Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view

Question about WP:WEIGHT

This policy states "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources".

My question is this: when assessing a statement made in an article, should WEIGHT be assessed based on the sources cited in that article, or based on the sum total of all sources "out there somewhere", whether they are cited in the article or not? If it's the latter, what method can we use for assessing how the sum total of uncited sources would affect weight?

This question arises from a conversation here, but I'm not seeking dispute resolution on that topic - I'm interested in how to interpret the WEIGHT policy in a more general sense, specifically, how to deal with uncited sources when assessing weight. Thanks. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement to cite every source that supports article content, in fact there's an essay and a template to discourage that behaviour. So I would have thought that implicitly you must weigh sources not in the article. In the weight discussion the sources need to be presented so they can be scrutinised, but I would think it a negative to have every single one in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand - it is acceptable to invoke uncited sources "out there somewhere" in a debate about WP:WEIGHT, but the burden of proof is on the editor who invokes those sources to 1) demonstrate that they exist & are reliable 2) demonstrate that, if they were in the article, they would constitute sufficient weight to support the content in question.

Is that a fair summary of what you've said? Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

1) Yes (if asked to). As with a lot of Wikipedia should is probably important. There has to some limit to it, as editors could disruptively demand excessive sources for every minor detail. Also proving reliability is a bit nebulous, there was a discussion on the reliability of RTÉ at RSN awhile ago. An editor was asking why it wasn't on WP:RSP, the answer is because no one has ever doubted it's reliability. So asking someone to prove the reliability of all their sources is a bit back to front, they should have to show the reliability of those sources if another editor has good faith reasons to doubt them.
2) Not quite. Demonstrate in that they would be arguing that these sources show weight, as part of finding some consensus among editors. Your phrasing makes it seem they would have to pass some test.
WhatamIdoing's comment below on the quality of sources showed up as my comment was half written, and covered half the points I was thinking of much better than I could have expressed them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point on #2. Thanks.

@ActivelyDisinterested and @WhatamIdoing, If you'll humor me, I have another question about how NPOV is commonly interpreted. I'd like to know your personal opinions, and also your general sense of the evolution of common practice over time.

Of course, NPOV says "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."

How is this commonly interpreted in terms of WP:WEIGHT? In other words, how much "weight" is regarded as sufficient to establish that an assertion is "seriously contested"?

More specifically, how is "contested" usually understood in terms of labels? Let me give you a hypothetical example to clarify:

Imagine we are working on an article about Israel. Let's say there are currently 80 sources cited in the article. 6 of them describe Israel as "terrorists" or a "terrorist state". The other 74 represent a variety of points of view on Israel - some are extremely critical, but do not use the label "terrorist", while others are more or less neutral, and others are, to some degree, sympathetic to Israel.

The sympathetic sources may say thinks like "Israel is justified in its actions", "Israel complies with international humanitarian law", or "Israel is a tolerant and democratic society". But none of the 80 sources explicitly say "Israel is NOT a terrorist state".

Would it be correct (or generally accepted by consensus as acceptable) to conclude "the statement that Israel is a terrorist state is an uncontested factual assertion, and, since no sources explicitly contest the claim, it can, should, or must be presented in Wikipedia's voice."

Or, would it be correct to say "although no source has explicitly negated the phraseology 'terrorist state', we can still assume, without violating WP:SYNTH, that the aforementioned quotes by sympathetic sources represent "conflicting assertions", so we should treat the description "terrorist state" as a seriously contested assertion."

Or, do neither of those views accurately represent the common understanding of NPOV? Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

For your example (or anything like it), we throw up our hands and point to WP:TERRORIST. We semi-sorta-kinda say that you should not directly call anyone or anything a terrorist. That is, we can have thousands of articles that say that the subject "has been called a terrorist by Alice, Bob, Chris, David, etc.", but you usually can't say that the subject "is a terrorist" (until the weight is so overwhelming that it's silly to attribute the view to a small set of people or groups. NB that when this happens, you will almost always have some editor says "But Wackos R Us and this one political influencer I like doesn't agree, so we still can't say this in WIKIVOICE!").

You may choose to think that this is mealy-mouthed of us, if you wish, but that's our usual practice.

Something that may help overall is that the goal is to have the Wikipedia article, both in the overall impression given by the article and in individual pieces, accurately reflect the mainstream (scholarly, if it's a scholarly subject) notion of the subject, even when that means being wrong or unfair to the minority POV. For something involving nation-states, that usually means scholarly sources. For example, if the mainstream scholarly opinion is that whether to call Israel a terrorist state depends on your definition, then the article should reflect that (e.g., "have been called terrorists by Bob, who uses the definition he got as a cereal box prize in 1962"). If the mainstream scholarly view is that the "deep state" is an implausible conspiracy theory believed primarily by blue-collar white men who feel, with some justification, like life gave them a raw deal, and believe that the only plausible reason for them not being socioeconomic winners is that something sneaky and disreputable is going on in the halls of power, then the article should reflect that.

I don't think the policy has changed much over the years. What has changed is the media around us. Using a lot of in-text attribution seems to be a way to signal that the writer is trying to be impartial. Consequently, we all (editors and readers alike) may have different ideas now about what a neutral tone sounds like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, I really appreciate it.

I think WP:TERRORIST is a great policy, and should probably be expanded to include a select few other terms that are often abused for POV-pushing, but that's a topic for another day.

I completely agree with you when you say "If the mainstream scholarly view is that the "deep state" is an implausible conspiracy theory...then the article should reflect that." - and to be clear, I posted here at NPOV because I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how the policies have been interpreted in the past - I am not seeking input on the RFC, and don't want to discuss it here.

"Terrorist", on second thought, is not a great example, because I'm more interested in cases where WP:TERRORISM does not apply. For instance, if a small minority of sources calls a person, "corrupt" or "incompetent", and, while there are plenty reliable sources that are sympathetic to the person, no sources specifically say "he/she was NOT incompetent/NOT corrupt", would that be commonly understood as an "uncontested" or "contested" assertion? Let's assume they are not a living person, so BLP does not apply. Philomathes2357 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

As it happens, I've spent this morning on a similar case, in which an editor wants to call something altmed. As it turns out, I can't find any MEDRS-style sources that explicitly says that it is or isn't. What I can find is that MEDRS-ideal sources do not use that language, and their overall presentation mostly leaves you with the opposite feeling. This differs importantly from your case in that good quality sources don't say anything either way, rather than a few saying "yes" and the rest being silent.

On the one hand, there are problems with relying solely on positive statements. You could end up with "Three sources said it is" and nothing to balance that – even if the implicit statements from all the other sources is the opposite.

For example, imagine that I have found 100 sources about chemotherapy. Three say that it's worthless. The other 97 are dealing with side effects. The other 97 implicitly suggest that there is value, because why would you deal with these side effects for a completely worthless treatment? If those 97 thought it was worthless, then side effect management would be short and simple: "Don't take this worthless stuff."

You don't want to say "Every source that explicitly comments on this subject says ____", when all the other sources imply that the opposite is their actual view. But you can't actually say "Three sources say it's worthless, and 97% of them imply that there's value", because although it's true, it's a NOR violation (because we require a source that Wikipedia:Directly supports the claim, not just 97 that imply it). Also, it's not appropriate to say that if three sources say it's worthless, seven imply that it's valuable, and 90 are, upon closer inspection, irrelevant to that particular point, that this proves that the point isn't worth mentioning at all.

Which takes me back to the main point: However we get there, the goal is to have an article that accurately and fairly represents the views of high-quality sources, including on facts so basic or obvious that they didn't explicitly and directly state them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thought-provoking reply. Your chemotherapy example is very interesting. Based on what appears to be current consensus regarding NPOV's interpretation, the approach there would be to begin the chemotherapy article by saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "chemotherapy is a worthless treatment", since there is no source that explicitly/directly says "chemotherapy is NOT worthless".

But that would be completely absurd and untenable, would it not?

Maybe one could avoid the NOR issue by simply saying "the other 97 sources, irrespective of their value judgement about chemotherapy, simply do not lend weight to the claim that it is "worthless", so, therefore, there is very little weight behind the claim that it is "worthless", even though that claim has not been directly rebutted. That means that we can characterize the notion 'chemotherapy is worthless' as a minority-held view."

In your view, would an approach like that be, on its face, a violation of NOR, SYNTH, or some other policy or guideline?

The more I think about this, the more potential cases come to mind, and the more important it seems to get cases like this right and establish some sort of common understanding for how to deal with them. I appreciate you helping me dive deeper into this and providing very thoughtful replies. Philomathes2357 (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Philomathes2357, it has to be about sources that exist in the real world, because otherwise, I could remove all the sources I disagree with, and then re-write the article to say whatever I believe.

The ideal process is something like this:

• Do some research to find out what kinds of sources are out there. This could mean spending time with your favorite web search engine, with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library (which I am absolutely loving; De Gruyter's books might be useful for that article), or even in a library. Figure out what the overall lay of the land is, especially among the best sources.
• Write the article so that it provides a reasonable summary of what you learned during the hours/days/weeks/months of research you did.
• Cite whatever you need to, to verify the individual statements as you make them. If it's a pro/anti type of subject, this process can sometimes include citing "pro" sources to support "anti" content (and vice versa), which is another way that the balance of cited sources might not match the desired balance of the article itself.

If you are interested in an example, I think I have had as many NPOV arguments over Breast cancer awareness as for all the other articles combined. The problem is that the low-quality sources (e.g., puffy local news stories), were all rather glurge-y and irrelevant: "Look at the pretty woman who is soooo nice and strong and sweet that she's raising money to help other cancer victims!"

When I got into the scholarly literature, though, the story was quite different: "Look at the patriarchal assumptions that say sick women must be superheroes who never inconvenience anyone. Look at the unfair expectations that say sick women have to wear makeup and wigs so that the rest of us aren't reminded about their vulnerability or our own mortality. Look at how breast cancer was considered an obscene disease for so many decades. Look at the way society polices the things sick women say about their fears and experiences. Look at the way screening programs get promoted but prevention efforts gets downplayed. Look at those deceptive fundraisers, which imply unlimited donations but actually make paltry donations. Look at the billions of dollars we have spent without reducing the number of deaths materially. Look at the alcohol manufacturers putting pink ribbons on their products, instead of putting on labels that say '15% of breast cancer is caused by drinking alcohol. If you don't want breast cancer, then don't buy our product'."

The human problem we have is that when article content isn't what we expect, then we think it's wrong. So whatever your/my/anyone's own filter bubble says, that's what you automatically (whether you want to or not) think that's what the article should say. The only way I've found to get out of that "confirming my own pre-existing biases" mode is to do a deep dive into high-quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as usual, you think deeply and show great wisdom. We may not always agree, at least initially, but I respect you.

You write: "when article content isn't what we expect, then we think it's wrong." Yes, too often one sees that is the initial reaction, especially by newbies and driveby POV pushers and vandals, and we often delete those comments on sight, with no explanation. "When article content isn't what we expect", the proper reaction is to:

1. AGF in fellow editors, IOW that they have tried to follow PAG;
2. assume the article is based on RS;
3. assume the article narrative is therefore correct;
4. assume that other editors and the sources they have found "know more" than I currently do;
5. assume that I am likely less informed and likely wrong;
6. assume this is a learning opportunity;
7. adopt a scientific attitude and follow the evidence, IOW, follow the sources;
8. bring my own POV into line with the sources, IOW, change my mind(!!!), no matter how painful;
9. before objecting to what I think is wrong, read the whole article, or at least the relevant parts, and also read the sources;
10. then, and only then, if I am still convinced the article, or part of it, is wrong, formulate a good case using RS, and open a thread to discuss a very specific issue, using exact quotes.

That's my method, and I have been forced to change my mind many times over the years. That's also what I love about editing here. I learn so much from other editors and sources. I may be stubborn at first, but good evidence will usually change my mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We need a Barnstar of Publicly Changing Your Mind. It's one of the rarest behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a hard one. I don't think there's a general rule that always works. I go back to "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". So start there. Are all the significant and reliable views included in that article? After that, there's a debate to be had about how to present in-significant or un-reliable views (usually somewhere between leaving them out, or reporting them through the lens of more reliable sources). And then there's still a discussion to be had about each of the significant views. Are they all equal? Is one more significant or reliable than the other? The debate may be moot: our article may end up representing all of them, and letting the reader form their own opinion. Unfortunately, I think policy only gets us so far, and you need a lot of good faith editors doing a lot of quality research to settle each discussion, case-by-case. The only thing I'd add is if an editor digs their heels in and insists that some viewpoint is equally significant or more significant than what's currently in the article, there is eventually an onus on them to prove it, with actual WP:Verifiable reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, that's a great analysis. Start with all the reliable sources you can find, and let them speak. Sources, not editorial beliefs and opinions, have the primacy. Then describe what unreliable sources say, but only using the lens thru which RS look at what those unreliable sources say (as contrarian, false, and inaccurate views). Unreliable sources alone have zero due weight and should not be cited directly, only indirectly by citing RS that mention them, with the POV of the RS. Use attribution. Avoid bothsidism and false balance. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I find that a lot of novice editors come in because they have something to say, and then they find a source that supports it. It does risk pushing their POV (especially if they stray into primary research or other unreliable sources). More experienced editors approach it like a literature review. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2003 statement of Jimmy Wales

We should avoid tempering with the statement made by Jimmy Wales in 2003. The key point here is simple: WP:Reliable sources is a guideline, not a policy. If WP:NPOV would be misleading, not useful or any thing of the sort without it, then it would be part of the policy, but it is not. The original statement of NPOV without any mention of reliable sources reminds us of the essential of NPOV, as it was when declared not negotiable in 2003 and many times later by Jimmy Wales. Not only it is possible to understand NPOV without any reference to reliable sources, it is also easier to misunderstand it in the context of reliable sources. This policy is the place to explain what is the neutral point of view. It is not the place to emphasize the complex notion of reliable sources, which can too easily be misunderstood in a way that conflicts with the essential of NPOV. As a strict minimum, please do not temper with the original statement of Jimmy Wales.

I am not against the reliable sources guideline. Nobody can be against it. Common sense is telling us that we must use reliable sources. We would not use a source that claims that Einstein wrote "E = mc³". There's no issue with the guideline per se. The issue is that it can be very badly misinterpreted and, therefore, it is best to keep things modular: there is a place to emphasize the neutral point of view and there is a place to emphasize reliable sources and the NPOV policy is not that place. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dominic Mayers:, when you write "tempering", do you really mean "tampering"? If so, please fix that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the plain intent of Wales's statement is that we temper with it. EEng 05:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Why? Wales is not a God and his word is not consensus, it actually carries no more weight than any one else's (nobody would take seriously the suggestion that we should do someone because Sanger did it... I don't see why Wale's name carries any more weight, he's just another washed up old time editor albeit one who still maintains at least a modicum of the communities respect... Not that he isn't rapidly squandering what he has left). For me its natural, NPOV builds on RS... Not the other way around, without RS NPOV doesn't exist but without NPOV RS would be fine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I very much feel the same way and I suspect very much that Jimmy Wales himself does not think differently. That's not the point. It just happens that he wrote the policy that has been a kind of contract between Wikipedia and the community. This contract cannot be changed lightly, not even by Jimmy Wales, especially something that was presented as not negotiable and thus to remain permanent. He is bound to that contract as much as we are. He would change his mind that I would not care. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no contract (neither is there anything truly nonnegotiable or permanent on wikipedia, such a contract could not exist). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is even a kind of legal contract, because you cannot change the mission of a non for profit organization without risking losing your status. But, I was not thinking in legal terms. Of course, there is a kind of implicit contract when you make millions of people contribute to a project under some policies. You cannot change them just like that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are not the charter... And there is no risk of losing your status as long as the change doesn't take you outside the regulatory requirements even if we did want to change the charter. I would also note that if the community wanted to make wiki for-profit it could... That is within our power, we just wouldn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV might have been initially a part of the charter, but, as I said, I am not thinking in legal terms. The most important thing here is that a discussion here between us does not represent the "community". If you really want that the community changes the policy in a significant manner, you need to do much more than that. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In non-legal wikipedia terms there is still no contract. In general it is held that consensus represents the community, we aren't discussing a significant change to the policy (or any actual change at all, just the wording) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

In re if the community wanted to make wiki for-profit it could...: This is not true, and now we know beyond any doubt that HEB isn't a lawyer. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is set up as a 501(C)(3), not as some sort of fancy irrevocable trust. Wikipedia is an asset which can be sold to whoever the foundation wants, as long as they get fair market value for it Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"The community" has no legal right to do that. The Wikipedia trademark and domain name are assets which the Wikimedia Foundation can sell to whomever it wants. If they do so as part of a conversion to for-profit status, then it has to be done at fair-market value. However, "the community" cannot do this. "The community" has exactly the same rights as any random person on the street. "The community" has the right to vanish and the right to fork. "The community" does not have the right to convert the WMF to a for-profit, nor to transfer Wikipedia to a for-profit organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The Foundation is a subset of the community, everyone involved with the Foundation is a community member. In this hypothetical (because none of this shit is ever going to happen) anything the community wants the Foundation wants too. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An awful lot of word have been written, but I still don't see the point of it all. That NPOV must be based only on reliable sourcing is in the first sentence of the policy. Reliable sourcing is a requirement of WP:V, a policy and also non-negotiable, WP:Reliable sources is a guideline on how to determine a reliable source.
NPOV/V/NOR must all be interpreted together, as no one policy over rules any other. Anyone wanting NPOV to over rule the others would need to get consensus for that from the community. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that in the correct way to understand the policies, they do not contradict each other. I even agree that the basic notion of reliable sources is so basic and natural that there is no need to make it explicit to explain the essential of NPOV, just like we don't need to explain what a road is to explain the way to Paris. This is exactly why the emphasis on reliable sources is problematic. It says that there are extra restrictions associated with reliable sources that are emphasized, but we don't know what they are. When it comes to decide what is a reliable source, because it is determined in guidelines, not in a policy, NPOV (and V and NOR) should have a clear priority and they should not be made less clear by strangely emphasizing what depends on guidelines. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree on most of that, and workshopping clearer language would help. But you point that reliable sources is a guideline is just semantics, the word reliable sources in the lead is linked to WP:V. That a guideline is also called 'reliable sources' is neither here nor there. Reliable sources must be determined by policy for NPOV, the lead of the policy makes that clear. If you wish to discuss how reliable sources are determined this isn't the correct page, but it must be done. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this policy is not the place to discuss what is a reliable source. The problem is that you are saying that, nevertheless, it is perfectly fine to constantly bring out reliable sources in that policy. People aren't naive. They see there are hidden complexities, because if it was only the obvious, it would not be emphasized so much. Bringing out complexities too early, when they are not needed and it is not the time to discuss them cannot be justified. The motivation is most likely that some people believe that some sources must be used and other sources must not be used—some of these people being possibly biased—but they want to publicize the importance of this as early and as often as possible in the NPOV policy, even though it is not at all the essential of NPOV and it is not the time to explain it. This is not good. It brings the focus away from the policy, because of a different agenda. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Emphasis on Reliable Sources and suppression of Jimmy Wales own words about not taking sides

Despite the above warning about not adding emphasis on "reliable sources" and emphasizing instead what is the basic of the neutral point of view, the following edit was made. The phrase and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides, which are the exact own words of Jimmy Wales about the basic of NPOV in the exact context where they were used by him in 2003, was removed. Also, an emphasis was made on "Reliable sources" by adding the color green.

In one way, using reliable sources is just common sense. Nobody can argue against using reliable sources. The problem is that there must be something beyond the obvious, because there is no point in emphasizing the obvious, but we do not know what this non obvious thing is. Because of this ambiguity, an emphasis on reliable sources out of context creates more confusion than anything else. It weakens the policy without adding anything to it beyond the obvious. For this reason, I advocate a more modular approach in which reliable sources is mentioned less often and when mentioned it should be emphasized that it cannot means anything against the basic of NPOV explained in this policy. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I applaud Dominic Mayers for removing the words "[in reliable sources]" here, indeed those words should not exist in what purports to be a paraphrase of Mr Wales when the original text has no such words. I do not applaud Dominic Mayers for removing the word "(scientific)" here. And the paraphrase should have included scientific since that is what Mr Wales explicitly included. I also acknowledge that Mr Wales later said ... as a general rule, I think that almost any argument, on any topic, which has premises beginning with "Jimbo said..." is a pretty weak argument. but like to refer to his opinion anyway -- in fact I just did. I do not understand why Dustfreeworld changed to green. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

More heat than light
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If its a paraphrase and not a copy it can have words that the original comment doesn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Sure, but the paraphrase must still respect the fundamentals and "reliable sources" does not help explaining the essential of NPOV. It is something added, because we want to put some restrictions to the neutral point of view, but it is not even clear what these restrictions are. It cannot just be that we want to avoid sources that would claim "Einstein wrote E = mc³," because this is obvious. It is instead an open door for much more restrictions than that, but it is not clear what they are. It just weaken the policy without adding anything to its clarity. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC) The fundamentals are that NPOV is meaningless if you haven't already established what is and isn't a reliable source. This also seems to be the point Wales was making in a larger sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, again, of course, I repeat myself, nobody argues that we can use unreliable sources. We can also say that it was implicit in the original statement of Jimmy Wales. However, that does not make reliable sources a fundamental aspect of NPOV that must be constantly emphasized. Obviously, you are simply ignoring and not responding to my arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I apologize, perhaps rather than ignoring them I simply do not understand them? I don't understand how reliable sources aren't a fundamental aspect of NPOV when NPOV is determined entirely by what is in reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I am surprised that I need to explain this. Of course, the content of the article must come from reliable sources. Isn't it obvious that this point is so general and basic that it says nothing essential about NPOV. Emphasizing such an obvious point makes people rightfully aware that some extra complex restrictions are being advertised, but these are not about the essential of NPOV. NPOV is about not taking sides, providing extra context, the arguments, etc. It is not about reliable sources, just like explaining the way to Paris is not about explaining what is a road and complexities about the concept of road. If you suggest complexities related to the concept of road while you explain the way to Paris, then it creates confusion. It is a diversion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) We do take sides though... We side with reliable sources... NPOV is not inherently neutral as in reality agnostic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC) No, we do not take sides. That is exactly what NPOV is about: not taking sides. That is why we provide the context, give the arguments and even attribute whenever it is pertinent. If I write "John said X", I am not taking side with John regarding X. As far as the reader is concerned, I might even disagree with John. Similarly, if I give John's arguments, it does not mean I accept them. It only means that I let people know what are John's arguments. The fact that you do not understand this and say "we take side with reliable sources" reinforce a lot my conviction that insisting on reliable sources only create confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) NPOV is our side and NPOV is determined solely by the publishing of reliable sources. Neutrality in this context is a position, not a lack of a position. To put it another way we don't take no point of view we take the neutral point of view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Yes, of course, the neutral point of view is still a point of view, but it is not any of the points of view in sources, reliable or not. The only exception, but it is not really an exception, is when the content taken from the source is not really a point of view, but a simple not controversial fact. For example, "Le SS Normandie appeared twice in the Adventures of Tintin" is a simple fact and there is less insistence in that case that we take the neutral point of view. We could, for example by writing "The famous commentator Horeau mentions that ..." , but it is delicate, because it could create the opposite effect, if it gives the impression that we doubt an otherwise reliable source: we do not take sides in favour, but also not against, the sources. That is why excessive attribution is not what NPOV is about and it should not be used to present facts as (doubtful) opinions. The general idea is that an encyclopedic style is neutral in the sense that it is more informative than it is affirmative or doubtful. Of course, while you do that, it may very well happen that a point of view appears as valid, especially if a point of view is presented as the point of view of mainstream science, but this still can be done while adopting the neutral point of view, i.e., without taking sides. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC) It is not any of the point of views in reliable sources... But it is determined entirely by them. A change to what we consider RS automatically changes what is NPOV, they opposite does not happen. NPOV in this context isn't fixed, its constantly shifting. There is no exception, you're confusing POV with opinion (facts, opinions, and anything in between are covered by NPOV). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Bingo! From Wikipedia talk:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content#"Neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases.: "Editors are "neutral" when they are centered right under the point where most RS congregate, regardless of whether that is to the left or right of center. We do not "move" or "balance" content to the center to keep an article "neutral". That would be editorial, non-neutral, interference in what RS say. Maybe you should read my essay about this: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. At Wikipedia, "neutral" does not mean what you think it means. It really doesn't. It is not a middle position. It is not a position without bias. At Wikipedia, "neutral" means alignment with RS, including their biases." That's how I see it. We center ourselves under RS and move with them. We follow the scientific method and "follow the evidence". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) TL;DR: If you believe that the essential of NPOV is simply a respect of the proportion in reliable sources, you are simply mistaken. Now, the longer version: I understand your explanation of NPOV. I think you might agree that it is not a very deep and complicated understanding of NPOV. I hope you do not doubt one second that I can easily understand what you think NPOV is. Basically, you are simply focusing on the simple notion of proper weight. This being said, let us compare this with the actual policy. Consider the first practical concrete advice in the policy: Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. The emphasis through this first practical advice is on the attribution of opinions. Also, the policy clearly states that we should not take sides: it is still there in the nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides. A key sentence that is provided in the policy's explanations is Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. These are all key points that existed and were well emphasized already in 2003. In 2003, there was a greater emphasis on providing the arguments as a way to achieve neutrality. It is less emphasized today, but it is certainly still a very useful approach. I admit that nowadays these points are mixed with many other sentences that are about weight and proportion as when it is said at the start representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This can explain why you miss the points I just brought out and focus more on the simple notion of weight and proportion instead. However, weight and proportion have never been the main central points of NPOV. In fact, even the section that we call Due and undue weight actually refers to a 2003 statement of Jimmy Wales that was used to introduce No Original Research, not the notion of weight. Moreover, the original statement of Jimmy Wales included If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. — Jimmy Wales (but emphasis in mine) The notion of not taking sides was clearly central at the time, not only in that sentence. It is still central today, mentioned at the start in the nutshell, but I agree that it get lost among other sentences. So, I understand that you do not seem to take it into account. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC) How can "weight and proportion have never been the main central points of NPOV." be true if today those are the central points of NPOV? As you yourself noted, that is what the current first sentence is all about. I don't like this close reading of Wales, it strikes me as messianic... At the end of the day it does not matter what Wales said or what Wales meant. Their opinion carries the exact same weight as yours or mine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I explained many times why weight and proportion are not the central concepts. Moreover, it is not a close reading of Wales. It mainly refers to the current policy as it is now and make some reference to what it was in 2003. I don't see how I can continue this kind of discussions which does not respond to the essential of my arguments, but instead deforms them and superficially say that I am messianic, confused, etc. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC) So they're not central... But the introduction of this page which presumably covers all of the central concepts talks about no other concepts... How do you square that contradiction? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) The nutshell says Articles must not take sides,... The section Explanations emphasises describe disputes, but not engage in them. and its first main practical advice is about attribution. I already pointed out what you say about the lede lead. You are not adding anything to what I already explained. You focus on some sentences, whereas I bring out the big picture by considering the current and historical context. Dominic Mayers (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Do you appreciate the irony of lecturing your fellow editors about their supposed lack of understanding of big picture and the historical context while referring to a "lede"? There are no ledes on Wikipedia... We have leads. See WP:NOTALEDE for more. You didn't answer the question, how do you square that contradiction? If that results in you repeating yourself indulge me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I just explained the situation: You focus on some sentences, whereas I bring out the big picture by considering the current and historical context. It says it all. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC) You actually seem to be rejecting both the current and historical context, for example by insisting that weight and proportion have never been central concepts when they clearly and unambiguously have been and currently are. I think its that denial of objective reality that is rubbing people the wrong way... I don't disagree with you philosophically its just that almost every fact that you write is false and most obviously so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC) You are discrediting my arguments without any specific. Please stop. It's not even an invitation to discuss the specific of my arguments, because we have passed this stage. I lost confidence that there is a genuine interest in a good discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC) People disagreeing with you is not the same thing as them not having a genuine interest in a good discussion... A good discussion means that people are going to vigorously disagree with you and point out when you say things that are objectively untrue. Also where did you pick up using a stop sign like that? It doesn't strike me as civil and I haven't encounter someone spamming stop signs before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I am not interested. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Then say that you have lost interest next time, don't cast vague aspersions at other editors. Other editors have a genuine interest in a good discussion, if you don't thats ok but spamming stop signs and casting aspersions isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I am not doing any thing wrong in using a stop sign. This accusation is part of what you need to stop. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Again you're saying things that are not true and then attempting to shut down any rebuttal. I didn't make an accusation, I asked you where you picked it up, said that it struck me as uncivil, and that I had not seen it before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Ok, you win "accusation" was not the best word to use. The point is that I am not interested in your judgments about me. And as long as you will keep making judgments about me, I will ask you to stop. If it helps to achieve the goal, I will not use the stop sign.Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC) @Horse Eye's Back:, if you have the impression that I confuse things, then the communication has failed, and you should consider the possibility that the explanation is simply that you have difficulties in getting rid of your misunderstandings. I do that for myself all the times. I expect the same from you. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Yes... "The only exception, but it is not really an exception, is when the content taken from the source is not really a point of view, but a simple not controversial fact." gives me the impression that you think that there is an exception and that the exception you think exists is for simple non-controversial facts. I don't think I'm confused here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I don't know what to say. I do not intend to start a discussion about whether you are confused or not. I just want to say that I am not. Dominic Mayers (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) You are clearly confused about NPOV, half a dozen editors have told you so. The problem is you not all of us... And your proposed solution that other editors just stop pointing out that the things you're saying aren't true isn't going to work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I explained why I removed scientific, but it can be put back with a footnote that explains that the context was an attempt by someone to include his own scientific original research and that the policy itself was never limited to scientific knowledge. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I also responded above to the argument that Jimmy Wales has no special authority regarding the policies. I believe that he would himself agree that the policies stand by themselves and adding his name in front of them does not make them better. As explained above, that is not the point. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry that my bold edit kicked off all of this. For context, I thought that edit might help because I saw an editor (~700 edits, ~9 months old) quoting that as if "extremely small minority" referred to the number of editors in a discussion. It is possible to quote the present version (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia) as meaning "If you are the only editor who wants to include that material, then it does not belong on Wikipedia". It is not possible to quote my longer version (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia) as meaning anything about the number of editors holding the viewpoint. I don't feel strongly about it, and the very next sentence addresses this point (Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.), so I don't think that it's very important either way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I understand that this edit in itself was very innocent. It is just that the emphasis all over the place on "reliable sources" is not, however, innocent at all. The idea that the foundation of NPOV is nothing more than having a weight that corresponds to the proportion in sources is so wrong. Adding the requirement that the sources must be "reliable" as if this was the key missing concept to make it right is just contributing to the confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC) The foundation of NPOV is described in the first sentence of the policy, that NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. No one is adding that reliable sources are required, that is what the policy says. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC) I already replied to that argument above. Yes, it requires a more in depth discussion, but it's does not seem that it is going to happen now. I don't see a true interest for such a discussion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Recurring arguments about the structure of the policy

I just want to point out a recurring argument regarding the structure of the policy. The argument is simply that the first sentence in the lead does not mention explicitly concepts principles such as "do not take sides", "do not engage in debates, but describe them", "attribute opinions" and therefore these are not central concepts principles of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Are those concepts or are they ways in which concepts are operationalized? If we want to interrogate just one of them "do not engage in debates, but describe them" is not a concept, its guidance on how to follow the concepts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe I understand your point. If I understand correctly, you are saying that they are not mentioned, because they are principles that are needed to achieve the goal, not the goal itself. I am curious to know what others have to say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

More or less, but when I think about it the policy itself is a principle and the goal is the creation of an encyclopedia. If you wanted to call NPOV, V, and NOR our core principles I would agree with that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Should "of reliable sources" be restored?

WITHDRAWN BY OP. SEE AT BOTTOM.

THIS IS NOT A FORMAL RFC, BUT MAY LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR A FUTURE RFC. A consensus here can be used to change content. An RfC is not necessary when there is a strong consensus.

WAS: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

THEN: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

NOW: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

IMPLIED COROLLARY: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely large majority, it does belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is false, or you cannot prove it."

PROBLEM: "of reliable sources" was added and then removed.

THE ISSUE: "extremely small minority" refers to number of RS, not the number of people. That addition addresses a very real need here.

Let's use homeopathy as an example. "An extremely small minority of reliable sources" take it seriously. In fact, no really RS take it seriously. They universally criticize and debunk it. Yet, billions of people believe in homeopathy, primarily in India. That's not "an extremely small minority" (of people), so, per the implied corollary, it belongs on Wikipedia. But we don't include it because of the number of people who believe it. We do that because of the number of RS that document it as fringe, pseudoscientific, nonsense. RS are the reason we do things here.

Some fringe nonsense viewpoints "held by an extremely small minority of reliable sources" happen to be documented by myriad RS and are thus notable enough for documentation here, even with whole articles about fringe nonsense. It is the coverage in RS that give it enough weight for mention, not the number of people who believe the fringe nonsense. Fortunately, for the purposes of serving our readers, including the deluded masses, there is a tendency for widely held nonsense to be described in enough RS so we can document it. That keeps us inline with our mission here, to "document the sum of all human knowledge" as it is mentioned in RS.

At Wikipedia, we don't give a flying f##k how many people believe something. The masses can be deluded and deceived. They are not RS. Our only concern is what RS say (and unreliable sources have zero due weight). "extremely small minority" refers to number of RS, not the number of people, therefore that wording is important.

PROPOSAL: That "of reliable sources" be restored as it is an important modifier that keeps the wording in harmony with our PAG.

Yes or No? Let's discuss this. Provide your reasoning. (I have already done so above.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, as explained above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. There's obvious misunderstanding of this point, and what someone said twenty years ago doesn't dictate policy (especially as the point was always implicit). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please read #The key question to ask and a proposed answer, which bring out the very specific need answered by the notion of reliable sources and the fact that it is after 2003 that this need was felt. In fact, I am curious to know when the term "reliable sources" and its use for articles in medicine, etc. first appeared. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The dependence on RS has always existed, even if I can't remember the exact formulations. For discussion's sake, let's play with the idea that "reliable sources" was not an "original" concept. Let us also compare our PAG to the Constitution. The Constitution was quickly found to be lacking, hence the creation of Constitutional Amendments. At Wikipedia, our PAG grow all the time, and one could view those changes as amendments and improvements to the imperfect "original" ideas at the creation of Wikipedia. When we see a need, we fix it.

It sounds like you don't think it's a good idea to base all content on RS and are seeking to create an argument for "going back to the foundations" when there was no (as you imply) such requirement. Even if you are right that there was no such requirement, it's an improvement to have it, so casting doubt on it is an unwise idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand my goal. I have nothing against the new principles. However, repeating "use reliable sources" all over the place does not explain anything. It is just advertising criteria that will be explained elsewhere. If, to do this advertising, we emphasize due weight, which was only introduced after 2003, because it fits well with "reliable sources", then it creates a serious problem. For example, the notion of attribution in the principle "attribute opinions" has almost nothing to do with reliable sources. Yes, the opinion itself must be found in reliable sources, but once the opinion is sourced, the extra requirement for attribution has nothing to do with reliable sources. Similarly, the principle "do not take sides" per se, once all sides are properly sourced, has nothing to do with reliable sources. Therefore, the emphasis is on due weight, because it is directly connected with reliable sources. Yet, due weight is not the essence of NPOV. I do not want to cast doubt on the purpose of reliable sources, but just repeating "use reliable sources" all over the place is not explaining much and if in doing so we focalize on due weight and fails to also emphasize the original principles, then I think it is very bad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't attribution almost entirely about source reliability? What is it about otherwise? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In the context of this policy, it is mostly a way to achieve the neutral point of view and, no, it is not mainly about reliability, in the same way that the way to Paris is not mainly about reliable roads. The latter is more basic, something that is better kept in the background when we explain the way to Paris. Really, it is strange that I need to explain this again and again. It is clear that we are far from having an attribution after we have only checked that the viewpoint is sourced. It should also be very clear that the purpose of attribution, which is to achieve the neutral point of view, goes way beyond the reliability of the sources. It makes no sense to suggest that the former can be reduced to the latter. Dominic Mayers (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

But isn't the decision about whether to attribute and if so what form that attribution should take almost entirely based on the reliability of the source/sources? I don't think your roads+Paris analogy works, I would drop it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that reliable sources are the foundation, etc. and I don't disagree, but only in the same sense that roads are the foundation for the way to Paris. You do not accept my argument and my analogy with the roads to Paris. Having my arguments plainly rejected with a "please drop it", no further details provided and be left with nothing to build upon to further argue is not interesting. But fine, you win, I have no further arguments. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Policy isn't based on the exact phrasing that Wales used in 2003. I understand you point, I just don't agree with you. We're not going back in time to before October 2006, which is when the policy gained it's current form. If you want to use the form before that you need to get consensus for the change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The issue at the moment is that a small set of editors misinterpret the current wording, and how best to stop that from happening. The top wording of this section details that well. If you have a different way to avoid this misunderstanding I would be interested to hear it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what is the misinterpretation. It may be that they have the correct interpretation of what it meant at the time and the problem is that some people do not like that reliable sources is not emphasized again. For example, it is clear from the context that the statement was not making a clear distinction between sources that hold a viewpoint and people that hold a viewpoint. Even today, this distinction is not always clear. That should not be an issue. I have a hard time to believe that the misinterpretation would be a confusion between people or media that are sources and wikipedia editors. It is almost impossible given the context to make this confusion. In any case, there is certainly no need to make an anachronism by mentioning reliable sources to remove that confusion. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

They do not, it did in the preceding sentence of his statement, it is clear as per the next sentence in the current policy as mentioned below, whether you believe the issue or not it does happen, not an anachronism that would only be the case in NPOV policy was the 2003 statement unchanged which it isn't.
But Valjean makes a good point that this is already covered, so the solution would be to simply point out that next sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am all for moving forward, but the notion of reliable sources does not need to be repeated all over the place, especially not when it creates an anachronism. It did not exist in 2003 and, here, we paraphrase a 2003 statement. The argument that it was implicit is wrong. If it was introduced in 2006, then it was something really new. Saying it was implicit is just playing with words. In a way, every thing potentially existed (or was implicit) at the time of the big bang ! It is also that modularity is important. There are principles that can be explained without reference to reliable sources. It is as if we were saying all the times take this reliable road and then this reliable road, etc to go to Paris. It creates confusion, because the fact that the roads are reliable is better kept implicit. It does not help to explain the way to Paris. And when I see that there is little interest here in better explaining the basic principles of NPOV and that we have that long discussion to emphasize "reliable sources" instead, some even say that I lack of focus because I complain, then I am sad. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I am withdrawing this proposal because of these words that immediately follow the text in question:

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

That really covers my objective quite well. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The "Keep in mind...." wording seems to come from a request. See Revision as of 01:37, 19 May 2008. I'm not sure it was a request I made, but it sounds exactly like something I might have added. I have added a number of things to this policy since 2003. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this subsequent sentence covers the necessary territory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This informal or pre Rfc is biased

It fails to mention the important point that it is about a paraphrase of Jimmy Wales 2003 statement. It also cherry picks what it considers relevant in that paraphrase. In particular, the following point in the 2003 statement is not mentioned:

If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides. (emphasis is mine)

It is important, because its reference to "prominent adherents" makes it clear that Jimmy Wales was thinking in very general terms. There is also a bias in making a pre RfC on reliable sources, which is already emphasized all over the place in the policy, while "without taking sides", which is a key point made in the nutshell at the top of the policy, is not even mentioned once after in the policy.

"Reliable sources" was not mentioned at the time of the 2003 statement, whereas the 2003 statement mentions "without taking sides". Since it is in the original 2003 statement, I think it is this that should appear in the paraphrase, not "reliable sources". It is also biased to refer to a "restoration". It is not that the policy was modified by removing "reliable sources" and now we want to restore it. No, it is the opposite. It has been proposed today to add it and this is contested. Dominic Mayers (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not an RfC. It is for discussion to avoid any problems in the event an RfC is necessary. It is important to examine the issue from many angles so an RfC can be focused on a limited and specific issue. It is not possible to consider every single possibility in every discussion. This just leads to endless discussions like the ones you get involved in. Other editors finally just give up as the discussions are hopeless and goalposts keep getting moved. Try to stay focused. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please do not make judgements about my manner to proceed, but focus on the essential of my arguments instead. In this way, I will not have to reply about superficial issues like I am forced to do now and we will have the required focus. Dominic Mayers (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The key question to ask and a proposed answer

Before we discuss the mention of "reliable sources" in Jimmy Wales's paraphrase, it is important to ask ourselves why, concretely, this emphasis on "reliable sources" is so important ? Why the criteria already there in 2003 ("commonly accepted reference texts" and "easy to name prominent adherents" as inclusion criteria and "extremely small minority" as an exclusion criterion) are not sufficient anymore ? By "concretely", I mean that we need to go beyond the obvious explanation. The obvious explanation fails, because there is nothing to be concerned about when it is something obvious that every one, even a wacko or a fanatic, accepts and understands. In other words, if there is a need for an emphasis, it is because it is something that must be explained to other people. I suspect that we will all agree that these people are anti-vax people or climate denial people, etc. In that context, principles such as "do not take sides", "do not engage in debates, but describe them" and "attribute opinions" do not seem sufficient. These principles were the key principles of NOPV, they are still very important and "use reliable sources" was not one of them.

Because these principles were not sufficient, in 2003, the NOR principle was added with something close to the reliable sources requirement, but it was not the reliable sources requirement. It was felt sufficient to require that the viewpoint was published in "commonly accepted reference texts". It was even considered sufficient that it is "easy to name prominent adherents". And for the rejection, it was sufficient that it was held by only an "extremely small minority". There was no mention of reliable sources. Now, again, the question is why nowadays we insist so much on the terminology "reliable sources". I propose that the explanation is that "easy to name prominent adherents" does not allow for a restrictive inclusion criteria. In contrast, with "reliable sources", we can insist that, in areas such as medicine, we must use only some special kind of meta-analyses. In other words, the reason is that "reliable sources" is more flexible when it comes to give the specific of the criterion in medicine, etc. There is nothing wrong with that.

Yet, please, please, let us not throw away the fundamental principles of NPOV, which is what this policy was about before 2003, before reliable sources, and should still be first about. I am concerned that this emphasis all over the place on "reliable sources" distract the readers from the essence of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"use reliable sources" is fundamental to all content and PAG here. There is no content without RS, and all PAG exist with that background, whether it is said or not. All PAG exist in the service of using RS to create content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not in contradiction with what I wrote. The way to Paris cannot exist if there is no roads, but it does not mean that when we explain the way to Paris, we must emphasize the concept of road. On the contrary, it can be a distraction to discuss roads when we explain the way to Paris. So, because of what you said, this emphasis on reliable sources can be a distraction away from the main principles of NPOV. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

NPOV is a huge and complicated topic with many aspects. We won't get anywhere if we must always mention every aspect in every discussion. Focus on one aspect and improve it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are simply not understanding my point and, because of that, you simply considered it out of focus. But it is entirely on focus. In fact, it goes to the essence of the matter. You keep wanting mentioning "reliable sources" and the context is "We take side with reliable sources", etc. It is important to clarify for yourself why it is important for you. Just saying it is fundamental, etc. is not a concrete answer. It is so sad that you cannot step back and concretely answer the question why it is so important to emphasise it and then see the connection between this and the original principles of NPOV, which existed before the specific notion of reliable sources, which you want to emphasize. Dominic Mayers (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I give up [on discussing with Dominic]. I'm not going to get caught up in another time sink with you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I was going to oppose, but if the OP has given up I guess I don't need to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan:, I meant a discussion with Dominic (so have added that now). Such discussions drag on forever and yield little of worth. You can "oppose" above in the right section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Valjean The WP:TALK guideline re changing your own comment after there's been a reply includes Any inserted text should be marked with <ins>...</ins>, which renders in most browsers as underlined text, e.g., inserted. E.g. [on discussing with Dominic].Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that clue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Curious what your objection is? The same paragraph says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.", so adding "reliable sources" again seems unnecessary. This phrasing is also a bit more sophisticated, in that reliable sources might be telling us a view is held by a large majority, which we would believe in contrast to unreliable sources telling us a large number of people think the world is flat. Though I wouldn't necessarily object to adding "of reliable sources" either, since it doesn't seem like it would change anything. -- Beland (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the proposal because of words that immediately follow the text in question. See the section above about this matter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Beland, FYI I'd have objected again that when paraphrasing Mr Wales one should not insert words that bear no resemblance to his actual words, but I don't need to. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. The page says the bulleted list is paraphrasing Wales, but the paragraph above makes no such representation; I would expect that to represent the modern consensus of the current community of editors. -- Beland (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dominic, I'm not sure that I understand what "without taking sides" means to you.

Imagine a world in which there was an online encyclopedia. We are all big fans and want to write an article about it. Imagine that every single independent source ever published about it consistently pans it: "All the content is bad, but fortunately, there's hardly any of it." "A survey of history articles indicates that the article creation priority is 'Every possible detail about the three historically unimportant minor battles that J. Henry Smith IV believes his great-great-great-grandfather was present during'." "When I find two grammatically correct sentences in a row, the surprise throws me off for the whole day." "We fact-checked 100 sentences and found 250 errors." "My aunt knows more than those goofs, and she can't even figure out how to turn off the flashlight on her smartphone."

What would "not taking sides" look like in such a case? Does that mean writing something like:

• "It has limited content, but covers some areas, such as certain minor battles during the War, in detail"? or
• "It has been harshly criticized for error-riddled content, low-quality writing and haphazard content"? or
• "It has been criticized some but is appreciated by others" [with Wikipedia editors being the unnamed 'others']?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

How to not take sides (reply to a question)

@WhatamIdoing:, I feel a bit embarrassed by your question, because this talk page is not the place to discuss the personal understanding of NPOV of anyone in particular. On the other hand, it is the place to ask if the principle "do not take sides", which is the very starting point in the nutshell and always have been central in the NPOV policy is misused. I think it is misused, by being not used enough. There are basic notions in life that we, human beings, share and that we should not try to define and the notion of not taking sides, being neutral, is one of them. We give examples to make sure we refer to the same notion, but examples are not definitions. If I take your fictive example, the way to not take sides is to write something like every single independent source ever published about it consistently pans it. This was an easy case, because you have given what is to be considered factual about existing viewpoints. When you are factual, you are not taking sides, but simply present the facts. Another example is to say "John said X" instead of directly "X". You are not taking sides with John when you say "John said X". As far as the readers are concerned, you might even disagree with John, but you simply give the fact that "John said X". In real practical cases, it is not so easy to find the facts, but in your fictive example, you made it very easy, because you wrote at the start what is to be considered factual. I am not saying that the definition of "do not take sides" is "be factual", of course not. These are only examples how to achieve it. We all share the notions of "not taking sides", "being neutral", but it is a basic notions that cannot be defined. It is impossible to define every thing, because every definition depends on other notions that also need to be defined and we will never reach the bottom of it. The most important notions, the one that we must use the most, are not definable. Dominic Mayers (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

And how do you determine what is a fact without determining what is a reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This point has been covered again and again. I consider it a distraction from the essential when we try to explain the neutral point of view, just like mentioning all the times the importance of reliable roads can only bring confusion, if the goal is to explain the way to Paris. However, since you insist, I will expand on this. We learned here that reliability must be about the factual content of sources. If a source presents the point of view of a notorious wacko, the source is reliable as long as it is a fact that the wacko have this viewpoint. The source is not unreliable simply because it presents the viewpoint of a wacko. It is different, if the source presents the wacko as being a notorious scientific, because it is false that the wacko is a notorious scientific. This is why we need reliable sources that represent well every scientific domain. This is something that needs to be explained in the reliable sources guidelines. It is a distraction from the essential to emphasize this while we explain the neutral point of view. Dominic Mayers (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your reply reminds me of the FAQ at the top of WT:V, which says:

Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"?

No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual.

Another way of putting it is that all sources are reliable for something ("William Wacko said X", cited to him saying that) and that no source is reliable for everything (The best scholarly work of the previous decade is an impossibly bad source for last week's movie).

(I have more to say about this, but I'll add it below.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe - and I don't think most editors believe - that the principle do not take sides applies in all instances. To use time-honored examples, Wikipedia articles do, in fact, "take sides" between geocenteic and heliocentric models of planetary motion, and between young earth creationist and evolutionary accounts of life on this planet. We also take sides over the question, did Donald Trump win the 2020 presidential election? So the scope of topics to which "do not take sides" applies needs to be defined in practice, and I think WP:FRINGE represents a pretty good step to articulate many of the relevant considerations.

Put simply, the way I would articulate this is that sometimes WP:NPOV requires article text to take sides. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:, I agree with you, but think it is better to say that Wikipedia "appears to take the side" of mainstream RS over unreliable sources or no sources by allowing RS to get the due weight they deserve. Wikipedia stays neutral by not interfering with what RS and by enabling RS to voice their views without the interference of editorial bias.

The very existence of WP:RS nails "Reliable Sources" ("Theses #96") fast to the PAG door as foundational to how we operate. Article content should reflect what RS say, and the bias found in RS should shine through, as we are not allowed to censor or neuter the bias and opinions of a RS. Editors must not get in the way. OTOH, Wikipedia does not take a side when there is a difference of opinion between RS. Then we "explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure it is productive to discuss among us what "most editors believe". Instead, why not directly find among us about a good understanding of NPOV. I think you are saying that it is not always obvious how to apply "not taking sides". The problem is that, even if we try not to take sides, we might be taking sides. One example of this would be to attribute the viewpoint that "Donald Trump did not win the 2020 presidential election" to Biden. It seems that we are only being factual, because it is a fact that Biden has this viewpoint. Yet, it suggests that it is Biden vs Trump and this is not really factual. So, the problem is not with the basic concept of "not taking sides", but how to apply it correctly, Dominic Mayers (talk) 15:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, the way I would put it is that our shared social reality sometimes regards one epistemic assertion as "correct", "factual" or "true" and alternatives to it as "incorrect", "non-factual" or "false". Under these circumstances, WP:NPOV requires us to state "facts" as facts, not as opinions, even though this would be seen by those taking the small minority view as "taking sides" against their worldview and with the dominant episteme. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The expression "dominant episteme" sounds philosophical. Philosophy is more practical that some might think. Despite of this practical value, there is a big danger that people think that, if it is philosophical, it is not practical and must not be part of the policy. We would get rid of concepts such as "not taking sides", "not engage in debates, but describe them", because discussing these practical principles do involve some philosophical points. We would only focus on "Reliable sources" as the key ingredient: we follow the reliable sources and all problems are gone. That would be a terrible mistake. I even stop here and remove every thing else I wrote before. I will summarize them in a single sentence: please, let us not reject the universal principles of neutrality, "not taking sides", "attribute opinions", "do not engage in debates, but describe them", only because they are not always easy to apply and might even raise philosophical questions. Dominic Mayers (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I can assure you that no one here is proposing we "reject" any of that. I suspect that we are often "talking past each other" and therefore misunderstanding each other. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Dominic, I think you and I have very similar ideas of what should end up in an article, and different ways of explaining it. IMO yours requires editors to have a much higher level of competence. I'm moving towards a least-common-denominator model.

For example:

• A: Donald Trump lost the election.
• B: No, he didn't!

Both of those are assertions of fact, using a definition along the lines of "a statement that can be proven to have a truth value". One of the statements is correct (a "true fact") and one of the statements is wrong (a "false fact").

These, however, are statements of opinion:

• C: Trump was a bad president.
• D: Trump deserved to win the election.

For matters of undisputed fact, we should WP:ASSERT the fact: "Biden won the election." For matters of opinion, we should assert facts about important/common opinions: "Many Republican politicians said that Trump was a good president and deserved to win". Sometimes we should even assert factual statements about the false facts: "Some people falsely claimed that Trump won the election".

One of the main reasons that I've been moving towards the least-common-denominator model is because we have editors who believe that "Trump won the election" is a true fact. (Another is because editors have so much trouble differentiating between opinion and fact.) So when if we say "When you are factual, you are not taking sides. Simply present the facts, and the article will be neutral", the response is "The simple fact is that Trump actually won the election. If you want a factual article, then say that Trump won. If you don't say that Trump won the election, then you are taking sides against me!"

Whereas when we say "Neutral means whatever the reliable sources say, and if it's not in a source that the community will accept as Reliable™ for that statement, then it can't be added", then that same person will yell about how we're taking sides but accept that our rules require us to present the mainstream media POV as factual.

In other words, we solve more disputes, faster, by emphasizing reliable sources than we do by emphasizing a subject that POV pushers do not understand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My feeling is that most examples that we consider create false dilemmas, by restricting the problem to a choice between two statements such as "Won the election" or "Lost the election". There is always an almost infinite number of possibilities, most of them adding extra information. The neutral point of view must take advantage of this. Take, for example, the earth is spherical vs the earth is flat. The article Earth says "Earth is rounded into an ellipsoid with a circumference of about 40,000 km." It is not only "The earth is round" (in opposition to "the earth is flat"). It does not affirm the earth is spherical, but provides encyclopedic information that turns out to say that it is rounded (but they could and perhaps should have used "shaped" instead). Also, one could conclude way before that statement that the earth is not flat, by the picture, the mention of its core, etc. It does not engage in a debate. In this case, it does not even need to describe a debate. A similar attitude should apply to the last USA election. In my view, there is not even a debate here also. But, the exact claim made by Trump could be pertinent in some context. In that case, we should simply be informative about it. If it is done well, the readers will not be mislead (just as it would also be the case if we mentioned beliefs that the earth is flat). Again, the way to achieve that is by being informative. Of course, if we simply reduce it to "Trump won" vs "Trump lost", then we have a serious problem that even attribution would not solve. This is why the neutral point of view should not be reduced to "attribution of opinions". This limited view of the neutral point of view associated with false dilemmas is so wrong. Dominic Mayers (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia "take sides"?

Proposed new section:

Does Wikipedia "take sides"?

The nutshell of NPOV says: "Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias."

But what about when it appears that Wikipedia "takes a side" and is "biased" toward that side? How can that even happen? It all depends on whether or not there is any significant disagreement between reliable sources. In either case, Wikipedia remains neutral and lets reliable sources speak.

When there is no significant disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia appears to take the side of mainstream reliable sources (over the views in unreliable sources) because it allows reliable sources to get the full due weight they deserve (unreliable sources have zero due weight). Wikipedia stays neutral by not interfering with what reliable sources say and by enabling them to voice their views without the interference and distortion of editorial bias.

By contrast, when there is a significant disagreement between reliable sources, Wikipedia does "not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias".

The NPOV policy requires articles to fairly and proportionately represent the views published in reliable sources. It does not permit editors to "correct" or remove biases they see in sources, or to allow their own beliefs and opinions to "get between" the sources and the article content. Editors should put their own opinions aside and "stay out of the way" by neutrally documenting what a source says, including its opinions and biases. That means that when editors edit neutrally, Wikipedia content will reflect the biases found in reliable sources, and that form of bias is okay. It is "editorial bias" that is wrong.

Let's brainstorm this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the nutshell could profitably be re-written from the ground up, but I think it should be done after the policy itself is restructured, and I propose that the best method for doing this involves time travel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh crap! Now you've got me crying when I think of Sarah "SV" (SlimVirgin). She is missed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This proposed addition seems redundant to the "Explanation" and "Due and undue weight" sections. The claim that reflecting the biases found in reliable sources is OK sounds bad, and is bound to be extremely controversial and generate a lot of outrage and possibly bad press coverage. I'm happy with the NPOV policy as it is. -- Beland (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It may or may not be redundant, but some parts are not mentioned at all here. It's usually only controversial with the fringe who are unhappy with what RS say. They already "generate a lot of outrage" when we allow RS to speak and refuse to create a false balance to soothe their fringe feelings. It's also consistent with current practice and interpretation of multiple policies. It's largely a "no false balance" entry that also makes it clear that bias from sources, unlike editorial bias, is allowed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem at people pushing fringe POVs being outraged at the "due weight" rule. That's a sensible rule that I can stand behind. Saying things like "Wikipedia takes sides when reliable sources don't disagree" and "Wikipedia reflects the bias of its sources" will produce reasonable rebuttals like "Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, it should be neutral" and "Wikipedia should correct for the bias of its sources". Those rebuttals sound completely reasonable to me, and will to many people who will not understand the philosophical nuance of your argument. I do not see any circumstance where adding those sentiments to the NPOV policy would change the existing rules in any way or affect the outcome of any discussion, do you? If not, they are really best left unsaid. -- Beland (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea of "taking sides" in the "no significant disagreement" case arguably doesn't make sense. Wikipedia doesn't appear to or actually take a side when there are no sides to take. It merely reports consensus reality. That is, in fact, nearly all of what the encyclopedia does. -- Beland (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Something that WAID brought up as example would be something to consider in talking about the "no significant disagreement" section. While today the media sentiment around Trump is "Trump is the worst president in US history", it would seem far too early to treat that as a fact, dispute all other factors of "no significant disagreement" given above being met. It's not a stance that WP should take until some years have gone by, and we have more academic/less news media evaluation of Trump's presidency. It's not that we can't talk of this sentiment in attributed form, just not in factual. Basically we should not be trying to decide when there is "no significant disagreement" in the short term.

Note that this still means that UNDUE applies as well as no false balances in the short term. There are not a lot of views from RS that present Trump's president as highly rated, so we'd still mostly have commentary from RSes that would easily summarize the presidency as one of the worst, just that we'd use appropriate language and attribution to keep the sentiment out of wiki voice. Masem (t) 19:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, as long as we interpret "should take" in your "It's not a stance that WP should take" as "documenting a stance that RS take". Wikipedia just reflects the RS, not some permanent "stance". That means that something like this example, can change over time. That's why our articles are "never finished". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I mean, in my context, not a stance WP should take in wiki voice, but absolutely something we should document with necessary language and attribution in the short term, as long as we are otherwise following UNDUE. Masem (t) 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. We are not talking about wikivoice. That would be a case-by-case matter determined by local consensus. When in doubt, use attribution, by all means.

Wikipedia doesn't really "take a stance", it just sides with RS by giving them due weight over unreliable sources. To the fringe crowd, that will always seem like Wikipedia is "taking sides", when in fact that is only a "perceived" bias from Wikipedia's editors. In reality, it's the bias found in RS, and editors are neutrally letting RS speak. That's our job, and we must keep our opinions and biases out of the editing process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, agree with all that; but as I've discussed elsewhere many times before, our reporting of the dominate POV on a recent topic or event in the short term should not be written as if the dominate POV was fact. (that is we should report, factually and in wiki voice, that a dominant viewpoint on a topic is X, but not to a point where we are saying X is factual in wiki voice) With time and more sources that are independent, secondary, and looking back in time, we may end up treating the dominant view as a fact in wiki voice, but that's on the order of decades. I see a lot of cases were editors want to rush to convert a dominant viewpoint into a fact too close to events or even while the event is ongoing, on the basis that if there is only one dominant viewpoint and no contestable positions, that viewpoint must be fact and the NPOV rules on "don't report facts as opinions" apply and state the domininant viewpoint as wiki voice fact.

A lot of this is the fact that we as a whole obsess on current event articles, wanting to include opinions from every posdible RS that reports on these. This is not encyclopedic writing where we are to summary of nature of opinions about a topic. That's a larger problem beyond NPOV but NPOV is affected by it. Masem (t) 21:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Define 'significant disagreement'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's use a couple examples. I would guess it means quite a bit more than the less than 3% of climate scientists who doubt global warming. There are real disagreements in science, and there are manufactured/fake disagreements that are exploited. The climate skeptics and anti-vaxxers claim there are serious disagreements in science and medicine, when there really aren't. There is a lot of fame and money to be made from pushing conspiracy theories and denying common knowledge and reality. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The most common form of bias in Wikipedia isn't about presenting the two sides of the issue, (or Wikipedia explicitly "taking a side") it's about which information is covered/ overcovered and which information is isn't covered / is undercovered. And in certain areas (e.g. US politics) it certainly does have a systemic bias. At the core of that is the "unbiased means echoing what the wiki-selected US media sources say/cover" thought process. I've stopped worrying about the higher bar of being unbiased, and just get concerned when it gets so bad that it affects the informativeness of articles, which does happen. North8000 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In a way, "not taking sides" includes not being attach to the specific content that originally define each side. I explain what I mean here in my comment above. An example of extra information is the arguments used by each side or anything that makes Wikipedia more informative/descriptive than engaged. From this angle, I agree that the information not covered can often be the issue, but I am not sure what exactly is the point in your case. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective we pick the side of NPOV... That means inherently we pick a number of sides... It means that we're anti-authoritarian, anti-aristocratic, anti-mystic, and anti-fringe. One of the earliest complaints about encyclopedias is that they didn't respect the "natural order" of the world because they listed all the worlds things together... Meaning commoner could come before noble and sacred could be sandwiched by profane... So the simple act of arranging an encyclopedia has never been a neutral act in the larger sense, it can't be... But it can be done from a neutral point of view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because some people here are not getting my point above, I feel compelled to provide an answer to the original question: "No, Wikipedia does not take a side on content. It only takes a side on sourcing. As proven by the WP:RS policy, it sides with RS." Any bias found in articles should not come from editors taking sides. It should only come from the sources. Therefore, any evidence of bias should not be perceived as Wikipedia taking sides. That's a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia functions. Wikipedia does not take sides. That is still unchanged. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because this is not addressd in the NPOV policy, I feel it should be addressed. That's what this thread is about. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It all depends on how you formulate it... If NPOV is a side we take a side... If NPOV is the lack of a side we do not. Perhaps I am biased because of my political science background, in political science neutrality is a position not the lack of a position (for example Swiss neutrality) in the same way that being non-aligned is actually being aligned... There are I guess two questions here, a practical one in which I find myself in almost complete agreement and a philosophical side where there becomes a chicken and an egg problem if not taking a side is taking a side. Some see neutrality as being against everyone, some see it as being against no one, and some see it as both... That seems to me more than anything in the actual wording of NPOV to alter how different editors perceive the policy. How to address that problem? I really don't know, I wish I did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

You do not understand that the neutral point of view is not obtained by following what reliable sources say. It involves a lot of editorial work. In the french version, they even refer to this editorial work as "personal". The trivial case of this editorial work is attribution. Attribution is not at all a trivial work. So, only with this case, we can see that the neutral point of view is NOT following what reliable sources say. Another example is this part of the policy that says try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone. It's way more than that. The very concept of a synthesis is a lot of editorial work that must be done in the neutral point of view. Because of all these points, the neutral point of view goes way beyond simply following what the reliable sources say. Dominic Mayers (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

This is pointing to the wrong place. First: it is wrong to say "WP:RS policy", it is a guideline and it does not "prove" anything. Second, the first sentence of WP:NPOV points not to WP:RS but to WP:V -- at one point in 2010 it was specifically pointing to WP:SOURCES within that (see "as defined by the WP:SOURCES sourcing policy", I haven't traced to where somebody made it vaguer but that's the relevant part of WP:V). Near the top of WP:RS are the words "for Wikipedia policy on reliable sources" and a pointer to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources -- because the WP:RS guideline tail does not wag the WP:V policy dog. Sprinkling the vague linkless words "reliable sources" elsewhere in WP:NPOV is a mistake which causes confusion like this idea that WP:NPOV needs WP:RS, but not enough confusion to overthrow 14 years of pointing to WP:V. It is addressed in the WP:NPOV policy by pointing to WP:SOURCES. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's the wrong question

The question is Does Wikipedia take sides? We will have a lot of answers depending on the interpretation of "taking sides". Some, will say that Wikipedia must in many cases take sides, but this is because of what they associate with "taking sides". It's the wrong approach. The correct approach is to respect the idea that has been there and has defined Wikipedia for more than 20 years and try to agree on how to practically achieve it. The point is that, not taking sides, in the sense of being neutral, is generally accepted as positive for an encyclopedia and we should start with this as a premise and build around it. The way I understand it, "not taking sides" can be achieved by being more descriptive/informative, more factual, less engaged in superficial ill informed debates. Even those who originally say that Wikipedia must often take sides, without fundamentally changing their mind, might agree this is a good thing. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)