Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

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

---

Shortcut: WT:NPOV

The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

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.

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Neutrality 2 tags 3 What if an allegedly NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition? 4 Pseudoscience 4.1 New proposal 5 What is "mainstream?" 6 Thinking about multiple possibilities using averaging algorithms is a recipe for disaster 7 China article 8 Undue Weight 9 Fairness of tone 9.1 Avoid devilishly flawed reasoning 10 Question about WP:NCGN 11 Anglo-American 12 Undue Weight? 13 American (i.e. the United States, and not Anglo-American) POV 14 "Criticism of foo" articles 15 Fake images in aviation accident articles 16 Undue Weight Criteria

[edit] Wikipedia:Neutrality

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Neutrality (which already links here) and extending it with badly needed aspects on issues of relative coverage other than just the issue of POV pushing, which this policy page traditionally gives far too much attention? I think most non-neutrality in articles is due not to a POV mindset, but to a rather innocuous ignorance on many different aspects of article writing and layout.

Also, I'd welcome something on the imo hugely problematic POV issue of criticism sections. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:18, November 25, 2007

Nevermind. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:27, November 25, 2007

[edit] tags

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— message used to warn of problems

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

— tags only a single section as disputed

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

— message used to mark articles that may be biased. (

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

may be used for short)

The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

— when the article's title is questionable

1. ^{[neutrality disputed]} — when only one sentence is questionable

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.

— When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies

[edit] What if an allegedly NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition?

What if an NPOV prohibited word such as "propaganda" is accurate within a definition? For example, I tried to specifically note in the scientific racism article that that phrase is used as an accusation of alleged propaganda but someone reverted it claiming the word "propaganda" is NPOV, this seems wrong. I have appropriately caveatted the use of "propaganda" with "alleged" I believe. It seems odd that the claim of a neutrality violation can be used to prevent increased accuracy within an article. Definition wise within Wikipedia how should someone go about describing possible or an accusation of propaganda as possible propaganda? Convergence Dude (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think either of you should be acting based upon "accuracy" or "neutrality". NPOV is quite simply presenting a topic as it is generally presented in reliable sources. The introduction to the article should simply be a brief intro to the topic, generally summarizing the information in the body of the article. Unless most reliable sources make the observation you are inserting into the lede, it's inappropriate for the initial statements to introduce the topic in such a fashion. The best thing I can recommend is to discuss what the body of reputable references states about the topic on the article talk page. Vassyana (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV only deals with opinion. First figure out if the statement is a fact or an opinion. Bensaccount (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of whether it's fact or opinion, or at least should not be. It's a matter of how the collective body of reputable sources presents the issue. Vassyana (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, if you keep telling people to avoid differentiating between fact and opinion and advising them not to act based on accuracy and neutrality I think it would be best if you stopped giving advice. Bensaccount (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that friendly advice with a grain of salt. We stick to the sources, not some editor's idea of accuracy or neutrality. Vassyana (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be unfriendly but you are placing too much value on attribution. Wikipedia is not a compendium of quotations. Facts are always more valuable than opinions. Only when it is absolutely impossible to make a factual statement should one attribute the statement as an opinion. Including masses of opinions does not improve the article. Aiming for accuracy and neutrality does. Bensaccount (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe it to be a fact that the phrase "scientific racism" is used as an accusation that a publication or something is allegedly racist propaganda. Though I agree the phrase has other contradictory definitions and I noted as such in my changes to scientific racism that were reverted, shouldn't we specifically note that the phrase "scientific racism" has contradictory uses and definitions? A wikipedia article should present all viewpoints, including the critical viewpoint, consensus does not mean average (especially when there are 2 contradictory definitions involved). Convergence Dude (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to respond directly to my question of whether "propaganda" might be ok when used caveatted inside a definition as in: "One among multiple definitions of the phrase scientific racism is describing alleged propaganda masquerading as scientific research"? Has anyone taken a look at scientific racism? Convergence Dude (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it to the articles talk-page. This page is for discussion of the NPOV policy not for your unique article-related concerns. Bensaccount (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This is actually an opposite situation. Someone claimed, while reverting my changes, that it was NPOV policy that the word "propaganda" is always prohibited. I came here to clarify whether this alleged policy applies to definitions, I assume it does not. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a silly argument. Presumably, given the context here, the word "propaganda" appears in a definition of "scientific racism" in a reliable source. Quote the definition and cite the source. --Una Smith (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How is my argument "silly"? I am asking for clarification whether there is an alleged policy that the word "propaganda" is somehow always banned even if necessarily used to describe alleged or actual propaganda. Surely the wikipedia article for propaganda uses the word propaganda. Convergence Dude (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ask the person who claims a policy exists to provide a link to the policy. --Una Smith (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed a policy existed. I have no interest whatsoever in the article. His edit just popped up at the top of the recent changes. All I did was ask him to take it to the talk page because he was told by another user that his edits were viewed as against the consensus established on the talk page. Frankly, after the editor accused me of having an agenda and sockpuppetry for repeatedly telling him to take it to the talk page, I couldn't care less. But I thought I'd throw out...I never claimed a policy existed. This is just a person making a big deal because they didn't want to discuss their edits with the people who edit an article. --Smashville^BONK! 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a big deal when the claim of a rule violation fails the common sense test, of course the word propaganda is ok in the propaganda article and ok when cited or caveatted. I came to this discussion page precisely to discuss the issue so your other claim that I am uninterested in discussion is false. Convergence Dude (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again. No one claimed a policy violation. Take it to the article talk page. You are making a huge issue out of the fact that I had to condense my edit summary because I ran out of room. First of all, you didn't edit the propaganda article, so that's a completely fallacious argument. I have referred you repeatedly to the two week discussion on that talk page specifically related to removing the word propaganda from the article and have told you repeatedly that if you wanted to add it back in, you need to go to the talk page and get consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 16:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This from the history/change log of scientific racism is not condensing an edit summary: "Words such as 'propaganda' non-NPOV" it's flat out wrong. If person A claims person B is creating or perpetuating propaganda then a neutral encyclopedia has to use a word like "propaganda" that might in OTHER situations be inappropriate. It would be a violation of the principle of neutral presentation to omit the fact that some people believe historic and current examples of scientific racism to be nothing but propaganda masquerading as scientific research. Also, I have all too often seen the claim of consensus be used for the duplicitous purpose of excluding critical or non-mainstream viewpoints from an article. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, my entire edit summary was: "Undid revision 210697008 by Convergence Dude (talk) remove per talk page. Words such as "propaganda" non-NPOV". Take it to the talk page where they removed "propaganda" from the main article because several felt it was non-NPOV per this discussion where they agreed to remove it. So - for what I feel is the same thing I have repeated in every single response to you - you need to discuss this on the talk page before making sweeping changes that reflect the opposite of their consensus. And, I hate to tell you, but you're not in my brain. You don't know what I would have written if I didn't have to condense it. --Smashville^BONK! 17:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A previous talk page alleged "consensus" is not an automatic justification for a revert, you have to actually indicate the specifics of why you think someone's changes are wrong. Wikipedia has warped the fundamental concept of consensus, consensus means everyone and does not mean average nor majority, if just one person disagrees you no longer have a consensus by its true definition. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia's definition of consensus is what matters, since this is Wikipedia. Anyway, you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. --Smashville^BONK! 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If something is wrong everyone should correct it. Convergence Dude (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And if you feel that way, again, you should go to the talk page, instead of coming out with the "everyone is wrong but me" attitude and refusing to accept what the other editors have agreed upon as their content within 5 hours of registering a Wikipedia account. --Smashville^BONK! 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of my position is inaccurate, I am trying to convince you that Wikipedia policy is wrong/incomplete. It's not that I refuse to accept previous agreements I choose to expand and improve upon them which might include pointing out when previous agreements were wrong/incomplete. Convergence Dude (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you disagree with a policy, take it to WP:Village Pump. It is not my place or anyone else's here to change policies. --Smashville^BONK! 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

A good first step in changing policy is trying to convince people a policy is wrong/incomplete at the places the policy is being used. Convergence Dude (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, go to the Village Pump. Individual users cannot change policies. --Smashville^BONK! 02:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats incorrect. Individual users can change policies, so be bold and make your changes and if they get reverted we will discuss them here. Bensaccount (talk) 02:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A complete change to Wikipedia's definition of consensus would most certainly need to be discussed...and not on the NPOV talk page. We can edit and tweak policies. We can't completely change them. Especially one that is one of the core Wikipedia policies. What's more pertinent here is that this discussion should be over and never should have been here in the first place. --Smashville^BONK! 03:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Bensaccount (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they couldn't edit it. I said you can't change it. I can't go into WP:BLP and edit everything to be the opposite of what it says now and expect that to be the new policy. It will get reverted because it is a major change with no discussion. --Smashville^BONK! 13:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling something a "major change with no discussion" is not a valid reason for reversion. There actually has to be voiced disagreement to the change in question. Bensaccount (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say completely changing Wikipedia's definition of consensus without discussion would be a pretty clear revert. --Smashville^BONK! 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, would say any edit, regardless of size should be evaluated based on its merit. Wikipedia works by encouraging everyone to make as much change as they can. Bensaccount (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 [1] to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See section below. Sorry I didn't cross post it here before. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A policy should not make content dictates, such as the majority view concerning pseudoscientific topics is always the mainstream science view. From a sociological view, this is seldom the case. Pseudoscientific topics are often enormously popular, sometimes to the point that the majority view isn't the scientific view. Sometimes the majority view is even borderline anti-scientific. The NPOV policy dictates that we present views according to their prominence. This does not automatically mean that an article should take a scientific point of view. When talking science in a pseudoscientific article, we are directed to point out that it isn't the mainstream view, describe clearly what is the mainstream view, and then make editorial decisions about what's the most prominent view. That's it. We don't automatically default to the scientific view. If, for example in the astrology article, the historical-cultural aspects of the topic are more prominent than the fact that it's pseudoscience, that's what gets most coverage, per WP:UNDUE. As worded before I reverted to the long established consensus version, it read that we are supposed to spend more time talking about how it's not science than talking about astrology's history, cultural impact, beliefs, and so on. That's contradictory to WP:UNDUE. SPOV is not always the majority view, or the most prominent aspect to a topic, even when the topic is pseudoscientific. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

POILICY HAS MADE SUCH STATEMENTS FOR FOUR YEARS. DEAL. Shoemaker's Holiday ([[User :I'm sorry, but the Pseudoscience faq statement on policy is the one that keeps Crreationism from being described as a viiable alternative to evolution, that keeps alll the utter woo-woos from having their statements presented as fact simply because they're popular. I am NOT going to stnd by and let Wikipedia be killed by people who want to make us Fringipedia. A recent arbcom case said that respected encyclopedias seek to describe things from the perspective of mainstream science, and wWikipedia seeks to be an encyclopedia. In other words, this is a basic requirement for being an encyclopedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First, check your hostility. Then, check the history. Even in the Creationism article, there's other aspects to cover. For example the legal issues and separation of church and state. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've edited pseudoscience articles. That, and WP:REDFLAG, are the main policy statements that keep editing there sane. I am completely and totally unwilling to have them hacked apart and removed by people who don't realise their importance. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The version I reverted to is more or less the version that's been there since July 2007. I have to go out for a bit, but I'll be happy to come back to this tomorrow. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

...

Goddammit. I misread the text. Sorry. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, I misread it too. I thought you added the "(scientific)" next to majority, but apparently that was already there in the previous versions, just towards the bottom. I reverted mainly to go back to the traditional version and get people to stop tinkering with it, but my comment about SPOV was regarding that. The new version also adds new judgement statements such as "pseudoscience were on a par with science", which is definitely SPOV and biases Wikipedia. As a social phenomenon or even from an entertainment viewpoint, frankly, pseudoscience kicks hardcore science's butt at ever turn but actual science, since mainstream science is somewhat stuffy, hard to follow, exclusive, etc. Qualifying statements like "on par" are totally unnecessary and incorrect depending on the context. Science is not "on par" with pseudoscience when it comes to entertaining gullible people. That statement wasn't there in the older consensus version, and likely with good reason. As I said above, I don't think any of that really needs to be there to accomplish what the clause is meant to accomplish, and in some cases it is even incorrect to say the majority view is always the scientific view. When talking about science, yes, but it's not all about science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] Well, we are trying to write a mainstream encyclopedia. If something is mainstream science, (I'm going to simplify quite a bit here) we can write about the basic concepts of it as factual. Obviously, this is a simplification, but the core of any field tends to be relatively unchanging, with revolutions to the core tending to be more of a "but also!" refinement. For instance, in evolution the history goes: Darwin: We can explain things through natural selection. 1900: Mendel is rediscovered. Biology split into two camps of Natural selection and genetics. 1918-1930: Fisher (and others): Mutations cause small changes that natural selection can act on! We can combine natural selection and genetics. 1937-1950: Dobzhansky (and others): But if you look at my experiments on bacteria, you can see that random chance has a role to play as well. Things that have no selective value at the time will change randomly, but these differences might become important later. Hence, genetic drift is the other major driver of change in populations.

The core tends to change through an additive and refining process. Another example: Kepler's laws of planetary motion are a special case of Newton's laws of motion, which are themselves a special case of Einstein's relativity.

I've gotten a bit off track. My end point was that the core tenets of science can usually be presented as fact safely. There is little to no dispute over them. The core tenets of pseudosciece should not be presented as factual, as they are usually greatly in dispute, sometimes even within the pseudoscience itself. (e.g. the issue of the journal Homeopathy on water memory presents dozens of mutually exclusive views as to how water memory could work. This when there's no real evidence that water memory exists in the first place. (I'm afraid said journal isn't discussed in that article at the moment. A section on it was added, but it was added by the editor, and then a lot of drama happened, and noone's gotten around to rewriting an NPOV discussion of it yet.

So, in a rather roundabout qway, I guess what I'm saying is that pseudoscientific articles take more care, and require some commentary on the scientific view of them in order to be NPOV, but science doesn't require pseudoscientific views to be NPOV, so it's probably uncontroversial, through the very definition of pseudoscience, that it's not at the level of science. Presuming we really are talking about pseudoscience here, and not, you know, MOND or string theory or some other... I'm hesitant to use the word protoscience here, as it's a very abused term, but you take my point.

Anyway, um, I'm a bit ill today, sorry. My point is that all that - well, not exactly new statement, I took it from the version that was in effect from 2001-2007. - in my opinion, is saying that there is a difference between the two by definitions, and we need to be careful of writing it so that, say, it looks like the Pseudoscience is, in fact, science. That's it. Nothing more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The question posed by the Frequently Asked Questions is: How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

Recently I used the science education standards book Science Framework for California Public Schools, from the California State Board of Eductation, as a source in an article. Regarding pseudoscience, they said:

"... science educators must be careful to separate science from pseudoscience and to explain the criteria for distinction."

I think that's a great way to answer our FAQ. It's simple, to the point, and doesn't pretense that science is the only aspect of the topic to cover, or that the scientific view is necessarily the majority view regarding the topic as a whole. I would replace the paragraph beginning with "The task before us..." with:

:::"Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. All applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly." Rephrased below taking suggestions into account. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think just the "clearly separate science from pseudoscience... and to explain the criteria for distinction" will help make this clause stronger and more effective. It also directs us to explain what's pseudoscientific about it, something that often doesn't happen in articles. Many times and editor will drop "so and so says it's pseudoscience". It's far more educational to say "so and so says it's pseudoscience because it violates the law of gravity" or something similar. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that "pseudoscience is ... therefore notable" might be better said "pseudoscience is ... and pseudoscientific subjects may be notable". Not every last bit of pseudoscience will be notable, though much of it is. Antelan^talk 14:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, let me say that much of that suggestion is quite good. I do think "Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view" is an excellent suggestion, and would be a very acceptable replacement for the part you dislike. However, the unqualified "prominence" could lead to difficulties. I suspect that faced with your wording, pseudoscience promoters would simply claim that the scientific criticism has no prominence among practitioners of X and should not be included, or should be minimised. For instance, have a look at this diff: [2].

One thing that is a must for any phrasing is a clear statement that insists that NPOV applies to pseudoscientific articles, and that mainstream science cannot be excluded from them. Pseudoscience still has a lot of articles that have no resemblence of NPOV, particularly in alternative medicine: Reiki, for instance, is a 100% criticism free article on what I believe is one of the two most criticised alternative medicines, and one that is usually said to lack any possible scientific basis. Since livelihoods are based on altmed, I have no doubt that there are going to be a lot of entrenched editors determined to keep them criticism-free, and, if we want to deal with alt-med nicely, we need a clearly-stated policy that can be pointed to, detailing why criticism and science must be included. The alternative involves a lot of administrators with ban sticks leading a charge of scientific editors, and, um...

Okay, the idea is tempting, but let's instead just have a clear policy statement we can appeal to, and be nice, gain consensus, and insist on following NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree in that what we need is a clear statement, which everyone will understand basically the same way. My personal interpreatation of policy is that science/mainstream science needs to be there somehow. We won't necessarily have as good sources as we would like, but we can trust the reader to understand the context of the pseudoscience if we state that context clearly (or else the reader is a lost cause). I think that is done in the current Reiki article. Have you read it recently? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may speak bluntly, the article on Reiki seems to think that one sentence of criticism allows it to give 20 sections of pure, unbiased promotion. It then has criticism section which makes some very weak critical statements, promptly rebutted by OR and Synth [3] in the last section. I notice it doesn't include the famous study on Reiki, done by the youngest person to be published in a major peer-reviewed journal, and highly covered by newspapers, etc. I suppose that counting positive studies in journals specialising in promoting pseudoscience left everyone too worn out to check mainstream journals. It is terrible. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reworded my paragraph, including suggestions:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of study. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

One minor tweak: I think that "All applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine-related discussions refers to the mainstream view in the relevant scientific field." reads a bit better. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated. See if anyone rejects/supports this, and then we can include it in place of the second paragraph. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be "weighted to", not "refers to". Prominence doesn't refer to a single view, but rather a weight scale for handling multiple views. Updated. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I took the time to make this section so that we wouldn't be editing from the hip on the policy page. *sigh*

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
…..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
…...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
…….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)
……..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.
……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...
…….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,
…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-
…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………
…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...
……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…
--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"All applicable views" was meant to cover the views that aren't science related as well (historical, cultural, etc.), which renders the statement "All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence in the relevant mainstream, academic field, such as physics, biology, or mainstream medicine" back to saying that the SPOV is the main or only view we should be considering. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That's no doubt the intent, but the effect was to open it to the interpretation that, say, a homeopathic article should be written based on the weight given homeopathic sources, Intelligent design should be done based on the weight given in ID sources, etc. I've added another tweak to that end. With all respect, racing to add your section while there were still objections and still discussion ongoing was not the right way forward if you wanted it not to be edited when it hit the article. II've tried to fix it, but realised that the changes were causing it cally SPOV than the old one, and far more SPOV than I was comfortable with, so I reverted back to the old version. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

With the same respect, you made the substantial changes after agreeing with the text here, raised no objection that wasn't incorporated, and added no additional concerns, so it really couldn't be called "my section". It was "our" section. Revert to the original is fine if we have some more to talk about.

To the actual changes you made, the problem with presenting a comma delimited list of example fields is that one could just easily say, "Well it's not physics, it's paraphysics, so here's our paraphysics experts." But when you say "in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of study," the editor must first meet the burden that it's actually a science and medicine discussion, which according to the rest of the section it isn't, because it's pseudoscience. Once it is established that it isn't science, then of course there's other views and discussions to cover, each with their own "experts". Again, it's just not about the science. One the topic of intelligent design, for example, once it is established that it isn't science, and all arguments to the contrary are pigeon-holed by weight, then it's a legal topic. Once it's established that it isn't legal to allow ID into schools, per the courts, and all arguments to the contrary are pigeon-holed by weight, then it's a cultural topic, or a religious topic, and so on. On this sliding scale, yes, there experts and talking heads along the way (defined as "reliable sources"-context-dependent), but it's not a science related discussion anymore and no longer in the scope of the pseudoscience policies. The section clearly directs us not to try and slip a "religious expert" in as a "science expert".

If you'd like to make that more clear, we could say "majority view among experts in the field of scientific study". That may help. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with that that I thought of just before I reverted - Technically, a simple description of the views of pseudoscientific proponents on a page about the pseudoscience would be excluded on those grounds, as it would have no acceptance in the relevant scientific field. OF course, common sense would prevail, but... I think, perhaps, that we should just cut that sentence, and keep some clarified form of the "Any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories." lines, as the effect is actually less SPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not excluded in how I wrote it, just weighted less, and only in a scientific context. The way I worded it was "in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view" not to the point of exclusion because the preceeding words are "in proportion to their prominence". A minority view with a sliver of prominence would get a sliver of coverage, their due weight. In a non-scientific context, sympathetic views may have more prominence. Eg. Creationism, not scientific. Creationism, popular in religious circles. Any mention of the view that creation science is scientific in the creationism article would be less prominent and be weighted towards the opposing view. However, none of that science vs. pseudoscience discussion would obfuscate main views like the scholarly discussion surrounding Creation (theology) (which after checking just now suffers from that -- second section needs bumping down in the article, among other problems) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting confusing. Think we're likely to get any other views? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno... ScienceApologist seemed to say it should say "scientific consensus". Ultimately what I'm looking for is something clear and fair that can be pointed to as policy. Since this is a hot topic all over Wikipedia, with a lot of confusion surrounding it, you'd think there'd be some input. Maybe post some notices in a few places? I'll take a step back and let others chime in for a bit. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My hope is that you will bring this before the community at a widely-read noticeboard (perhaps village pump) before trying to insert it into policy. The reason that I hold this hope is that (1) I'd like more eyes to scrutinize the suggestions, and (2) the policy will be essentially invalid if modified by fiat (no offense intended) rather than by consensus. And what better way to build community consensus than to bring it before the regulars at villagepump/etc? Antelan^talk 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are we at on this? Any other input, or should we post to the Village Pump for feedback? Current text being evaluated is as follows:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd post on the Village Pump as well, but if I might make a suggestion, how about something along these lines (as an addition):

"Articles on a pseudoscientific topic should, of course, describe the pseudoscientific views that make up the subject, sometimes in a good deal of detail, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these beliefs to the proponents of the pseudoscience."

It's probably obvious, but let's make it explicit that the proponents views should be discussed on the articles about these views. The opposite is a form of SPOV that noone wants to advocate. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How about adding "In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field" before the last sentence? This version explains why and reminds editors that by weight pseudoscientific concepts may not warrant much detail in the main article if it is a science article (eg. creationism being slipped into biology). So the new version as I'm proposing is:

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be notable, but Wikipedia editors must be careful to clearly separate science from pseudoscience in articles and to explain the criteria for distinction. Pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views when mentioned, and pseudoscience should always be accompanied by the corresponding scientific view. Not all views on pseudoscientific topics may be science related (eg. Astrology may have epistemological, historical, or cultural views to cover as well), but we shouldn't misrepresent science when mentioning pseudoscience. All the applicable views should be described in proportion to their prominence, which in science and medicine related discussions is weighted to the majority view among experts in the field of scientific study. In the interest of describing topics fully, pseudoscientific concepts may require a fair amount of detail in the article about the topic, but care should be taken to clearly attribute these views to their proponents. By weight, less detail (or none at all) may be required in mainstream science discussions if the concept is not prominent in the mainstream science field. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

Stronger? Confusing on what is and isn't a science related discussion? Other comments? I'd like it to be pretty airtight. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted it to the Village Pump for more feedback here [4] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 15:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

Here is a new proposal:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

If a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science, for example, and these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. Also check if the theory has been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large. For a more detailed discussion, see WP:FRINGE.

Comments? Jayen466 11:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have an objection to my dropping the above wording in? The wording we have at present does not properly answer the question "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?". For example, the clause "Pseudoscience ... should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate" is just absurd. If the article is astrology, we can't help but "mention" the history, teachings, cultural, even linguistic impact etc. of astrology. What is a "proportionate mention" here? Surely, a large part of the article should be about those. And telling people that in writing an article on astrology they should take care that the description of astrology "does not obfuscate the description of the main view" just does not make sense. Perhaps "does not fail to state the scientific view" would do. Even if the above proposal doesn't fly, perhaps we will at least get some fruitful debate resulting in a better wording. Jayen466 14:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How will you deal with the potential problem of giving undue weight to pseudoscientific theories? For many readers more detail = more credibility which is why we have an undue weight provision. Attention to views should be in proportion to their notability, no? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the article is ancient astronaut theories, to come back to the other example, the article should describe these theories, ideally based on a mainstream scholarly treatment like the one I posted a link to earlier. Any mainstream academic paper will also comment on its status as a pseudoscience and explain why it is a pseudoscience. Now, as for astrology, this has a history going back several thousand years; the days of the week are named after the planets in many languages, there are innumerable literary influences ("star-crossed lovers" in Shakespeare etc.), and there is a historical body of teaching that was of major significance to Western culture for centuries. As an encyclopedia, we should describe these. The Encylopaedia Britannica article on astrology runs to four densely written pages, with a complete historical outline. It ends with the words: "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." I have no objection to our article stating the same. Please remember, the question asks "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?" We are talking about articles that are specifically about these pseudosciences. Nobody is saying that in Ronald Reagan we should slip in that "it is believed that Reagan's talks with Gorbachev didn't go well because Mars was in the 4th house of his birth chart that week" or that "Lewis Hamilton won in Monaco because Uranus was in a good position". I believe we are all agreed on that. But if the topic of the article is a pseudoscience, it should be scientifically described -- not based on primary sources, as happens all the time around here and is a real problem, but based on sober, mainstream, scholarly analyses. Jayen466 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it might be worth adding something that pseudoscientific primary sources should not be used, period. If there is no secondary literature on a pseudoscience, then perhaps we should not have an article on it. Something along those lines might address the concern you have about undue weight, might it not? Jayen466 14:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In writing the proposal, you don't really want to reinvent the wheel. WP:FRINGE already covers many of the issues you're describing, for example the level of detail and how to use primary sources. Primary sources aren't excluded on Wikipedia, they're "excellent sources for describing what they believe". However, they're only reliable for that. Secondary sources are used to determine the prominence and notability of the subject, that's not to be determined at the primary level. I want to stress this again, it's all about context. In the context of describing astrology, for example, the description of so-called planetary influences (eg. being born under Mars is supposed to mean X) is likely to come from fully attributed primary sources. Secondary sources would be less reliable and possibly misrepresent the ideas and beliefs of the primary source. We don't want to misrepresent science, but neither do we want to misrepresent the pseudoscientists. So yes, primary sources are useful for determining what a group believes when they are attributed to the group. Wikipedia doesn't endeavor to censor notable and prominent pseudoscientific views. Wikipedia simply doesn't want to misrepresent science while describing notable and prominent pseudoscientific views. Regarding WP:UNDUE, that too is contextual. In the main article Earth, no mention is made of Flat Earth. That doesn't mean that in the Flat Earth article there is no mention of Flat Earth. In that article the main topic is Flat Earth. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Fringe already seems to cover most of this. I also agree that undue weight is contextual but any change to any policy needs to be very clear and explicit about this. Obviously an article on astrology will provide lots of information on astrology, just as the article on creationism provides lits of information on creationism. But that amount of information in the articles on astronomy or personality, or evolution or natural selection, would definitely violate undue weight. I feel strongly that no change to any policy weaken this situation. In some articles it is a constant battle as is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Nealparr, I agree that WP:FRINGE covers this, by saying that notability has to be demonstrated by a secondary source for the topic to warrant an article, that the level of detail brought in from primary fringe sources should not exceed the level of detail presented in reliable secondary sources, etc. (And I accept that quoting from a handbook of astrology is okay when describing astrological theory, I went a bit over board there.)

SLR, when you say But that amount of information in the articles on astronomy or personality, or evolution or natural selection, would definitely violate undue weight, you do know that this is not the issue addressed in this FAQ, don't you? This FAQ is about how to write articles on pseudoscientific topics; it is not about how much pseudoscience to include in articles on general topics. Sorry to harp on about this, but it seems to me the issue you raise – which is of course a valid issue – has nothing to do with this FAQ question (unless we reword the question to address it). Jayen466 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I see I misunderstood. I read "Pseudoscience topics" to mean any topic for which there is a body of pseudoscience (which includes evolution, for example). Now i understand what you mean. That said, given the wide range of understandings people bring to Wikipedia, I wonder if you can clarify this. I cannot suggest anything off-hand - now that I understand what you mean, what you wrote does make perfect sense to me. Still, I feel on this matter we need to bend over backwards to avoid any possible misunderstanding. Maybe "Articles that are primarily and explicitly about specific forms or types of pseudoscience?" Think about it. best, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I know one often reads what one expects to be there. I'll see if I can dream up a wording that will get the reader's train of thought sufficiently derailed. ;-) Jayen466 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is "mainstream?"

There is a claim going on at WP:fringe which people might want to look in on. Essentially, as I explain in my last post there, people are using the REDFLAG section, and also the FAQ on Pseudoscience to say that when you are dealing with articles which are about exceptional claims, the mainstream scientific view is the viewpoint of Wikipedia, and always carries the greatest WEIGHT in articles. Where the scientific POV cannot be determined through non-partisan sources, it may be derived from logical inference from standard textbooks on the general subject of the article (this is usually thought to be Original Research).

I think this is a good enough view, and if taken literally it is what the FAQ at NPOV says [5]- and the FAQ holds the status of policy. However, if this is what is intended, then the rest of WP policy needs to make it clearer. There are a lot of people who think that the scientific POV is usually notable, but not necessarily dominant in terms of WEIGHT and the POV the article is written from. The FAQ seems to contradict this view, by equating "mainstream" with "mainstream science," saying Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view. This means that non-scientific views are always held in WP to be the minority per WEIGHT. If it were clear that articles on fringe subjects are written from the POV of mainstream science, then things would be much easier. But the FAQ is probably the only place we say that.

See also discussion here and here and here. All are relevant places to discuss this, not sure what is usually done in such a case. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I happened to come across your discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories (don't ask me how ...) and found it interesting. You mentioned that the sentence

Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories.

originally read

However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article

i.e. that it covered the differing amounts of weight editors should give to various viewpoints within an article on something else. The present wording of the sentence still seems to suffer from having originally been created in that context. It needs a rewrite.

Regarding pseudoscience: It is often claimed that some pseudoscientific ideas are so outlandish that there is no academic literature bothering to refute it. It's a standard justification for seeking recourse to skeptics' sites who do bother refuting these claims. But the result is that articles sometimes spend more words on refuting the pseudoscientific claims made than on describing them, and that there are interminable POV wars between skeptics and believers. (I'm afraid these articles are often kind of boring too, in an "I've heard it all before" way.)

I think we might get some more interesting articles if we didn't actually meet pseuodscience on its own terms, as the skeptics do, but used such academic literature as is available. For example, here is a scholarly article by Andreas Grunschloss on Ancient astronaut theories: "Ancient Astronaut" Narrations: A Popular Discourse on Our Religious Past. While it is mentioned in the Literature section of our Ancient astronaut theories article, not a single statement in that article is cited to it. Instead, we cite skeptics, Däniken himself, etc.

I propose that we alert editors in the Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience section to the fact that there often is academic literature available, but that it must be sought in the realms of sociology, religion and psychology. That in itself speaks volumes for the relevance of these theories to hard science, so that maybe we don't even have to bother calling the skeptics in. Jayen466 19:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As phrased it was rather odd in that it gave priority to scholars of religion while excluding biologists, for example. To point the obvious, Cardinal Schönborn was clueless about creationism, while Ken Miller and PZ Myers are amongst the most knowledgeable. So I've tweaked it to "scholars working in the fields of history, sociology, religion or psychology, not just those of physics, medicine or biology". Also, what's wrong with chemists? . . . dave souza, talk 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your tweak. The previous wording was a reflection of how the question that the passage answers is formulated. The question implies that a pseudoscience may be so outlandish that no scientific publication has mentioned, refuted or commented upon its claims, which leaves Wikipedians with an apparent lack of scholarly sources for rebutting the claims. So the idea was not to exclude hard scientists, but to answer the question "What to do when physicists, biologists etc. don't even discuss the idea?" As with the Däniken paper above, it's in fact possible to find academic sources rebutting the pseudoscientists' claims to be "scientists", but they may have to be sought in other fields. Däniken, for example, is not usually discussed in journals of archaeology. But it's fine with your tweak. Chemistry could certainly be mentioned, but so could archaeology, meteorology and a host of other disciplines. The list should not be too long. Jayen466 15:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you guys read the section directly above this one [6], but your wording is problematic for several reasons which are already being discusssed above. Particularly, "By definition, pseudoscientific theories represent a minority view" is incorrect. The definition of "pseudoscience" doesn't have anything to do with majority and minority views. It is purely whether something is or isn't science, and if not science, whether it misrepresents itself as science. The statement is also incorrect depending on the context. Pseudoscientific theories are enormously popular in culture at large, for example, and Wikipedia covers cultural phenomena. The pseudoscientific belief in some form of paranormal phenomena, for example, is shared by 70% of the US population according to Gallup. So it's not a minority view, just a minority view in science. What you guys put in is an SPOV (scientific point of view), and Wikipedia doesn't just cover the scientific point of view. We've been working on a wording above that works, feel free to chime in. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There was also a request to shop wording changes to this section at the Village Pump, so I was waiting for feedback to the changes I suggested before taking it to the Village Pump and later into the the FAQs.--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, wasn't aware of this. :-) I accept what you say about pseudoscience not necessarily being a minority view. What was and is important to me is that the section should point editors to the academic discourse within whose purview the theories in question are actually being discussed. For example, astrology was mentioned above. Astronomers stopped discussing this a long time ago, but for sociologists and psychologists it is an up-to-date area of study. The mainstream scientific view will come out naturally in the way that any influential (demonstrably well-cited) sociological or psychological study approaches the topic.

I don't like editors going to skeptic sites for pre-fab rebuttals, or adding OR sentences like "it contradicts the law of gravity"; that's lazy research and does not make for intelligent, interesting articles. Jayen466 00:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem with creative rebuttals of crackpot ideas is that it's like feeding the trolls: it encourages people to use Wikipedia to debate their wacky ideas. Being "no fun" for zany theories is actually something I would encourage. If they have a legitimate beef with the science, this isn't the place to put it. Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. I am not in favour at all of someone making up creative rebuttals based on the physics they learned in school etc. I'd rather have a pre-fab rebuttal from a skeptics' site. I think we can and should, as an encyclopedia, do better than the skeptics' sites. I am in favour of researching mainline academic treatments of pseudoscientific ideas. Really, the paper mentioned above ("Ancient Astronaut" Narrations: A Popular Discourse on Our Religious Past), about the ancient astronaut theories, is a beautiful case in point. I submit it is a far more interesting and insightful analysis than what could be found on a skeptics' site merely concerned with rebutting Paleo-SETI claims, yet it still states in a quite clear, matter-of-fact way, why Paleo-SETI isn't science. It's just that it's not falling over itself to do so and instead highlights the psychological and cultural factors involved in these beliefs. There's hundreds of papers like that on these topics. Jayen466 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the "skeptic" pages read like WP:SOAP anyway, so there are issues with automatically adopting their statements. I'd just hold that the base arguments of a "canned" rebuttal are fine for these articles. I agree that inclusion of cultural background and psychology ("meta-arguments" like the cite you mentioned) makes for a better article, but this shouldn't be "required" to demonstrate that the mainstream view is that the topic is pseudoscience.Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be required. But I believe we would ultimately profit from encouraging it. Jayen466 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thinking about multiple possibilities using averaging algorithms is a recipe for disaster

Two or more possibilities should not be averaged together, they should be thought of separately and distinctly. Including all points of view should be encouraged as long as editors follow the concept of neutral presentation. If someone is truly open to the possibilities their beliefs/opinions are wrong or incomplete then they will present their views neutrally. Convergence Dude (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, right, but what brought this on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] China article

Hello, there is a naming dispute at the China article. User:SchmuckyTheCat altered one of the rules here in order to help out his viewpoint (at 3:43 May 12). Just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention. I wanted some discussion of whether such a change in policies should be implentmented. T-1000 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This user has a long-running grudge with SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs). Good luck getting a useful discussion out of this. --slashem (talk) 11:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can go to the China article and see for themselves. Editing Conflict is very common, it is not a grudge. Standard practice to have disscusions before altering the rules. T-1000 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Standard practice is to discuss all controversial edits before making them. T-1000 only follows this practice when he wants to, see this very controversial edit which was made without discussion. --slashem (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a non-controversial change, except this user is purposefully mis-reading the policy and my change stops allowing his loophole. Here is the diff: [7].

The policy has three paragraphs on naming conflicts, and specifically defers summary style to WP:Naming conflict. The second paragraph summarizes policy on naming conflicts with descriptive names: the problems we have with article titles like Allegations of state terrorism by the United States which have resulted in deletion and move wars forEVAR. The third paragraph summarizes policy on proper nouns: titles like China and Bill Clinton.

Because there are contradictory ways of handling the two types of article titles, there are slightly different policies in play. T-1000 is misquoting the descriptive summary in an argument about proper nouns in order to create an NPOV conflict where there isn't one. All my change does is make it explicit that the second paragraph is talking about descriptive article titles, something that was already implicit by all the examples used. Since this paragraph is also a summary of part of naming conflict, the change is a more accurate summary and reconciliation between the two. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, what is implict is your opinion only.T-1000 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But I would still like to purpose the question to the administrators and Jimbo Wales: Are proper noun article names allowed for suggest a "for" or "against" with is issue? Is redirecting China to PRC a violation of the NPOV policy? Thank you. T-1000 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to ask other contributors to chime in. Note though that administrators are just contributors with more tools. Their opinion doesn't mean anything more than anyone elses. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

[edit] Undue Weight

The emphasis placed on majority views in this section is a problem. The majority view is that God created human beings, not that they evolved from other primates. Nonetheless, that view has no place in an article on the origin of homo sapiens. Life.temp (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As the section makes clear in the opening statement, it is about the views found in the body of reliable sources. Whether or not people generally hold a certain opinion or whether polls indicate a certain proportion of opinion simply has no bearing on undue weight or NPOV as a whole. Vassyana (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to make that point somewhere recently and my argument was dismissed out of hand, (I'll assume I didn't communicate it clearly enough to be understood) so it's reassuring to see that I'm not alone in my interpretation that NPOV (and its corollary, WEIGHT) depend on the prominence of a view as reflected in reliable sources, not on public opinion polls). Woonpton (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Creationism is found a large body of reliable sources, so that's beside the point. And, while the opening statment says one thing, the discussion refers merely to majority/minority views for the next four paragraphs. Life.temp (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget that NPOV shouldn't be taken out of context. It has to be interpreted in conjunction with the other pillars. I'm thinking particularly of verifiability in this case. While reliable sources might document creationist beliefs, they do not state them as fact. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I looked at the Human article, and the only bits I found relating to this were in the Spirituality and religion section—which section is devoid of supporting cites and makes only a passing mention of creationism, with a wikilinked mention of "creation myths". The article contains some detail re evolution, etc., but no balancing creationist viewpoint. (if it matters,I am not myself disposed to creationist beliefs)-- Boracay Bill (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we can, or should, "balance" statements such as DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago. We just don't have reliable sources stating viable alternatives to the consensus scientific view. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a scientific approach because of the focus on challenging verifiability, so a certain bias towards science is probably unavoidable. We may "assume good faith," but faith is not a "valid" argument because it is, by nature, not verifiable. "DNA evidence indicates" is probably about as good as it'll get. If you said "humans originated..." and just tagged it with a cite, that would be more heavy-handed POV.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

For those not familiar with the guideline, WP:FRINGE explains how prominence and weight works with fringe science theories. Undue weight is contextual. While creationist views may be popular in culture at large, in science articles like human the context is scientific, with weight shifted in that direction because creationist beliefs are a minority view in science. Weight doesn't refer to balance. It's refers to weight. In science, evolution weighs more than creationism and the scale is appropriately leaning. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the reasoning, though I do agree with the result. It's not a matter of pop culture vs. science. It has nothing to do with any judgments on the validity of science or judgments about whether or not a topic is scientific. It's a matter of what reliable works state. Science has the clearly predominant view, such as in evolution, because the vast majority of reputable references supports and/or is written from the mainstream scientific point of view. Vassyana (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's circular. If asked what makes the science-supporting references more reliable than the Creationist ones, you have to say "They are more reliable because they are science." Life.temp (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only a half-circle. The circle ends after context is determined. If the context is a science discussion, science-supporting references are more reliable than creationist ones. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not circular at all and "they are science" is not the rationale. It's simply reporting what the body of reliable sources states. Reliability is not determined by subject content, but rather by the reputation of the author and publisher. For example, reputable academic and major mass market publishers are considered to be some of the most reliable sources. This may introduce a systematic bias towards science, but it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to correct systematic bias in the publishing world. Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

... what the body of reliable sources state [in propotion to its prominence], hence why it is inherently context-dependent. Weighting (it is a discussion of undue weight, after all) dictates that one must evaluate the prominence of the view, and that can only be done in context. The context of Pokemon isn't the same as the context of hydrogen. In science related discussions, "they are science" is a rationale for placing greater weight on the view of scientists. In religious discussions, not so much. Context. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

So to get back on topic, the human article is currently written as the description of a species, Homo sapiens. I agree that "reclaiming the article from pure science" is very appropriate. Mostly I'd recommend giving human evolution a separate page (the human article is morbidly obese anyway), toss a couple lines at "origins" regarding mainstream scientific views and toss a couple lines at major religious views, especially non-Western ones (with a link to Creation myth at the very least). I agree that the scientific view is given undue weight in an article that is not inherently scientific.Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On a multi-view laden topic such as "human", I'd tend to agree. It has multiple discussions to cover, some science, some not. My comments about context and science is about when the discussion turns to science. Not that it's all science, just that in the context of science creationist views aren't appropriate. When the discussion moves from science to cultural views (again, all about context), then the notable view of creationism in turn comes to a heavier weight. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It definitely deserves a mention and a link to its own article, but by NPOV we would have to give proportionate coverage to every other creation myth and that's just too much to add to an already overweight article. It's hard to neutrally argue that Judeochristian creationism is more notable than the Chinese creation story. Buddhism rejects the concept of even thinking about it, so that's easy to cover. Hindu beliefs, Classical (Greek-Roman) beliefs, et cetera. It's probably best to send the discussion to the Creation myth article or Creation (theology), articles that discuss religious views on creation in general rather than a specific religion. Christianity is one of the heavyweights in world religions, but it's far from alone.Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Of course, that's what WP:SUMMARY is about. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

How could you show that the origin of humans is a scientific question rather than a relgious one? That seems to take your conclusion as your assumption, namely, that humans weren't created by a deity. Life.temp (talk) 07:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No reason it can't be a scientific question and a religious question at the same time. The two aren't necessarily contradictory. From a scientific standpoint, there's a relatively strong consensus, with some fringe ideas like Aquatic ape floating in from time to time, so it's easy to report neutrally. Religious views are all over the map, though there are major groups that share common creation myths (Abrahamic religion is the group that most English speakers are familiar with).Somedumbyankee (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

^What he/she said, but I'd go one further and say there's every reason why it should be both, it is an encyclopedia after all. It's merely a question of what goes where, when one idea is appropriate and when it isn't, based on categorical differences. Wikipedia doesn't excluded notable information, just places it where it should be.

Btw, not my conclusion, science's conclusion. When the discussion is about science's conclusion, that's where it's appropriate to cover science's conclusion, prominently and to the exclusion of non-science conclusions, per WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, and WP:PSCI. When the discussion is about something other than science, the article may virtually exclude science as well, because it's not a view relevant to the discussion. Eg. Creation myth, a list of various worldviews independent of science. There is one problem with that article, however, in the lead. The second paragraph is contrary to WP:LEAD, which calls for summarizing the article's content -- which isn't about creation myths vs. science -- and doesn't give science it's due voice in the matter, the discussion having inappropriately turned to being science-related. If the article were actually about creation myths vs. science, the paragraph should be augmented with science's view, because it's now a science-related discussion. Since the article isn't about that, the paragraph really should be removed, or placed in the body of the article and subsequently augmented. I started a discussion about that if anyone's interested [8]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 11:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every article dealing with human beings has to discuss their evolution/creation. This works both ways. Not every article dealing with a biblical character has to discuss the question of whether of not the Bible was inspired. People pushing their general POV have been known to do each of them. I'm going to pick some examples, deliberately without checking actual Wikipedia articles. An article, for example, on Neanderthals does not have to discuss whether or not they lived before 4004 BC, and the religious implications of this. But somewhere there has to be an article dealing with the creationist views of human fossils. the article on Moses should discuss the question of his historicity--unless it becomes worth a separate articles. An actual good example of how to handle this, is the various articles on Jesus. DGG (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness of tone

I propose an adjuct to this section to deal with something I call "devilishly flawed":

[edit] Avoid devilishly flawed reasoning

A great example of devilishly flawed reasoning can be seen at Hangul, I am borrowing the meat of it here:

• Pronunciation and translation:

[mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.ɾa.mi]

a person who cannot do it

• Phonemic transcription:

모타는사라미

/mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.la.mi/

• Morphophonemic transcription

못하는사람이

//mos.ha.nɯn.sa.lam.i//

• Morpheme-by-morpheme gloss:

	못-하-는	사람-이
	mos-ha-neun	saram-i
	cannot-do-[modifier]	person-[subject]

• Modern orthography

못 하는 사람이

The code looks like this:

<!-- vv These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. vv -->
*Pronunciation and translation:
:{{IPA|[mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.ɾa.mi]}}
:''a person who cannot do it''
*Phonemic transcription:
:모타는사라미
:{{IPA|/mo.tʰa.nɯn.sa.la.mi/}}
*Morphophonemic transcription
:못하는사람이
:{{IPA|//mos.ha.nɯn.sa.lam.i//}}
*Morpheme-by-morpheme [[gloss]]:
{|
|     ||못-하-는||사람-이
|-
|  ||mos-ha-neun||saram-i
|-
|  ||cannot-do-[modifier]||person-[subject]
|}
*Modern orthography
:못 하는 사람이
<!-- ^^ These transcriptions are correct; please see the talk page. ^^ -->

So, you can see the author anticipates challenges to what is otherwise a rather straightforward looking example. What this does, in effect, is it injects a negative bias into the example that matches an instance where someone reading up on Hangul and wanting to learn or having difficulty, sees a defeatist message. This deflates morale, and cannot be tolerated in any neutral text.

— robbiemuffin ^{page talk} 15:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually checked they weren't challenged or modified inaccurately? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about WP:NCGN

Looking at the policy, it talks about using the "local authority". In some cases, who the authority is can be rather controversial (for example, Liancourt Rocks, or the source of my concern, Burmyanmar). "Local authority" has, as far as I've seen, been interpreted to mean "local government."

Is taking the local government's side fair to a neutral point of view?Somedumbyankee (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The only time that in even mentioned is for when "English discussion of the place is [very] limited", which is certainly not the instance in either case you mention. Vassyana (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, some of it is spillover from WP:NCON, should have listed that as well. The "minor names" section mentioned is an extension of the main policy, specifically:

"A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

* Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)

* Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)

* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"

In this case there are two common English equivalents and there is no consensus whatsoever on which one is more common (most google tests are evenly split, other official sources don't show a consensus). For a country, this policy leads to using the government's name, but this is not a particularly neutral choice in this case since the name change has a lot of political baggage.

More or less, what I'm trying to determine is if WP:NPOV and the naming policies contradict each other in cases like this. If they do contradict, WP:IAR could be less controversially applied, the naming policy ignored, and some other method would have to be used to deal with the dispute. If they don't, then I think one of the major objections to one name can be overruled and the issue can get closer to being settled. I may very well be rambling and making very little sense, it wouldn't be the first time. If this analysis is just too far out there (WP:SNOWBALL), just say so.Somedumbyankee (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they contradict each other. On the contrary, I think the naming policy is a pretty good extrapolation of the principle of NPOV. I would point out in this specific instance that news sources and current academic sources generally refer to the country by one of the names in particular. (As a side comment, I tend to believe that search engine tests are an extremely poor tool, for a variety of reasons.) Vassyana (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

They are, but they're easy to do. For the most part I'm just looking to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict, I think I've "switched sides" in the debate about four times now. Trying to convince anyone that there is a common usage on that page is... difficult, and let's assume for the purpose of this question that there is no consensus on the name. Assuming we have to use the name policies, I'm not sure I follow that the two obviously agree. Can you explain in more depth? I've read the main and the FAQ for this article, and most of the sentiments about balance are impossible when you only get one word.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is more about the presentation of information in an article than about an article's name. However, by deferring to body of reliable sources (as the naming policy does) the intent and principle of NPOV is well-served. In the case of a failure to have a clear name or consensus, the use of the official name and the well-sourced detailing of alternate names (and preferably the naming dispute itself) in the article seems appropriate. Simply accepting the official name is not an endorsement of one side of the dispute; on the contrary, it is simply following standard convention. In the absence of a clear majority or consensus in the body of reliable sources, disputing the official name is by its nature a statement of disapproval and opinion (regardless of conscious intentions). Using the lens of NPOV's principles, the option that defaults to standard conventions instead of taking a stand is the preferable one. Vassyana (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

So in short, the policy is neutral largely because it is an arbitrary application of pre-defined principles, not because the authority used is "correct". More or less what I expected. No guarantee it will convince anyone, but I'm still kinda new at this and wanted to make sure I understood the sense of the policy before relying on it too heavily.Somedumbyankee (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually arbitrary. There has to be some naming policy. There were originally every extensive discussions about this sort of question, and the eventual view was in the view of most of the people here the consensus that complied best with our general principles. Once it has become adopted, it is extremely nonconstructive to try and change it. DGG (talk) 01:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-American

What is meant by Anglo-American in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus_and_systematic_bias? Americans with English ancestry? Americans with European ancestry? Americans who are white or Caucasian? Americans who speak English? Something else? It's not clear (to me at least) from the context. JCDenton2052 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"All of the above" is probably the clearest answer. More or less it's "include perspectives of people who probably aren't editing the English Wikipedia." An article about the Spanish Armada, for example, will probably include a fair amount of information about British perspectives, but is unlikely to have reasonable coverage of the Spanish perspective since there probably aren't that many people in Spain that are editing the English version. Since it won't happen by default, we have to make a conscious effort to include perspective from "the other side."Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See also http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Anglo-American and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Anglo-American -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Would English speaking be more accurate? There are plenty of editors from English speaking countries other than the US and the UK. JCDenton2052 (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the WP:NPOV section which you referenced accurately points up, "Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus." I happen to edit a lot of articles related to the Philippines, and these are now seeing increasing contributions from Filipinos with English as a second (more probably third or fourth) language. English as spoken in the Philippines has its idiosyncrasies, which I see more and more often of late. WP guidelines on national varieties of English do say that the English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language but, as a practical matter, but guidance beyond that general declaration is pretty much limited to spelling differences between the anglophone countries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, UK & Ireland, and United States. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight?

Howdy. Having a bit of a disagreement on what is UNDUE over at Circumcision. The latest addition to summary a source from University of Chicago is in contention. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American (i.e. the United States, and not Anglo-American) POV

In the first paragraph of a recent featured article, Oil shale, you (roughly) read "Oil shales are located around the world, including the US." I read on to see if the US is particularly important as a resource. It isn't. For that reason I believe it is a NPOV violation and should be deleted from the article. It is probably caused by the common tone in the U.S. national surveys and reports that are--quite naturally--U.S. focused, but still a main part of the world's scientific literature.

The average English Wikipedia reader, who may or may not be a native English speaker, is not necessarily from the U.S., or particularly interested in where the U.S. stands re every subject. --Farzaneh (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticism of foo" articles

It's possible that I'm being overly literal in interpretation of the policy, but is an article that exclusively contains criticism of a topic capable of meeting the expectations on neutrality? For example, the criticism of Bill O'Reilly article is substantially longer than the Bill O'Reilly article. At what point is the "criticism" article just an excuse to only cover one side of a topic conveniently outside of an otherwise neutral main? A more carefully chosen article title, such as Michael Moore controversies, would give the expectation of a neutral coverage, whereas a "criticisms" article invites one-sided coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If the subject matter of an article is a verifiable and noteworthy source of polarization, critique or dispute within a given society, subculture or institution, and writing about it is otherwise consistent with WP policy, then the motives for maintaining the content may not really be important.

It's definitely an "edge case" scenario, but the mere existence of an article that is primarily or even exclusively devoted to "criticism" does not by itself constitute a violation of neutrality. As for determining when the line has been crossed, that's a matter of case-by-case discernment, no? dr.ef.tymac (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's partially a question of whether an individual article is neutral or whether Wikipedia's treatment as a whole of the subject is neutral. All of the "criticism of foo" articles I've read show a clear bias against "foo", and the name of the article more or less condones that bias because "it's about criticism." Just glancing through, many of them are thinly disguised WP:SOAP, even if it is well-sourced. Naming disputes on these articles are common. This one is currently is in "move-pong" mode. This one is basically a WP:POVFORK.

I cannot see any case where a "Criticism of" article could not be recast as a "Controversies" article, a title that does not imply negative coverage. Somedumbyankee (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. Those articles you linked to (especially the latter one) do seem to cross the line. Appropriately, the latter one is flagged as needing attention and may even merit removal or merging.

Nevertheless, replacing the terms "Criticism of" with "Controversies" seems like the kind of subtle distinction unlikely to dissuade people who are inclined to POV push. If the article content remains unbalanced and poorly referenced, a re-title offers little or no correction. dr.ef.tymac (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fake images in aviation accident articles

I have started a thread on WT:NOR about fake images which involves both NPOV and NOR. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight Criteria

Concerns about Undue Weight have been raised in the article about trophy taking during World war II. American mutilation of Japanese war dead A free downloadable scholarly paper on the topic is available here. Now despite the topic being well known at the time, see for example Life Magazine Picture of the week May 22, 1944, it "appears" that many authors of WWII literature either don't know about it, or consider it unimportant, or prefer not to mention it for other reasons, such as for the protection of veterans image.

Another example of possibly similar downplaying is another uncomfortable topic: rape:

---

An estimated 10,000 Japanese women were eventually raped by American troops during the Okinawa campaign. H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II. According to Peter Schrijvers, rape was "a general practice against Japanese women".H-Net review of The GI War against Japan: American Soldiers in Asia and the Pacific during World War II According to a New York Times article from June 1, 2000 regarding the 1998 discovery of the corpses of 3 U.S. rapists killed by Okinawan villagers after repeated rape-visits by the group: "rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war." "3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa" New York Times, June 1, 2000

Okinawan historian Oshiro Masayasu (former director of the Okinawa Prefectural Historical Archives) writes based on several years of research:

Soon after the US marines landed, all the women of a village on Motobu Peninsula fell into the hands of American soldiers. At the time, there were only women, children and old people in the village, as all the young men had been mobilized for the war. Soon after landing, the marines "mopped up" the entire village, but found no signs of Japanese forces. Taking advantage of the situation, they started "hunting for women" in broad daylight and those who were hiding in the village or nearby air raid shelters were dragged out one after another.

Japan's Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery and Prostitution During World War II By Yuki Tanaka, Toshiyuki Tanaka, page 111

---

Especially the New York times article is interesting for trying to understand why so little is mentioned of such massive raping in "war books for western consumption".

An even better example is the fate of the book on the suppression of the book on U.S. troops rape in Europe. (Publisher book summary available here) It is a disgusting topic, and it is understandable that "greatest generation" authors such as Stephen Ambrose seem to have chosen to ignore it completely.

But.... It raises an interesting question. Since it is a topic that most writers seem to choose to ignore for whatever reason, does it mean "Undue Weight" to write about it, and how should "Undue Weight" policy be interpreted in relation to such topics?

I may be stretching it with this comparison, but nevertheless. Imagine Germany had won World War II. Perhaps not much would have been written in scholarly literature about the Holocaust in the U.S., for example due to political and economic pressure not to antagonize the German superpower. How would "undue weight" then apply to the Holocaust article?

Or take this example: American troops 'murdered Japanese PoWs'. There are a number of works from the last decades or so that have started facing up to this topic. But if you look at the full body of literature written since 1945 they probably are a distinct minority, with the others either blissfully unaware or deliberately avoiding the sensitive topic. Does that mean writing about it on Wiki can be considered Undue Weight?

I would be very much interested in knowing how Undue Weight policy relates to "suppressed" topics, perhaps the policy needs finetuning?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered a similar problem with Burmyanmar, where the change in name to Myanmar has been alleged to be part of an ongoing campaign of revisionism. What happens when all official documents reflect a history that the outside world knows to be false? Do we report the "official" history along with the "real" history? Frankly, I'm not qualified to make that decision. We have to rely on historians for history the same way we rely on scientists for science. Mainstream history has an opinion on these events, and since we are simply gathering information and not passing judgment on it, we must report what mainstream history has to say. Victor's justice is a longstanding problem for history, and wikipedia cannot fix it. We can only report that some historians have suspected that mainstream accounts are tainted by that problem, and let people make their own decisions on what to believe. Somedumbyankee (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Intesting, but isn't my question here not so much about contradicting statements from different scholars, but more about about some sources saying something that other sources says little or nothing at all about. I.e. not one opinion against another, but more a recently developed "new opinion" versus a possible larger accumulated body of "no opinion"?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace. There seem to be only two scholarly papers on this topic which in turn heavily draw on the handful of pages in professional historians investigations of combat experiances in the Pacific War. It's not correct to state that historians have only started to write about the killings of Japanese POWs in the last decade - this has been discussed in histories for several decades, and was even included in the Australian official histories of the war which were written during the 1950s and 60s. Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I presume you are here referring to the topic of mutilation of the dead and not the topic of mass rapes, or the policy of killing surrendering Japanese.

I think we should make it very clear that we represent two very different standpoints on the mutilation issue here. Ever since I started that article you seem to have been very antagonistic against it. And you have also made a number of very strange claims, such as ""In 1984 Japanese soldiers remains were repatriated from the Mariana Islands. Roughly 60 percent were missing their skulls" (cited, but there's no context given for this - why were the bodies being returned 40 years after the war? How many bodies were returned? Was this an example of the Japanese military custom of returning a body part to Japan rather than the whole body?). My question here is, which alleged Japanese custom are you referring to exactly? A scholar doesnt seem to be aware of any such "practice "[9]Also: "Everything I've read suggests the opposite: on the only occasions during the Pacific War when US troops encountered Japanese civilians (mainly on Saipan and Okinawa) the civilians were treated fairly well. The US occupation troops in Japan after the war also generally behaved well, and seem to have actually behaved better than the troops on occupation duties in Western Europe." This doesn't sound very convincing considering the rapes, which you later acknowledged. As to the "topic discussions" in literature that you refer to, and do some presuming about: My position is that snippets of information here and there, and the conclusions the individual authors draw based on their limited horizon, are woefully inferior to the conclusions drawn by scholars in peer reviewed journals who draw on all that information and much much more, to paint a complete and comprehensive picture. Given that we only know of 2 such articles, but that means little since we are hardly topic experts and how many on topic scholarly journals do we actually need?

As to the common practice of killing surrendering Japanese i wish to strongly challenge both your assumptions. It may have been mentioned here and there in the past, but certainly not that it was common practice, such as here[[10]. You state the following: "Again, given that few Japanese ever tried to surrender prior to August 1945 (which is proven in countless histories of the war and attributed to the Japanese military's attitude towards surrender), it's not a major part of the war." I guess this comes from your exhaustive experience with the literature. May I direct you to some sources collected here:

Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#The_Pacific "Dower states that in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds."[36] According to Aldrich it was common practice for US troops not to take prisoners.[42] This analysis is supported by British historian Niall Fergusson,[43] who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U. S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."[44]"Fergusson suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on. U. S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. POW compounds to two important factors, a Japanese reluctance to surrender and a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were "animals" or "subhuman'" and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to POWs.[48] The latter reason is supported by Fergusson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians [sic] — as Untermenschen."[49]" It would seem that a very important factor for Japanese reluctance to surrender to the Allied troops was their tendency to get massacred if they were dumb enough to try it. Hell, there is even colour movie footage of massacres and mutilations[11]. Lets quote Harrison: Hoyt (1986: 391) argues that what he calls the ‘unthinking’ practice of taking home bones as souvenirs was exploited so effectively by Japanese government propaganda that it contributed to a preference for death over surrender and occupation, shown, for example, in the mass civilian suicides on Saipan and Okinawa after the Allied landings." I do believe all these topics deserve much attention, and statements such as "it's not a major part of the war" only reflect a very biased literature selection. To return to your first sentence "This topic is discussed in scholarly books on the experiances of Allied servicement in the Pacific published over the last 20 years: it's just not accorded much space, presumably as the relevant professional historians consider it not to have been all that commonplace." I think we only need look at the topic of rapes in Europe to get some nuance on that.[12].[[13]

"'Lilly reveals a different side to the myth of the wholesome GI of World War II. This is a well-researched and courageous attempt to throw some light on an ugly underbelly that has remained unexamined for far too long. His harrowing descriptions of numerous rapes from official records make Taken By Force an uncomfortable read. Nevertheless, this is an important book, and one that deserves a far wider readership than just those with a scholarly interest.' - Lucy Popescu, Tribune"

How much space has this topic been given in the past? What conclusion can we draw from the silence by other authors? That it was unimportant, that someone is lying through their teeth, or that certain historians have had an ugly tendency to underplay or ignore certain aspects of war?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)