate? If so, then I don't think it's a problem, especially if it's just one or two claims per article. I'd rather read "First pizza joint in the ]" than "It's a pizza joint in the ]". It's not ] to report 'favorable' facts.{{pb}} Also, Blueboar is correct. Our notion of a ] pretty much demands that editors add some sort of information along these lines, so we can't complain too much when they do what we insist they do. ] (]) 22:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
'''''This''''' -- and "it would help to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says ''right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing'' that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed' " -- were the reasons cited for the need for this ] change. -- ] 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
:I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing ] as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy ] journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. ] (]) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. ] (]) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of ] on ], it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. ] (]) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::::It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. ] (]) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. ] (]) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local ], or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
:::In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. ] (]) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
::::Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. ] (]) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
:::::Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because ], the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
:::::Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. ] (]) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
::::::I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in ], I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. ] (]) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
: I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the ] hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). ] (]) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)


== Comedy is subjective ==
Trying to change NPOV, because "it would help to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' "


I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those '''not''' offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? ] (]) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Trying to change NPOV, because "it would help to be able to say 'Your invoking of the Holocaust in this completely unrelated context is defamatory, and look, it says right there in WP:UNDUE, the very policy you're citing that using the policy to invoke guilt-by-association is not allowed.' " ==


:@] I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? ] (]) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with this, and I think it needs to be discussed by more than just a very few editors.<br />I think it's unbelieveable that someone would come here to try to stop me from arguing that only an "extremely small minority" denies the Holocaust, and we have an article ], "The Holocaust" -- so we can name the coup a "coup", even if '''''there exists''''' an (extremely small) minority that deny it was a coup. -- ] 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
::Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::] edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get ]-y? ] (]) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed ], as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:I have notified ]. ] (]) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)


== How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ? ==
This is the kind of badgering to which I've been referring. ] (]) 19:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix ] (]) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't seen you referring to any "badgering" -- but I ''would'' like to know if you are going to post the diffs, because it looks like you made a lot of claims that were simply '''''untrue'''''. Are you conceding that they were '''''all untrue'''''? ''Conning'' people on a 5P talk page to get a major policy changed -- just to help you censor another editor -- is very serious, so I'd like to believe you didn't just do that. -- ] 19:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


:Generally, we should ]. That said, follow the ] policy. —] (]) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Does someone who is not either me or Rico have access to the archived Talk pages for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis? There are ample examples there. I'm new enough here not really to know how to do that yet. Please note that any comments I made on those pages were not actually even related to contesting that a coup took place in Honduras, as I have completely accepted that. My comments were about Rico badgering others that disagree with him by comparing them to Holocaust deniers or isolated defenders of stereotypical top-hatted Snidely Whiplash right-wing elitists.


== Helping with difficult style/tone topics ==
:: If you want a more recent example, as I said look here ( )for a similar kind of comment about the Holocaust from Rico on the Talk page for Chronology of 2009 Honduras coup d'état. ] (]) 20:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


In the 'Improve tone' section, it would be helpful to recommend to editors to not only mark an entry or section as 'not conforming to Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic tone' but also to include __at least one example__ of what they think is wrong about the tone of the text they are criticising. Otherwise, the original writer who will then try to improve the tone could be left floundering, especially if the section being criticised is long. They could even end up making 'corrections' to parts of the text that are perfectly fine, while leaving the bits that the critic/commenter originally objected to untouched. More specific rather than blanket criticism is need to help other editors grow and learn. ] (]) 07:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Would you point out where I:<br />* "Call someone a 'Holocaust denier'"?<br />* "Unjustly labeled" "people" "Holocaust deniers"?<br />* "Impl that a person who is advancing a claim thought to be WP:UNDUE is somehow a supporter of Holocaust denial"?<br />* Wrote: "No one believes that but you, you're just like a Holocaust denier."<br />* "Compare my adversaries in an editing dispute to the Nazis"?<br />That is what you would need to show that what you wrote wasn't full of lies. -- ] 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:05, 23 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neutral point of view page.
Shortcut
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).
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis 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
Media mentionThis policy has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Archiving icon
Archives

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: Mar - Apr 2010
Archive 40: Apr 2010
Archive 41: May 2010
Archive 42: May - Jun 2010
Archive 43: Jun - Oct 2010
Archive 44: Oct 2010 - Apr 2011
Archive 45: Apr - Nov 2011
Archive 46: Dec 2011 - Jun 2013
Archive 47: Jun 2013 - Oct 2014
Archive 48: Sep 2014 - May 2015
Archive 49: May 2015
Archive 50: May - Jun 2015
Archive 51: Jul - Nov 2015
Archive 52: Nov 2015 – Nov 2016
Archive 53: Oct 2016 – Sep 2017
Archive 54: Aug 2017
Archive 55: Sep 2017 – Feb 2019
Archive 56: Mar 2019 – Jun 2020
Archive 57: Jun 2020 – Jul 2021
Archive 58: Jun 2021 – Mar 2022
Archive 59: Mar 2022 – Jul 2022
Archive 60: Jul 2022 – Oct 2022
Archive 61: Sep 2022 – Jun 2023
Archive 62: Jun 2023 – Aug 2023
Archive 63: Aug 2023
Archive 64: Aug 2023 – May 2024
Archive 65: Oct 2023 – Nov 2023
Archive 66: Nov 2023 – Aug 2024
Archive 67: Aug 2024 – present
This page has archives. Sections older than 40 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Due and undue weight and articles on religion: potential guidelines for ordering for neutrality

For articles on religious topics which do have a broad and NPOV material (not just the views of a single denomination), should there be some editorial guideline for ordering to the presentation of semi-controversial information to reduce undue weight or cumulative non-NPOV?

The guidelines that come to mind are:

0. Editors should NOT order the sections merely according to their length or the order they were added, unless the sections have already been arranged so that the length reflects some reasonably objective editorial metric or system: due weight or notability or chronology or genericity etc.

1. If the presentation starts chronologically/historically, the article should generally continue chronologically/historically. I.e. for Christian-related topic, a series like Ancient/Patristic/Catholic-Orthodox/Protestant/Non-conformist/Liberal or whatever. E.g. Biblical_inerrancy.

1a. Where chronological listing might give undue weight to some marginal information, it could be put at the end, or grouped into a subsection like "Other". This may help flow of reading too.

2. If the material is best thought of as a series of parallel developments without strong interaction, then organizing by topic/stream/denomination could be appropriate. For example, the Essence–energies_distinction article has its main split into an Orthodox section then a Catholic section, with chronological considerations in the paragraphs not the sections.

2a. In this case, the issue of the order of denominations is also appropriate to consider: I suggest that where some idea is notably or primarily or most simply associated with some single denomination or group (e.g. Orthodoxy and "energia" or Catholicism and "essence" or perhaps "sola fide" and Protestantism) then that denomination or group should be treated first.

2b. But where the topic applies to multiple denominations where none is clearly the most notable, and then I suggest that notability should use the proxy of the numerical strength of that denomination, following List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members. This would mean Catholic section first, Protestants second, Orthodox third, Church of east fourth, others at end.

Would it be legitimate for an editor, e.g. me, to take an article e.g. Biblical_inspiration and rearrange it chronologically/sizewise (to the order Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Liberal, Neo-orthodx) just on these editorial considerations, without being accused of pushing a particular wheelbarrow?

This came up because I saw (or imagined) a pattern where many articles have a large Protestant section first then a small Catholic section later: the order suggests a logical priority which is surely not appropriate or intended: for individual articles...who cares? But cumulatively an ordering in many articles favouring particular smaller groups might be create a form of bias.

(Currently, there are many articles on religious topics (Christian, presumably others) that feature only or mainly the view of one denomination or belief system. This is unavoidable, of course, given that some articles are sourced from e.g. the Catholic Encyclopedia or written by people interested or specialist in one tradition. (For example, the old article on Priesthood of all believers had only Protestant material.) However, in the long term we hope that articles reform themselves as editors attend to WP:NPOV and undue weight etc. That is a different issue.) Rick Jelliffe (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

the -est, "one of the first", in xxx superlatives in articles

How do we feel about the liberal use of such sensationalistic superlatives in a lot of articles? I am seeing them everywhere. "the biggest, the first, was featured in best/top 4,523 list of xxx" in the township/Bay Area/region/state/country/time zone. and so on. Even if it's mentioned in reliable sources, I'm seeing this used excessively. Graywalls (talk)

I think the issue is the overly liberal use of such superlatives. I do not think that any reasonable editor would object to describing Yuri Gagarin as the first human to journey into outer space. The quality of the sourcing is also important. If the preponderance of reliable sources describe the topic as "the first", then I have no problem including it. But sometimes these claims are sourced to low quality, lazy listicle journalism. As in so many other areas of editing Misplaced Pages, a healthy dose of common sense and good editorial judgment is required. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
And also, "Awards and Accolades" section being considerably larger than criticism even if there's just as much critical information based on news reports. Graywalls (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, listicle formatting may give a false impression there (a list of three awards takes up more screen space than a prose sentence naming the same three awards), but the problem with unbalanced attention isn't really about the superlatives. Someone can be widely recognized as the best guitarist and a person with serious personal problems; a business can produce the finest widgets and the biggest polluter of the town's water supply. And because of the effects of Outrage journalism on WP:RECENTISM, it is sometimes the case that what looks big at the moment turns out to be a temporary blip. It can be difficult to get the balance right, even when you're trying hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
It's certainly noteworthy to say that they're the worst town polluter though, along with being the finest maker of widget Y. Graywalls (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"was the first restaurant in township to phase out single use flatware, and has the largest solar generation among all sit-down restaurants in the county" sort of thing is what I was referring to. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Assuming that they got some attention from (e.g.) the local newspaper about this, what's wrong with that? That might be what they're actually notable for. Maybe the next paragraph (or next year's version of the article) is going to say that the owners campaigned for a local plastic straw ban, or that their solar array caught fire and burned down the entire historic district. If that's what the sources give attention to that restaurant for, then deciding that this is unimportant is what this policy calls "editorial bias".
In some cases, what's important is that it happens at all. In such a case, the article might say less about "first" and "largest", and instead say something like "The owners are interested in environmental issues and have consequently stopped providing single-use flatware and installed a solar power system". But you really would have to consider everything the source says before deciding what to write. "They're eco-conscious" isn't a good explanation if the facts are that the solar power company was having a contest, and the super-competitive owner was determined to beat his arch-rival, Other Restaurant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
But in grand scheme of thing, those insignificant claims like the biggest snail ever seen (on my property) usually don't belong in an encyclopedia. It can be in editorial gray zone, but those "first in township" like claims are clearly comparable to that watermelon example.
Although I'm not exactly known as being an inclusionist while some others are extreme inclusionist. Graywalls (talk) 04:27, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
If independent sources make a big deal out of _____, then it doesn't matter if _____ seems insignificant to a Misplaced Pages editor. Instead of imposing our personal biases on the sources (why did they waste space on that unimportant cruft?!), we should reflect the sources as best we can.
Sometimes there are ways to represent the facts in a less-enthusiastic tone. "The biggest, oldest, and best restaurant in Smallville" may become "the only restaurant in Smallville". But ultimately, if the main reason the sources are writing about the restaurant is because they have solar panels on the roof, or a record-setting ball of twine in the garden, or because George Washington Slept Here, the Misplaced Pages articles really do need to reflect that fact.
Sometimes it's not actually obvious why some "trivia" might be more important than it looks at first blush. For example, "24-bed hospital with the only emergency room within 25 miles of town" probably sounds like pure promotionalism to some editors – but they wouldn't think that if they knew what effect that particular combination of size and distance has on unlocking US federal funding. There could be a hidden importance behind other kinds of "unimportant" facts, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree if the attention is brought upon by the independent source in an intellectually independent way.
I'll use real example.. " LA Weekly listed it as one of the ten best "Online Resources for Metal Knowledge" in 2013." in Metal Injection, I find questionable. It's just in a list, but it was an editor decision to bring up that it's in a list. Graywalls (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm repeating what other people have said, but this is the easiest way to clear the WP:N hurdle, if it exists. I agree it can start to feel sensationalistic. That's why we avoid saying "X is the greatest movie of all time", and instead say "X was named the greatest film of all time by publication A, B, and C." The first is an opinion, the second is a fact (about an opinion). Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comedy is subjective

I see comedy hasn't been discussed in the archives. I added it to the subjective section. We should be careful about overweighting articles with suggestions of offense or the like, sourced to conventional sources. Consider that those not offended are unlikely to be reported on, resulting in POV issues. Thoughts here? SmolBrane (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense I see you reverted without explanation, would you like to discuss? SmolBrane (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Not really, I don't feel the need to justify reverting a unilateral addition to site policy. I did explain it, though: there's an "etc." on that list for a reason. Remsense ‥ 论 19:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:Bold edits are a conventional way to collaborate on the project though it may feel a little strange sometimes! Objections/reverts are best received when discussed or explained. Do you have an opinion on comedians and how sources can get WP:TABLOID-y? SmolBrane (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Right. You made a bold edit, and I reverted it. We've completed the classic pattern, as I've already explained my reasoning both in the edit summary and in a reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I have notified Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comedy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

How would you go about reporting groups of high reputation on Misplaced Pages if they violate NPOV and hold certain pages of Misplaced Pages hostage ?

My concern is those large groups with high reputation that bully other users editing in good faith when they have genuine issues with the larger groups edits that they want to fix Nicholasjosey (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Generally, we should assume good faith. That said, follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution policy. —Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Helping with difficult style/tone topics

In the 'Improve tone' section, it would be helpful to recommend to editors to not only mark an entry or section as 'not conforming to Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic tone' but also to include __at least one example__ of what they think is wrong about the tone of the text they are criticising. Otherwise, the original writer who will then try to improve the tone could be left floundering, especially if the section being criticised is long. They could even end up making 'corrections' to parts of the text that are perfectly fine, while leaving the bits that the critic/commenter originally objected to untouched. More specific rather than blanket criticism is need to help other editors grow and learn. Chalk giant (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions Add topic