User:Dreftymac/Docs/NPOVCriticismDebate

Background

This is a discussion primarily between Vassyana and dr.ef.tymac. The primary point of contention was whether (and to what extent) should WP:NPOV expressly disfavor the use of "Criticism" sections in WP articles. Dreftymac initially expressed "strong objection" to Vassyana's proposal. After a long discussion, a compromise evolved in the form of a draft, and the principle parties to the discussion all expressed approval, including Dreftymac, who expressed "strong support" for the final outcome.

Criticism and controversy sections

Are criticism and controversy sections in articles in harmony with the principles of NPOV? Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject? It is my opinion that the answer to both questions is a resounding "Yes". I believe the best resolution would be to delete the section and merge the material into the article with the rest of the information. What do people think? Vassyana 23:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was an attempt to codify this in Wikipedia:Criticism, Vassyana, but it failed to gain support to become a guideline. But I agree that merging is a better option in most cases. See below.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with the view expressed by others that often, they are a symptom of bad writing. That is, it isn't that we should not include the criticisms, but that the information should be properly incorporated throughout the article rather than having a troll magnet section of random criticisms.

— Jimbo Wales (May 2006)

There are instances when seperate principles fail to become a rule of their own but are incorporated into appropriate guidelines and policies. Jimbo's comment exactly expresses my concern and desired resolution. The Manual of Style also supports the position that seperate criticism sections are bad form (at best). It should be noted the relevent section of the MoS refers to NPOV. We have a consensus reading of NPOV (MoS is a guideline) that advises against seperate criticism sections. We have Jimbo explicitly stating they are "a symptom of bad writing" and that the information should "be properly incorporated throughout the article". Unless there are serious objections, the NPOV page should be changed to reflect existing consensus and Jimbo's statement. Vassyana 23:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection

Strong and serious objection: The conclusory and simplistic statement: "a criticism section is a symptom of bad writing" ignores the most prevalent and obvious constraints associated with a collaborative editing project that has essentially no entry barriers (other than access to a computer that happens to be connected to the internet). This simplistic view might be tenable in rare circumstances where one or a few people have the authority to exercise complete editorial control over content, but that is clearly not the case with the vast majority of WP content.

It's nice to imagine that "we should all just get along" and contribute to the project in a manner that reflects the absolute highest ideals of English composition and stylistic refinement, but let's get real. For some articles, the plain fact is that there are many who consider *any* criticism at all (or conversely, any favorable treatment) to be completely irrelevant (even if well-researched, substantiated with reliable sources, and non-inflammatory).

I have personally burned through a lot of time simply to get balanced content (both pro *and* con) into articles before. Trying to condense it all into unified prose can be a monumental pain, because every neophyte editor with an axe to grind feels the irresistible compulsion to add a series of "yes X is true BUT Y" ... "but also Y is just a load of B.S. to obfuscate Z" ... "but then again, no one really takes Z seriously anyway, except ... blah blah blah."

The end result is a desultory melange of obviously disjointed text in which each clause is clearly the work of multiple editors with an obvious "side" in the debate. The absolute *worst* kind of writing one can imagine for an Encyclopedia is the kind where a reader can easily guess which words were added by which contributor, and which "side" that contributor was on. This is anathema to the spirit and letter of NPOV, and sometimes the only way to credibly resolve the matter is to segregate the contentious portions into more than one "section" each.

I don't like it any more than you do, but sometimes the level of dedication and maturity of contributors is simply not consistently high enough to merit a wholesale discrediting of this "segregational" editorial tactic. dr.ef.tymac 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you describe only applies to an extreme minority of articles. Additionally, I personally find appeals to the lowest common denominator to be repulsive. We must not only assume, but expect and demand a certain level of restraint and maturity. I agree that obvious POV editing is anathema to the project and NPOV. However, I cannot fathom how highlighting those POVs at all resolves the issue, instead of exacerbating it. We cannot shy away from implementing and enforcing standards because we might believe some people cannot hold themselves to those standards. Vassyana 01:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, the remark about appealing to "the lowest common denominator" is at best a non-sequitur, and at worst a woefully deficient disregard of the most readily apparent evidence revealed by even the most *trivial* efforts to reform WP content for style, neutrality and consistency. The evidence is clear ... *precious few* WP contributors exhibit the highest degrees of dispassionate detached professionalism necessary to make this proposal work. A blanket repudiation of "criticism sections" is just not tenable given the universality and openness that is at the very foundation of WP:

• we're providing access to the sum of human knowledge ... Jimmy_Wales#Wikipedia_and_Wikimedia_Foundation
• our success ... entirely a function of our open community ... User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles
• the openness and viral nature of it, are fundamental to the long-term success ... (Ibid.)

Like I said, I am not happy about this, I like it probably less than you, but the proof is in the pudding, and I will provide you with an example to substantiate what I am saying. dr.ef.tymac 01:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Specific example to back up objection

Case in point: a specific example to substantiate the strong and serious objection.

People like to have tangible proof, so I hasten to provide you with a case in point: XML. Technology articles have a strong tendency toward partisanship, and the effort required to tone down the rhetoric on both "sides" of the fence should not be underestimated. Consider the following:

• this is what the article looked like prior to improvement.
  • notice here that editors were following the "incorporate rather than segregate" strategy and turning the "criticism section" into a "discussion board" of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals (the "support" section remained unsullied, because the vast majority of contributors were partisans on the "pro" side, surprise-surprise!)
  • the discussion page includes a compelling and justifiable explanation for why the pre-improvement version was next to useless. Someone wanted a quick review of "pros and cons" and the "discussion board" wasn't cutting it.
• this is the current version of the relevant text XML#Critique_of_XML.
  • Notice how the content is: a) easily scannable; b) entirely free of duplicative and superfluous remarks (something that was difficult to even *detect* in the pre-improved version); and c)nearly entirely supported by citations.

Now seriously, I ask you, which one looks better? Which looks more useful to someone who doesn't care about partisanship, and just wants a no-bull summary that is objective and concise (and allows them to get on with their life)?

• Before? OR
• After?

...

Quick summary of objection

To repeat:

I cannot state this emphatically enough:

• A separated criticism section does not necessarily always equate with "bad writing";
• Even if we assume that such sections *do* always equate with "less than absolutely stellar writing" that does not constitute an appeal to the "lowest common denominator";
• We should not let hypothetical ideals force the "Excellent" to become the enemy of the "Good"; and
• Even if we ignore all the evidence to the contrary, there is simply no substantiation for the assertion that a repudiation of "criticism sections" will result in an improvement of writing in WP articles (let alone a meteoric rise to the standard of "universal excellence"). dr.ef.tymac 01:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(redent) The lowest common denominator comment was not a non-sequitur. Appealing to a lack of maturity and self-discipline is certainly setting the mark low. Your rationale applies equally well to most of our policies and guidelines. If few enough editors are not professional, dispassionate and/or mature enough to simply integrate criticism as other facts and views, I'd say the project is equally doomed. (Please note that reports of Wikipedia's impending death on similar grounds have been greatly exagerrated.)

On your example, it does little to support the point you're trying to make. The editors were not trying to integrate rather than segegrate. There was a seperate criticism section and it became quite bloated. Your example demonstrates that such sections can be cleaned up, but reveals nothing about the difficulty of integrating the material into the article without a seperate section. Additionally, it's still a reasonable example of what is wrong with segrating such data. It still draws attention to material obviously written by pro and con editors. It's a bullet list instead of proper writing. It's a loosely collected set of facts with little to no context. So, the seperate section is still bad writing. The individual statements may be nice and squeaky, but it's still bad writing, as writing is more than making individually nice statements.

I fail to how see my proposal would make excellant the enemy of good. Where is "all the evidence to the contrary"? So far, the evidence you've shown demonstrates that even when cleaned up nicely, segregated sections for criticism still result in poor writing. Vassyana 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana's (apparent agreement with dr.ef.tymac?)

Let's slow down for a minute here, because you seem to be vehemently and vociferously making *precisely* my point; agreeing with me, while simultaneously (although surely unintentionally) mischaracterizing my rationale.

Agreement 1: I entirely agree with you: well-integrated and unified prose is an attribute of good writing, and is probably a necessary characteristic of any writing that aspires to the absolute highest levels of credibility and professionalism;

Agreement 2: You also seem to agree with me that the "After" example I gave was an improvement relative to the "Before" ... (In your words: what had "become quite bloated" was "cleaned up nicely");

Agreement 3: You also seem to agree with me that the text still falls short of the *highest* standard of "well-integrated and unified prose" (the only difference here seems that you summarily dismiss the end-result as "poor" ... whereas, I would say it's "adequate" and "appropriate under the circumstances" discussed below).

Ok. So unless you want to clarify, we do indeed agree at least on some things. Now tell me, where in those points of agreement do you see an "appeal to lack of maturity and self-discipline"? Please go back and re-read. I said the *highest* degrees of professionalism ... I am not saying all (or even most) WP contributors are "immature" ... what I *am* saying is that you've yet to demonstrate that most meet the *highest* standard of what would probably be necessary, in order to attain this *highest* level of quality. Since you are the one forwarding the proposal, you are the one with the burden of proof.

Summary: Quality is not a binary determination. Just because something is not "stellar" does not automatically make it "poor". There's always room for improvement.

Flawed assertions by Vassyana

It still draws attention to material obviously written by pro and con editors.

• Have you even read the article? Every single one of the "disadvantages" is supported by at least one citation to an external source. Most of those sources were written by authors who actually advocate and use XML. I can't think of a better example of balanced use of sources than that. Also, it's neither "pro" nor "con" to say "A hammer is great for pounding nails, but not good for cutting wood" ... that's just the reality and a good summary for people who are unfamiliar with the tool.

It's a bullet list instead of proper writing.

• So do you propose that "bullet lists" should be deprecated from WP articles as too POV also? -- allowable only on discussion pages? I'm doing my best to see the merit in your viewpoints, but this type of blanket dismissal makes it difficult;

segregated sections for criticism still result in poor writing

• Even if I strain real hard and take this statement at face value, it does *nothing* to support your original assertion: "Isn't it a form of undue weight to highlight negative views of the subject?" At best, the (tenuous) assertion of "quality" is a matter of style and not one of substantive balance. The two are entirely separate issues.

As I said previously, I don't think the "improvement" is "poor" ... I think it's adequate for the circumstances. XML is a tool, and people who want to learn more about a tool also tend to want to learn what jobs that tool is good for, and what jobs it is not partcularly suited for. I think the same can be said for "Pro and Con" sections in WP articles. They are a tool. A tool for reducing strife, a tool for minimizing bloat, and a tool for reaching compromise when more desirable heights of "quality and refinement" are not within easy reach.

Summary: To universally dismiss this kind of article structure as "inherently POV" and "always poor writing" is manifestly inconsistent with the spirit of openness, flexibility and incremental improvement that has made WP what it is today.

Simple way for Vassyana to win this debate convince dr.ef.tymac

Now comes the good part. I've given you a concrete example (even though I'm not the one with the burden of proof). So now it's your turn. I would be more than happy for you to prove my objections unwarranted. I would be more than happy for you to substantiate your principles, glib generalizations, and theoretic abstractions with with a concrete demonstration:

Please go to the XML article, and take out the "Advantages and Disadvantages" section, and integrate that all into "well-integrated and unified prose". Your modifications must reflect the highest levels of quality and professionalism.

Oh yeah, by the way:

• you will still have to comply with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V and WP:OR;
• you will still have to address the concerns of readers who want a "quick summary" so they can fairly and quickly evaluate whether XML is a suitable tool for their next project;
• you will still have to maintain the standard of "characterizing debates, but not engaging in them";
• you will still have to make sure to keep an eye on the discussion page to make sure your edits are not considered jarring or otherwise disruptive to people who do not visit WP every day and may not discover your changes until weeks or months hence.

Please get that done ASAP. (Bonus points: you will *really* win me over if you start with the "raw material" of the "Before" version, as the basis of your concrete demonstration.)

dr.ef.tymac 15:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Recap

Is this about "wining a debate"? Or about discussing ways to improve the project? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree — We do need to come to some type of guideline on this issue... I have readers that request criticism sections on FA articles that already have it well-integrated with unified prose. There are so many articles with criticism sections, not because it is best for the article but because it is easy, that some readers have objections when they don't see one. In most cases, they make for cherry-picking of pro or con points with little context. I agree that some articles should have a criticism section (I've written some myself) but for the most part, they should be discouraged. Morphh ^(talk) 16:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to User:Morphh: I have readers that request criticism sections on FA articles that already have it well-integrated with unified prose.

If that's the only issue, then we can call it resolved. I entirely support the principle that already well-integrated prose and FA quality should not be disrupted by addition of a "Criticism section". That's *very* different from saying that such sections should be prevented *as a rule*. That's also very different from claiming that such sections are always a reduction in quality. I think we all agree that the end goal should be to move all articles to "good" and then "featured" status. All I am saying is please don't deprive editors of the various tools to make that progress forward. dr.ef.tymac 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I took out the word "debate" that seemed to cause some dismay. Obviously we're discussing ways to improve. The problem is there's a sticking-point of disagreement. It needs to be resolved. I will repeat: I am simply making a good-faith attempt to understand your position, find common ground, and hopefully be persuaded by whatever may be the merits of your view. dr.ef.tymac 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a debate nor a competition. I was expressing my view of the situation and your responses. This isn't supposed to be about proving anything to anybody. It is supposed to be a discussion. That said, let me address your points. We do agree on points one and two. We do not agree that point two is a change from "poor" to "good". To me, it's a matter of "bad" to "not-so-bad". Point 3, and other similar statements, are where we strongly disagree, I believe. You consider what I propose to be a hallmark of the highest standard of writing, whereas I consider it a basic measure of neutral article structure. I think this is our most fundamental point of disagreement. Your point about the sourcing of the bullet points is quite honestly irrelevant to me. I do not believe it is a concern of the issue at hand. Well-referenced does not mean well-balanced or well-written. I think bullet lists are greatly overused in mainspace. Unless there is a pressing reason, standard prose writing should be used. I cannot understand your assertion that style and substantive balance are not intimately related. Tone of voice, article layout and word choice are example matters of style that directly relate to the neutrality and balance of a given article. As always, this is just my own opinion of that matter. You're more than welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to move forward

This isn't supposed to be about proving anything

Vassyana, you've made some theoretical assertions and I'm asking you to substantiate them. It's just that simple. Theoretical assertions and blanket generalizations can go only so far. Credibility and good-faith review calls for a demonstration.

We do not agree that point two is a change from "poor" to "good".

Huh? I never said you agreed with "change from poor to good". Indeed that's the first time I've even seen that particular wording at all in this discussion. Do you now disavow your previous statement: what had "become quite bloated" was "cleaned up nicely"?

I consider it a basic measure of neutral article structure

Do you have any substantiation for the (implicit) claim that certain kinds of "article structure" automatically reflect Undue Weight? Do you have any substantiation that "bullet lists" are an instance of both "poor" style" and "Undue Weight"? If this measure is so basic and ordinary, why haven't you provided the demonstration yet?

Well-referenced does not mean well-balanced or well-written.

Oy vey. Just previously you said this was an issue of a "basic" measure. Basic is not always the same as "well-written". Do you not see that quality is an *incremental and context-specific measure*? Even if well-referenced is not good enough for you, *surely* it's got to be an improvement over "totally unreferenced." Which was precisely the case with the "Before" text in our example.

I think bullet lists are greatly overused in mainspace.

Greatly overused eh? This must mean they have *some* (even if minimal) legitimate use. Care to name any? Also, have you brought up this concern up at the village pump? If they are so pernicious, I'm sure you can have them taken out of Wikicode.

I cannot understand your assertion that style and substantive balance are not intimately related.

Again, you've re-worded, I never said that. My point is very simple. Just because an article has stylistic problems *does not automatically mean it fails under Undue Weight or NPOV* ... A very trivial example is a neutral and balanced article that nonetheless has spelling errors and incorrect punctuation; all of which can be corrected without claiming a POV violation.

Unless there is a pressing reason, standard prose writing should be used.

So are you saying that adding references to totally unreferenced and "bloated" article text; bringing an end to tedious 'in-article' cross-rebuttals; and addressing specific concerns discussed on a Talk page are not "pressing reasons"? Can you provide an example of what you meant by pressing reasons?

Vassyana, as you said, this is supposed to be a discussion. I've conceded that some of your points have (or may have) merit, and I've gone out of my way to find common ground and points of agreement with you. I've even backed up my assertions by reference to an example from a specific article, so that this discussion has at least some basis in practicality.

In contrast, you've given entirely unfavorable assessments of the good-faith work of other WP contributors; you've emphasized exclusively negative aspects in the example; you've re-worded some of my discussion points, and then disagreed with the re-worded version; you've given plenty examples pronouncements of what fails to meet your standards, but no improvements other than theoretic guidelines; and you've provided lots of opinion (which is of course welcome) but *zero* concrete demonstration. How can consensus and compromise emerge from such a pattern of "discussion" as this?

Please, help demonstrate that this is in fact a discussion, and not just someone handing down opinions from on high. Can you please show how "basic" your point really is with a good-faith and practical demonstration?

This seems like a very reasonable request and a practical way to move forward. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Web specifications aren't really my area of interest or expertise. However, I am very familiar with religious studies and active in dispute resolution. You can review a draft I made for Fellowship of Friends. You can review the [history] to see how I went about it. You can also see on the article talk page that this integration received wide support. This includes support from those who opposed such a merge based on various concerns. That particular article obviously needs more improvement overall, but it is a good faith and practical demonstration of merging criticism sections and the support it can receive even from recalcitrant editors.

I have never said, nor implied, that bulleting is such a problem that it should be removed from wikicode. All I said, was that in my opinion they are overused in mainspace. Bullet lists would be appropriate for a list of books written in an author's article, or a discography in an artist's article. However, bullet lists should be used for just that ... lists. Neutral, plain content lists are an appropriate use. Back and forth between pro and con, criticism and praise, et al are the kinds of things that should be given context in normal prose writing. In your statements you clearly and plainly asserted that style and substantive balance "are entirely separate issues", so I replied to that assertion. Sorry if I misunderstood you. And no, those are not pressing reasons, most importantly because it is a misrepresentation of what occurred. There were no "tedious[sic] 'in-article' cross-rebuttals". There were rebuttals and bloat in an already separate section. Cleanup is good, please do not get me wrong. However, just because one aspect was improved, does not mean other aspects should be ignored. Vassyana 01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the claim that criticism sections are a form of undue balance, it is self-apparent to me. Section titles frame content and readers' expectations. If we create a section with a title that frames content and expectations towards general negative reporting on the subject, how is that not undue balance? By giving special treatment and highlighting to critical claims about the subject, how is that not moving outside the bounds of a neutral point of view? It seems very plain and obvious to me, based on those question-observations. Vassyana 01:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vassyana's perspectives

Web specifications aren't really my area of interest or expertise.

By that I assume you are referring to XML. Does this mean you will not honor my specific request? Is this because you have insufficient familiarity with the subject matter? Remember, this core policy applies to *all* articles (not just the ones which hold your personal interest).

However, I am very familiar with religious studies and active in dispute resolution.

it is a good faith and practical demonstration of merging criticism sections and the support it can receive

That's good, I applaud your initiative and your level of involvement in that particular primary subject area. As you know, there are many other primary subject areas in WP as well. Each with its own nuances and core contributors.

I also applaud when contributors can emphasize practical considerations and examples, instead of forwarding solely unsubstantiated personal opinions and "Jimbo Says".

Sorry if I misunderstood you.

No problem, apology accepted. I might add it also helps to refrain from implications that other people have "misrepresented" facts, given that reasonable people can see things differently, and especially since "misinterpretation" and "alternate viewpoints" are clearly at play here.

As for the claim that criticism sections are a form of undue balance, it is self-apparent to me.

"Self-apparent to me" is not a sufficient basis for fundamental changes to core policy; especially given the nuances involved here, and given that the issue is far from unambiguous for *all* articles. Additionally, I think we should *all* be very circumspect to propose policy changes when it could be interpreted as enhancing one's own position in a recent dispute. Some might unfairly dismiss it as self-serving, thus undermining the authoritativeness of WP policy. At very least, such changes should not hinge primarily on personal opinion.

By giving special treatment and highlighting to critical claims about the subject, how is that not moving outside the bounds of a neutral point of view?

This is conclusory and begging the question. The same goes for all of the other "question-observations" (oxymoron). How are these not personal opinions posed in the form of questions?

Proposed conclusion

The views expressed by Vassyana have some merit, and I've already expressed agreement on some basic principles. The problem is so far we only have personal opinion and conjecture to answer serious considerations:

• no one has shown that certain kinds of article structure are *always* an NPOV violation, for *all* article subjects, and for *all* phases of the article development lifecycle;
• no one has shown that the issues raised require more attention than is already given in the manual of style and elsewhere;
• no one has shown that Vassyana has thoroughly considered the implications, and can demonstrate the consequences that would occur to articles and situations outside the scope of Vassyana's personal "interest and expertise";
• no one has shown that "consensus" on this matter is entirely unambiguous one way or the other.

Consider the following:

• "I was looking for the pros and cons ..." (independent remark by User:Theshowmecanuck here);
• Pro & con lists considered harmful;
• We already have Template:Criticism-section.
• We already have Template:POV-section.
• "Criticism that is integrated ... should not disrupt the article" This is often why separate criticism sections are created.
• Vassyana cites evidence of past success (in one area of personal experience):
  • but *no* evidence that these personal experiences are the *only* path to improvement, or that these personal experiences should be made the universal policy that all must follow.
  • this past success even substantiates that "practical examples plus considerable effort" (as I've been emphasizing all along) is in fact more effective than appeals based on conjecture and generalizations:
    • THIS IS GREAT! Vassyana, you put a tremendous amount of work into this. (User:Moon Rising )
    • I am glad my example draft was able to satisfy concerns about merging the information. (User:Vassyana)

Put this all to rest with an example draft

People should generally be reluctant to modify policy, even (or perhaps especially) if it favors their viewpoint in a recent or pending dispute. I also think there are more nuances and subtleties to this specific issue, than presented by Vassyana, and I think some of my views have been woefully misunderstood and mischaracterized.

Nevertheless, I'm willing to accept a draft proposal to address the issue raised by Vassyana for inclusion in this policy. Here are some caveats:

• It definitely seems like more people from different "sides" should have some input on this;
• Any addition to this policy must be very concise (unlike this discussion thread);
• Any addition to this policy must reflect that the issue is not always "very plain and obvious" (as based on personal opinion); and
• Any addition to this policy should reflect the nuances of *all major viewpoints* ... and not universally disparage certain kinds of article structure as "always in violation of NPOV".

It seems appropriate to continue to strongly oppose and object to any proposal that falls short of these, unless supported by a clear and substantial response of consensus from a wide range of WP contributors with experience in a wide range of article subjects. dr.ef.tymac 07:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel my level of expertise and interest would be sufficient to take on an article like XML. Instead of a "hard ban", would a statement discouraging such article structure be acceptable? The passage could read something like:

Article structures that can imply a point of view should be avoided. Generally, information should be properly incorporated throughout the article. In some instances, a separate section may be warranted. However, great care should be exercised to not create and highlight a loose collection of criticisms.

If we find some agreement here, we can solicit further input from the village pump and other appropriate places. Vassyana 07:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a good start, although I think it will enhance the credibility and foundation in established principles if the addition focuses on "article structure" more generally. I will suggest a counter-proposal ASAP that should help bring us even closer to resolution favorable to all interested parties. I will try to have this up soon. Thanks, Vassyana, for your continued efforts toward resolution. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Take your time. I'm interested in how you would approach tying in article structure more generally. Vassyana 14:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's in the article text as a hidden comment, you can remove the comment marks and press "show preview" to see the proposed context and placement within the article, to further assist your evaluation and critique of this proposal. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate link: If the above is too cumbersome, you can also review the proposed text Here at User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002. dr.ef.tymac 15:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would do very nicely. Morphh ^(talk) 0:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the proposed draft deftly addresses all the angles. Nice work. Let's make sure no one objects the wording here and then we can post on the policy village pump to make sure there's a community consensus. Sound about right? Vassyana 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've posted at the policy village pump to draw outside opinions and make sure there are no major objections. Vassyana 06:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it. This might prove helpful at certain AIM-related and conspiracy based articles in particular where there is a sort of uneasy truce where different sides break off their bits into sections that are essentially repeating claims without comment. --Edwin Herdman 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I would observe, however -- although this needn't be addressed in the policy -- that sometimes the creation of such sections is a necessary step on the path towards building a stable and balanced article. Which is to say that such sections should be removed, generally, only as part of a process of thorough and thoughtful article improvement. -- Visviva 08:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft critique round 2

Update: The proposed text was removed from the source code of this policy, now that enough people have seen the suggestion for where such a proposal might fit in. The text is still available from User:Dreftymac/Scratchpad002. Changes, additional commentary and review are, of course, still welcome and encouraged.

Please note: I also made some minor corrections, some copy edits, and also modified some of the substance to incorporate the point made just previously by Visviva (as also reflected in this discussion thread and other associated talk pages). Regards. dr.ef.tymac 17:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In the second bullet point it says "solely to" ...that fails WP:AGF, in my opinion. I think we are going to have a lot of problems if we have NPOV coming into conflict with AGF, where you can't get something changed unless you can "prove" it's a bad-faith edit. I would change it so it says "(intentionally or unintentionally)" - something like that. --Edwin Herdman 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from, I will have another go at a rewording unless someone beats me to it. dr.ef.tymac 23:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care for this addition: "Sometimes structural modifications are suggested by contributors as a form of compromise for already unbalanced content." It seems open to very wide interpretation and possible misquoting. Having such a section is a "compromise" for whatever they determine to be "unbalanced content". It seems very counter-productive to the entire entry. I don't think it adds anything and should be removed. Morphh ^(talk) 1:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

... and that's partially why this discussion thread is so huge. I respect your concerns, Morphh, but there is still a fundamental difference in perspective over the appropriateness of "Criticism sections" ... some contributors unquestionably disfavor them, while others consider them sometimes useful:

   sometimes the creation of such sections is a necessary step 
   on the path towards building a stable and balanced article (User:Visviva)

and

   There are two main forms of criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. 
   The most obvious is the criticism in a section, often titled "Criticism", found 
   in some articles (Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section)

and

   Reasons to create a separate "Criticism" section include using a source 
   which only criticizes the topic ... (Ibid.)

and

   ... "Criticism" section might be only a temporary solution until someone 
   integrates the criticism (in the meanwhile the "separate" section might be 
    tagged {POV-section}, {criticism-section} ... (Ibid.)

If you can modify it in terms you consider to be not counter-productive, and still capable of expressing some aspect of the view that I felt was still being left out (and what motivated the addition) I happily support. This is essentially the reason why I felt there were concerns with Vassyana's proposal to begin with, any suggestions to help bring this closer to resolution? dr.ef.tymac 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I came back after thinking about it as I think I was too critical and was going to reword my thoughts but you beat me too it. I withdraw my objection but I'll continue to think of how this might be better phrased. I don't want it to hold up what I believe to be a very good addition. I also consider criticism sections sometimes useful. I was just thinking of the statement being used broadly to justify (in articles where it would be better to integrate) such section as a form of compromise. However, I understand the purpose for the entry. Morphh ^(talk) 2:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but anyway Morphh, if your eyes saw a deficiency, then surely other eyes will as well. So it's better to be hyper-critical up front. It's definitely a struggle to see how to fairly and consistently word this addition. Part of me is still not convinced it's necessary -- but if it's going to be in there, it should be credible and balanced. Thanks for being up-front with your critique. dr.ef.tymac 04:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't have the heart to read all of the above. The whole issue with criticism sections can be fairly easily solved by applying the principle of balance in article coverage. All articles should be carefully balanced with space allocated to subtopics in relation to their importance to the overall topic. There are a limited number of subsections an article can have so it follows that only the most important subtopics can have a section. So only those subtopics that can justify their independent importance get one. That leads to only having a criticism section if the criticism of a subject is a unique and important facet in it's own right of the overall topic. Some subjects will have criticism that can be shown by reliable sources to be more important than other facets of the subject. That justifies a section on it. Most cannot and having a criticism section does represent bad writing, planning, and prioritization. - Taxman ^Talk 02:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Taxman, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I do not dispute your formulation, it definitely has support under style guidelines. The question is: 1) whether this stylistic rationale demands elevation to the status of core neutrality policy; 2) whether it has *zero exceptions*; and 3) the extent to which the answer to (1) and (2) have been resolved by consensus. Although your basic formulation is indeed easy, there is ample evidence to suggest that the answer to the above (especially 3) is not as obvious as the formulation itself.

I'll be happy to substantiate any specific point you feel needs clarification, because I recognize it is cumbersome to have to read through all this. I will also support any modifications you want to forward on the draft itself, as long as it preserves a balanced representation of this issue, and does not universally proscribe "bad writing" as a fundamental violation of NPOV.

Bad writing and POV can be related, (and frequently are) but the *extent* of that relationship is really the issue here, because we're not talking about composing yet another style guideline, we're talking about re-wording NPOV itself. I think this calls for *very* serious consideration from all of us. dr.ef.tymac 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it goes without saying that if an article is not balanced in the way I referred to that it's not NPOV either. If you have a criticism section where one is not warranted, that's unfairly advancing a view. Same for if one is warranted as shown by reliable sources as an important facet of a topic and it's not there, and same as if a criticism section is given an undue amount of space. That doesn't require any rewriting, though if one wishes to make it clearer it could be done. - Taxman ^Talk 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggested revision.

These examples are not intended as a prohibition against certain kinds of article structure. Sometimes structural modifications are suggested by contributors as a form of compromise for already unbalanced content.

This really seems to remove the teeth from the section. I believe we can acknowledge exceptions with less permissive language.

While certain forms of article structure are not prohibited, these examples illustrate how article formatting may be abused. Some structural considerations may be a compromise to repair unbalanced content, but care must be taken to preserve a neutral presentation.

I believe this preserves the "exceptions" noted, while making sure it is worded strongly enough to be enforceable. Thought? Vassyana 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this new wording and it addresses my initial concerns with the statement. Morphh ^(talk) 13:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"strong_support"

Strong support: Vassyana I think that is excellent. dr.ef.tymac 14:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed "while" to "although" and re-added the link to the main WP style guidelines as a footnote: complete text of latest revision. dr.ef.tymac 14:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So where are we with this... Time has been provided for review and comment and it has gained support of those that have done so. Are we ready to move this into the article? Let's add it. Morphh ^(talk) 13:03, 05 June 2007 (UTC)