Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52

Discussion on PoV / promotional use of overcapitalization

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The discussion Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:ISMCAPS badly needs to be tightened may be of interest to WP:NPOV regulars.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015

Collapse comments about nonexistent article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Blasta Food India founded by Dinesh Maddineni in 2015 November 30th in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. Here in this they are working very well. Another thing is Blasta Food India is one of the best Start Up company from India. 113.193.114.193 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) This is not the place to write about a topic or to leave comments about a topic. If you are looking to write an article about something please read your first article. Also, please read our notability guidelines for companies. Wikipedia requires all articles to be backed up by reliable sources. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Policy suggestion: "First-Word" Deference (to balance the desires of competing groups in controversial topics)

If this is the wrong place to insert policy suggestions, please let me know. So I've called what I am thinking, "first-word deference". This has to do with balancing the desires of competing groups in controversial topics. In a controversial article, both sides can receive appropriate (not necessarily equal) time. But advocates of the position being described in a particular article would be mentioned first, and then the opposition would be mentioned second. So advocates would get the "first word", and opponents would get the "last word". Some might fear that this would encourage fringe theories to flourish. I don't think this would happen for a few reasons, as long as the policy was carefully crafted.

• Lets take the scenario where the opposing position clearly has better sources, are in the majority of the scholarly community, etc, it does not hurt their position simply by mentioning theirs second. It can be clearly mentioned in the article that while this is how "advocates" see this, the majority of scholars see it a different way.
• Allowing "advocates" to "speak first" ensures that minority views can be mentioned, and still holds in balance the idea of weight of sources.
• Allowing advocates to speak first allows advocates an adequate opportunity to define themselves and their movement in their own words.

Examples that come to mind are the scientific and religious debates. If you allow advocates to speak first, the article on Evolution would take shape first with sources that advocate Evolution. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned). While on the other hand, the article on Creationism would take shape first with sources that advocate that view. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned).

This idea of giving deference to the advocates I think might help to put out some fires and edit wars that tend to get started. It still allows for the best view to make a reliable encyclopedia, and yet it allows advocates to "speak first". Motmajor (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a more relevant location to post this. Posting in Wikipedia_talk:Describing_points_of_view Motmajor (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic

I brought this up in 2009 but did not get a lot of feedback, so I thought I would ask again. What are we supposed to do in the case of review score aggregators such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes edit: and OpenCritic? The problem is these sites are offering opinions about opinions. There is thus an added layer of complexity. Do we try to get the broadest sample of review scores? Do we ignore aggregators that are themselves not commonly cited in other media? Arguments[1][2] have included such things as Alexa ranks, Wikipedia links directing traffic to other sites, and people's careers being on the line based on one site's score but not another's. I think this page should mention aggregators and how they are covered by the policy, and would like to see more discussion on this topic. SharkD  Talk  23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been addressed more than once at the WP:Film and MOS:Film talk pages. These sites are not opinion pieces, with the exception of the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus statement. We usually cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for our film articles, but we are cautious of citing them for older films (like a classic). I will alert the aforementioned talk pages to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:Review aggregators seems to deal with the topic specifically. SharkD  Talk  04:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see you already alerted WP:Film and WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking what aggregators to use? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking do we just pick one aggregator? How do we weight aggregators against each other? Is having more aggregators better? This policy page does not talk about aggregators at all. SharkD  Talk  01:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Having a policy which limits critiques to just one aggregator would not be consistent with WP:WEIGHT especially when they draw to different conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There would likely be other reviews cited in the article. But what do we do when listing composite scores along side regular review scores? (If I understand your reply correctly.) Is one enough? SharkD  Talk  16:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is unnecessary to list individual review scores, since it gives the reviews undue weight. That is the whole point of adding aggregator scores. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. That view is probably going to be considered controversial among some projects. SharkD  Talk  21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment My thoughts on this is that aggregators should be used judiciously. First of all, what they attempt to do is quantify opinion and they all have different methodologies for dealing with this. It is not as simple as totting up good and poor reviews; for instance the aggregators have a selection criteria for which reviews they use and have different grading systems, and also have a weighting protocol for how much each review should "count", so I disagree they are not opinion pieces. They collate data and interpret it in accordance with a methodology they have devised. In a nutshell they perform analysis and draw conclusions based on that analysis. It is not unusal for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to arrive at different conclusions: RT will rate a film "fresh or rotten" (interpreted by us as positive/negative) whereas Metacritic has a three grade system (positive/mixed/negative) so they can arrive at fundamentally different conclusions. Indeed, one of the biggest causes of friction is caused when MC assigns a "mixed" rating and RT contradicts this by virtue of not having one.

There are several questions that face us: Do we need them? Do they qualify as reliable sources? Under what circumstances should they be used and not used? I certainly think Rotten Tomatoes especially qualifies as "reliable source" under our rules, since it has editorial oversight and is often mentioned by other reliable sources when discussing a film's reception (this may be the case for Metacritic too). That said I think they are a crass, blunt instrument with little finesse and there is a tendency to over-rely on them. They are most useful for recent films, but in the case of older films we should definitely look to more respectable and arguably more informed sources, especially for those films which have been the subject of scholarly writing. For instance, a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really tell us all that much about the critical standing of Citizen Kane (currently just 6% ahead of the new Star wars film); however, the fact it has topped the Sight and Sound decennial poll of the world's most revered film critics for over half a century probably tells us a great deal more than a "100% fresh" does: it has been long regarded as one of the finest (if not the finest) films ever made. There is absolutely no need to defer to a crude aggregator for films which have been the subject of long-standing critical discourse. So my stance on this is that they are reliable but they are crude and lack finesse; they attempt to quantify a film's critical standing where perhaps an enyclopedia should be looking to qualify a film's standing. Where it is possible to adequately cover a film's critical standing without using aggregator data we shoul endeavor to do so, but the aggregators are acceptable in a "better than nothing" sort of way. Betty Logan (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

We should mention them because their ratings are significant. For example on demand movie services frequently use them. They are not opinions about opinions, but facts about opinions, specifically what percentage of reviewers gave positive reviews and the average rating they gave. Using these sources is consistent with policy since it allows us to explain the weight of opinion.

I agree however that judgment is required in their use. Betty Logan is right that they tell us little about Citizen Kane. That is because there are better sources, such as peer reviewed academic studies that explain the weight of critical reception. But we do not have that for the Michael Moore documentary that was released 5 days ago. Similarly, at the other end of the scale, they may not be helpful for Ernest movies. The Variety critic for example wrote, "The fifth in the series of slapstick comedies about Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) will please his fans but is unlikely to convince anyone else as to it merits."[3] That comment, which is also a fact about opinions, is more helpful than saying it received a 17% Rotten Tomatoes score.

TFD (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

But should we favor one aggregator over another based on the quality of the results, or based on their Internet "presence" or impact within the industry? (WP:WEIGHT is being used to justify using more popular aggregators since they are more "weighty" in some of the arguments I linked to.) SharkD  Talk  23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

It depends on each case and requires editor judgment. Rotten Tomatoes tells what percentage of reviews were positive, while Metacritic provides the average rating, which are two very different measurements. In the example, both Star Wars VII and Citizen Kane score high on Rotten Tomatoes because positive reviews outweighed negative ones. In fact Citizen Kane, which some critics consider the best film ever made, had no negative reviews. But presumably it would score much higher than Star Wars VII in Metacritic if it were rated by them. Star Wars VII has an 81% rating on Metacritic, while Citizen Kane might have 100%. TFD (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I suppose Metacritic and RottenTomatoes are dissimilar enough that listing them both would make sense most of the time, where possible. But what if, say, both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scored movies in the same way? What would we do in cases like this? SharkD  Talk  00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting point about RottenTomatoes. if RT doesn't veraged them out and just keeps the positive, then we should probably debunk it as a valid source. Additionally, my biggest question about RottenTomatoes is that one RT review may not always share the same RT reviewers even if the same RT reviewers have given the same review. So i am highly against RottenTomatoes. I honestly think it depends on the medium. FOr films, there could be far more reviews and these aggregator websites will probably pick and choose. Especially RT. Lucia Black (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that you say they are "not opinions about opinions, but facts about opinions". So WP:WEIGHT would not apply in this case? SharkD  Talk  05:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally. Just because reliable sources reference these aggregators, I don't think Wikipedia should. It doesn't imply that these sources are credible on their own but just attempting to give some form of insight. I also strongly believe that sources may rely on these sites because of Wikipedia. I remember how RT wasn't fully trusted and now almost everyone does since it's inclusion. Lucia Black (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I edited the section title to extend the topic to sites like OpenCritic, Movie Review Query Engine, GameRankings, MobyGames, etc. SharkD  Talk  04:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Related question: Is it WP:UNDUE weight to only list one aggregator? I ask because at least in the domain I'm familiar with (video games), there's essentially only one review aggregator that serves as an industry standard (Metacritic) and Wikipedia itself has played no small role as kingmaker in this regard, given the presence of a Metacritic link on virtually every video game article since 2005. I've long been a proponent of including GameRankings as comparison, despite its lesser marketshare and mindshare, because the mere presence of a second voice goes a long way in reducing the appearance of Wikipedia "endorsing" Metacritic (even if this might swing UNDUE in the other direction, propping up a website that is acknowledged as lesser). However, a recent discussion led to the deprecation of GameRankings as a recommendation when including review aggregators. I fear that this will tip the balance even further toward Metacritic's already strong monopoly. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

A thing to note is that Metacritic and GameRankings are actually owned by the same company. SharkD  Talk  04:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I do agree that links/hits are going to lead somewhere, and saying that we shouldn't lead them to sites like GameRankings or OpenCritic is not good because we're going to end up supporting someone regardless of what we do. SharkD  Talk  01:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Update

Hi guys, doing the WP:Update. "extraordinary claim" was added this quarter ... is that the link you want? - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarify use of "survey" in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group: I think survey is ambiguous in this case. I believe it is intended to mean survey as in an appraisal, not specifically via a poll i.e. series of questions. I believe the wording should be on par with that in WP:WEASEL: "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view."

I propose the following change to ATTRIBUTEPOV: "An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a surveyan analysis of opinions within the group."—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

POV forking within a page?

"The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight."

Can you have a POV fork within an article? Like sometimes at the end of the article there's a section called "Criticism of ARTICLENAME." That seems wrong. That's what this line seems to be referring to. But the POV fork information at the end of the link defines POV forking as always involving creating articles. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Why Neutrality?"

I authored this policy originally for Nupedia, and greatly elaborated the policy here for Wikipedia. I still support it 100%. My latest theorizing on this topic can be found in this very long paper: [4] See also this column, which explains (or oversimplifies) the arguments in the longer paper: [5] --Larry Sanger (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Religion: "yet note that there is no contradiction"

"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction." This needs clarification. How can Wikipedia say "there is no contradiction" (without sources) if science contradicts religious mythology? I guess this refers to Christian Bible stories being represented as "History", but Bible stories are presented as the majority/mainstream view (no evidence necessary) with the Bible decreed to be a "reliable source" (no evidence necessary), while it is the "critical historical treatment" that is merely mentioned (but must have "notable, reliable sources"). Keith McClary (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I take this to mean that there's no contradiction between "Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born of a virgin," and "Historians consider the details of Jesus' birth to be mythical." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan Tweet. I take this as Wikipedia's stab at a NOMA type system, essentially stating that scientific and religious claims can never really be in conflict. While perhaps not the most satisfying kludge, it seems to me an understandable compromise. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

My interpretation is: theology does not trump history and history does not trump theology. By the way, the Bible is generally considered a primary religious source, therefore not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Narrow domain articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

suggested new subsection narrow domain. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: see also Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories#Protected. - DVdm (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...

— AndyTheGrump, [6]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

if sth is 'bullcrap' I agree it should be discussed as such if mentioned. It is not contradictory to the suggested subsection. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is that your proposal is not carefully worded, and it can be interpreted in diametrically opposed ways (both as opposing and as legitimizing bullcrap). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It is designed to provide argument if sb is interpreting due weight as an absolute measure. I am afraid wp guidelines are drifting towards censorship. This is the reason for this suggestion. My goal is not to advocate 'bullcrap' but to advocate balanced approach. This suggestion is strictly about due weight and how it is relative. It does not 'disable' any other policies. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please also note that the goal of wp is to be total sum of encyclopedic knowledge. However, I understand encyclopedic != any knowledge. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As a model see Autodynamics: autodynamics gets described, but it is never described as true/factual, quite on the contrary. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good article. But does my text really advocate misrepresenting sth? As I see it, my text does not and also it is to be interpreted as complementary to other policies. --Asterixf2 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You text could be interpreted as pro-fringe. Wikipedia is anti-fringe, meaning it describes the fringe theories, but the accents lies upon how the mainstream sees such theories. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Fringe != pseudoscience. 2. In my opinion your position is in contradiction with wp:npov and wp:notcensored. Wikipedia is neither pro- nor anti-fringe - it is neutral. Goal of wikipedia is to represent total sum of encyclopedic knowledge. Various views should be represented with due weight. Due weight means, among others, that "[we] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.". Some fringe views may be extremely unpopular and insignificant and mentioning such views could constitute giving them undue weight. However, editors must be careful not judge by themselves about the significance of a particular view if not qualified to do so. If there are independent reliable sources appropriately describing a view and its relation to mainstream, then this view should be included with wp:due weight.

Furthermore, I think your comment confuses being anti- with being representative. For example, if article says that theory X is pseudoscience, it is not because wikipedia is anti-X, but because this statement, especially when accompanied by mention of the arguments of proponents of such theory with wp:due weight, is representative of total sum of encyclopedic knowledge and in such case neutral. By writing "theory X is pseudoscience" first and later in article discussing arguments of proponents it gives wp:due weight to the mainstream perspective. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these terms neutral or biased?

It was suggested that I bring this question here from AN. That previous discussion can be seen here.
I was wondering whether the terms 'known for', 'best known for' and 'achieved mainstream success' or, in the case of an actor being cast in film, a major role. My concern is that these terms are not cited, as as such seem to be either bias or poetic license on the part of the contributor. Should we search out more neutral wording or find references for being 'best known for' something or whether a role for an actor was a 'major' one or afforded the actor "mainstream success"? I don't see how they can be in the articles without referencing. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I would simply remove them per wp:UNSOURCED, with an additional mention of wp:PEACOCK in the edit summary. Against a policy and a guideline. - DVdm (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: image montages of individual faces on ethnicity and other demonym articles

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. It is a proposal to vacate the previous consensus reached in the February 2016 RfC that resulted in the creation of the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES provision at MOS:IMAGES, and also relates thematically to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (all of these discussions are ultimately about using infoboxes to identify individuals as members of particular ethnicities, and this relates also to MOS:IDENTITY). Notifying this policy talk page because NPoV and NOR are the two most frequently raised policies (pro or con) in relation to the topic of the RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Undue use of primary source literature review sections to delete material in Economic growth

Off topic discussion; this talk page is for discussing improvements to the NPV policy page. Go to NPOV Noticeboard to discuss NPOV disputes --LK (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources et seq.. My understanding is that User:Volunteer Marek has been justifying many of the deletions shown at [7] on the grounds that he has found a number of literature review sections in primary research articles which conflict with the consensus of fully WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews which reach conclusions on the questions involved (there is at least one inconclusive secondary source.) I intend to restore almost all of the deletions. Have literature review sections of primary sources previously been used bypass the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews? Have these kinds of attempts to undermine the reliable source criteria in support of a fringe group occurred previously? In any case, I would like to propose this particular instance as a case study, here at WP:UNDUE, at WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, or both. Please share your opinions on the topic. EllenCT (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) First, the "deletions" weren't deletions. They were a rewriting of the relevant section as well as a better organization of it, in accordance with talk page consensus AND reliable sources. EllenCT just hasn't been able to accept that (for almost a year now). I have no idea what the rest of her statement is talking about or referring to. Like what does " on the grounds that he has found a number of literature review sections in primary research articles which conflict with the consensus of fully WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews which reach conclusions on the questions involved (there is at least one inconclusive secondary source.)" (sic) actually mean? So many double negatives in there and the sentence has like eight clauses it's hard to even make out what the accusation is. Anyway. The changes were made on the basis of reliable, scholarly sources. EllenCT's preferred version is essentially her own original research and synthesis, based on a cherry picking of a couple unrepresentative sources. Talk page discussion with her has been entirely unproductive. There are numerous other editors who can back up my contention that EllenCT has a serious problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) And btw, EllenCT has posted a notification about this discussion to WP:RSN [8]. In fact, *if* we are going to discuss the subject of secondary sources and literature reviews then that would be the proper venue for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Resorting to personal attacks instead of answering questions about whether the review sections of WP:PRIMARY research contrary to the broad consensus of bona fide peer reviewed literature reviews support the removal of those literature reviews does indeed make for unproductive discussion. EllenCT (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Wrong forum afaics: I suppose you were looking for WP:NPOVN where this discussion should have been initiated. The talk page where the above comments were posted is about the content of the WP:NPOV page only. Please move your comments to the appropriate noticeboard, unless there is a problem with the NPOV policy as such (none of that is apparent from the comments above, which are only about how to apply NPOV in mainspace: that's what the NPOVN noticeboard is for). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) From reading the talkpage and looking at the sources concerned in the article (and previously, seriously these are issues that had a clear consensus well into last year), EllenCT appears to not understand what wikipedia considers a primary and a secondary source. I wouldnt go so far as VM to allege synth and OR, but there is certainly cherry-picking going on due to Ellen's misunderstanding of what is/is not a reliable secondary source for wikipedia's purposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @Only in death: are you able to cite a specific example where I incorrectly categorized a primary or secondary source? If not, I ask that you please strike your unfounded accusation. EllenCT (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Seems even further from what this page is for: not understanding WP:PRIMARY/WP:SECONDARY (part of the WP:NOR policy)? Dump it on the NPOV policy talk page! No really, please take this to an appropriate forum, which imho is not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC) My questions asking whether there have been instances in the past of people trying to use literature review sections of WP:PRIMARY sources to counter a wide consensus in the secondary literature are appropriate here and stand, as does my proposal to include a description of this specific instance as a case study at WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I will raise the issue at WP:RSN after I have researched the history of such issues. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC) The Neutral point of view policy page says nothing about WP:PRIMARY. So no, the question doesn't belong here. Contentious examples (as in: examples under discussion) are not introduced in guidelines, and even less on policy pages. Policy only uses examples that have proven stability for a decent period of time. Trying to get your preferred example introduced in policy to solve a content issue in mainspace is something generally frowned upon. So the long answer to that question is: no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC) @Volunteer Marek: You say that the "deletions" weren't deletions. They were a rewriting of the relevant section as well as a better organization of it. However, as I recall, I saw sources being taken out. That's not what I define as a rewrite - in a rewrite, we keep the source, but summarize it more accurately, in more detail, or occasionally, even with more brevity, but we keep it. The way I've put this before: I get the feeling some editors think of themselves as the editor-in-chief in the big glassed office looking out over a sea of typewriters, sagely using their "editorial judgment" to pick and choose what to use from the sea of drivel sent up by their junior associates. But that's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Wikipedia should be more like a crew of migrant workers picking oranges. So long as an orange isn't obviously rotten, it goes in a sack, and the sack goes in a truck and gets hauled off to market. I don't want to see somebody hanging out in the truck throwing oranges off the side because they think we should try to deliver only the biggest oranges in the county. Now by "oranges" what I mean here really are reliable sources - we shouldn't be taking them out unless we really have a whole bunch of equivalent sources saying the same thing making them truly redundant, or unless they are so far to the fringe that they truly have no relevance to serious discussion of the topic. And if a source stays in, we need enough text to give the readers a heads-up that it is there and roughly what it is about. I think that in a good article, the value of the text is approximately equal to the value of the list of sources, plus source images and charts and such; I think of this as a sort of equipartition theorem. Now sometimes it is necessary to split articles, fob off detailed sections to more specialized articles and such, all WP:summary style stuff. But the sources are the backbone on which everything else is constructed, the treasure which editors should diligently hoard. And when we have sources that say different things, we should be happy, because until we get to that level of partisan detail, we are not presenting the topic in a way that is informative enough to be relevant to the user. Wnt (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Do not believe EllenCT's story about sources. She is an extremely biased and disruptive editor. Her favorite tactic is to discredit sources by calling for "secondary peer reviewed literature" and mislabeling sources she disagrees with "primary", which they aren't. She has been caught cherry picking statements from sources she cites to back her edits when the conclusion of the source is the opposite of what she claimed. This person is a terribly disruptive editor and we have to battle her constantly on talk pages and administrator's noticeboards. She completely misrepresents facts, posts false and annoying tags on articles, POV pushes, makes false claims, posts off-topic edits to POV push, rearranges articles to hide facts counter to her POV, reverts good edits for POV reasons, ignores the consensus on Talk, wastes competent editors' time and makes a terrible mess on Wikipedia. I've filed complaints against her in the past. Why does Wikipedia tolerate this type of behavior?Phmoreno (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) @Phmoreno: A withering personal attack like this demands direct documentation by links and examples, not an invitation to try to search where you filed some complaints that apparently did not lead to any actual sanctions. I didn't go very far back in the history of the article, but I found less trouble with EllenCT than Marek. Yes, she deleted something about the Kuznets curve and that I was not pleased to see; she didn't seem to object to it being restored when I called her on it though, so I don't see that as a "pushy" deletion, at least. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC) VolunteerMarek cleans up all the messes EllenCT leaves behind. I will have to go through my browser history to find the last case I filed against EllenCT. There are plenty of diffs in that case.Phmoreno (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Here is a previous complaint filed against EllenCT for her POV issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888&oldid=673837138#Numerous_problems_with_EllenCT EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Wikipedia. She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This linked evidence section contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior. Phmoreno (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC) Agree with Francis Schonken, the policy page is not the forum for this dispute. Morphh (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sociology, film, and due weight

Hello, I am wondering if I could get feedback about due and undue weight as it applies to films and related sociological topics. In this case, there is the white savior trope (as presented at white savior narrative in film). If sociological sources identify the trope in a film, in this case The Matrix, how should it be compared to other sources writing about other aspects of the film (especially when no sources challenge the white savior identification)? My perception is that WP:DUE's example of the Flat Earth concept does not apply well here since the sociological categorization is not a zero-sum definition. My current take is that a film's article would not devote very much attention to identifying the trope, but the trope could be further explored in the film's listing at the trope's article. However, it does seem difficult to state the so-called "degree" of having the trope. If The Matrix is generally more known for elements other than the trope, how should that impact its listing in the trope's article? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Wording issues at Template:According to whom

Opinions are needed the following matter Template talk:According to whom#In-text attribution for cited material. As noted, I responded in the section below that one. This is because I wanted my reply to clearly address what is stated in both sections. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016

In the second sentence of WP:UNDUE, the word “mean” should be changed to “means”; the use of two verbs does not make anything plural, and “giving” and “avoiding” are not acting as gerund|s.

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that …

67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I made the requested change. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Criticism" and NPOV

In quite a few cases, the question is posed:

"Why does criticism have to meet a higher standard of neutrality than the rest of the article?"

(This is a general issue, which I have now seen in multiple places)

So, simply, does this non-negotiable policy apply to "criticism sections" or not? And how does one explain such a view? Collect (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Due/undue weight

• WP:DUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.
• WP:BALASPS An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

I'm having trouble understanding how these rules are applied to facts about a topic. To what extent does the NPOV policy apply to factual events? How do we decide what content to put in an article, other than summarizing the material found in reliable sources? Some editors seem to say that there is a wider definition of "due weight", one that's dependent on the overall context and on unreported issues. Or that articles can't contain information because other, similar, article don't contain that kind of information. Or that newsworthy topics should be ignored because they're in the news (per an interpretation of WP:BALASPS). There are many policies about what material should not be in articles. Other than WP:NPOV, is there any other policy about what should go into an article? Felsic2 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Biased vs. subjective statements

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Handling neutrality disputes discusses proper attribution for biased statements of opinion. Biased strikes me as a loaded word, being as it is synonymous with prejudiced – few people want to admit their own biases. Perhaps subjective would be an equally precise yet more a more precise and diplomatic term here (update 05:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)). Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending further input by other editors, I made some changes to this section related to my comments above. Since subjective opinion (like biased opinion) is a redundancy, I omitted one reference to bias outright and replaced another with opinion. Full disclosure: a discussion I am involved in at Talk:Ajax (play) § regarding the attribution to a particular person alone makes reference to this policy. –Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for you ideas, but material changes to policy should go to wider discussion first, possibly including an RfC. Using alternate words for "biased" (eg "subjective", "opinion") may or may not be useful, but you've made larger changes to the wording which should be proposed, discussed and consensus gained first. Stickee (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Editing policy § Edits to policies and guidelines, "changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change" (emphasis mine). Wider discussion is not strictly necessary. However, I believe that the wording changes I made bring this section into greater agreement with broader Wikipedia policy and do not materially alter the substance of the policy in question (update: I have restored the changes in question pending further discussion). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

"The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it" That's great, because I am objecting to it. Using "subjective" instead of "biased" is just a euphemism and doesn't clarify anything. Subjectiveness and bias are very different things.

To give advice on your specific case, make sure you're not confusing mainstream view with opinion. For example, Evolution is presented as fact by Wikipedia because mainstream scientific view says it is. We don't attribute it to a specific scientist. Stickee (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that subjectivity and bias are different things, and in fact the policy in question deals more with subjectivity than bias anyway. For instance, the example sentence "John Doe is the best baseball player" is subjective, that is, a judgement "based on feelings or opinions rather than facts", according to Merriam-Webster. It does not necessarily indicate bias, that is, "an inclination of temperament or outlook : prejudice". Bias refers to a pattern of favoring one thing over another, whereas subjectivity is a quality of a particular statement. It is not a euphemism, and in fact my original reasoning of using more "diplomatic" language should have added to it the issue of accuracy: whether a given statement is subjective should be apparent, but the presence of bias cannot in fact be proved by a single example. Articles may be biased and sources may be biased, but a single statement cannot be said to be biased (unless it clearly expresses a prejudicial view, such as "Baseball players are always better looking than hockey players", for instance). Bias is essentially a state of mind. My wording changes addressed this issue and elaborated on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Explanation of the neutral point of view, which states, "Avoid stating opinions (i.e. subjective statements) as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions (ditto) as facts".

The existing policy wording contains other confusing and inaccurate statements, for instance: specify does not mean the same thing as substantiate, which is why I deleted it; "But they will not argue over this" is unprovable and irrelevant anyway, since the point is not to stop arguments but to present factual information that lets readers form their own judgments; and the last sentence about opinion surveys is overly wordy and inaccurate ("Most people think" is not a phrase that is likely to ever legitimately occur in Wikipedia). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Stickee. And I also disagree with your changes to Template:According to whom. Addressed at Template talk:According to whom#In-text attribution for cited material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It's nice that you found someone with whom you agree, but talk pages are not ballot boxes. Please provide reasons that support your views. –Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to reiterate reasons already supplied by Stickee. You want policy changed? Get WP:Consensus for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I have already refuted addressed the arguments you mention, Flyer22 Reborn, and as I wrote above, the substance of policy is not being changed here, only the language used to describe it (updated 00:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)). Speaking of consensus, I suggest you review that policy, since you don't seem to understand what it means to "incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

In your opinion, you have refuted the arguments. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I have not considered your concerns. Whether or not your concerns are legitimate is another matter, however. As for rules, out of the two of us, you are the one who has repeatedly demonstrated that you need to review our policies and guidelines, especially WP:Buro, since you almost always interpret them too strictly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

On a side note: There is no need to WP:Ping me to a policy talk page that I have been watching and commenting on for years. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Since no further arguments regarding the actual merit of the changes in question have been made, I have restored the disputed wording pending further substantive discussion. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And I have reverted. Two editors thus far disagree with you and this is a policy page. You cannot come in and demand that a change be made. Or decide that your argument trumps objections to your changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Wikipedia is not a democracy, and decisions are made through reasoned arguments, not by majority rule. No substantive objections have so far been made that I have not addressed. If there are others, please state them. If there is disagreement with the points I have made, please give reasons for the disagreement. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get your ping; not that I needed it anyway. Funny that you should quote to WP:Buro after I pointed you to it above. Either way, I have made myself clear on this matter. Your continued WP:Edit warring at this policy page is unacceptable, and if you continue with it, I will request WP:Full protection. I might also escalate things to WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You argued, "Articles may be biased and sources may be biased, but a single statement cannot be said to be biased." I do not understand that viewpoint. Sure, you stated "unless it clearly expresses a prejudicial view, such as 'Baseball players are always better looking than hockey players'," but many of us who edit this site have have dealt with biased statements. Your issue is a semantics one that I do not see supported by reliable sources. By contrast, there are a number of reliable sources commenting on distinguishing between fact and opinion, and on what is or is not a biased statement. For example, this 1996 Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants source, from John Wiley & Sons, pages 316-318. If we go to Yourdictionary.com, it states, "Bias is a tendency to favor one person, group, thing or point of view over another, often in an unfair way. Bias can be a personal opinion or a more public opinion, such as a news story, that only presents facts that support one point of view." And Dictionary.com states, "a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography; our strong bias in favor of the idea." In other words, bias can also be "based on feelings or opinions rather than facts." Even going back to when many of us were in elementary or middle school, what is or isn't a biased statement was taught. For example, this 1991 University Press of America source, page 341 and onward, that addresses identifying facts and biased statements. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally, some remarks focusing on the substance of edits, not editors' behavior. Yes, the issue is one of semantics, because choice of vocabulary in a project, such as Wikipedia, that relies on written language, strongly influences the quality of communication.

Regarding sources, Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants from 1996 seems an obscure and oddly specialist sort of reference for questions of general English-language usage. Frankly, it's grasping at straws. Was there really no general style guide to refer to? The same goes for the 25-year-old Elementary and Junior High/middle School Social Studies Curriculum, Activities, and Materials. In middle school I was taught that Pluto is the ninth planet of our solar system. One could argue that that is merely a question of semantics as well. But I certainly wouldn't rely on a junior-high textbook from that era for an article about Pluto in 2016. And I think we can disregard yourdictionary.com, published by "LoveToKnow Corp.", whoever they may be. Where are the mainstream, contemporary sources on this?

Some dictionaries (such as Random House, the source for dictionary.com's content) may equate bias with opinion. But where that source defines bias as "a particular tendency, trend, [or] inclination"/"unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice", it defines opinion simply as "a belief or judgment"/"a personal view," – in other words, not necessarily a pattern of prejudice. Where bias is synonymous with prejudice, prejudice is a particular kind of (usually unfavorable) opinion. But Wikipedia's neutrality policy doesn't care whether an opinion is favorable or unfavorable – both kinds are not to be stated in Wikipedia's voice. That is why I think bias is misleading in this particular instance regarding attribution – not in the policy as a whole. Bias is still an important issue regarding the overall content of articles and sources.

Regarding this particular instance, I think that Merriam-Webster's definitions for opinion and bias imply that the words are normally understood differently. But assuming that they are synonymous, my Revision as of 00:04, 15 July 2016 should therefore have resulted in no change to the substance of the policy at all. Can someone please tell me what exactly is the problem with the wording I used (reproduced below)?

Attributing and substantiating opinions

See also: Wikipedia:Citing sources § In-text attribution

Statements of opinion, subjective judgements, and interpretations of facts should be presented only with attribution to their source. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and should not be stated in Wikipedia as a fact. A better sentence would be: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Such statements must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. Be certain that describing the opinions of third parties does not veer into original research.

Another approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that support a given position. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." This allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about John Doe's abilities. Such content must still reflect the balance of mainstream opinion (see Due and undue weight, above).

Avoid the temptation to lend a vague impression of authority to subjective statements with "weasel words", for example "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." In this case, "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. Instead, stick to the facts as presented in reliable sources.

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked, "Where are the mainstream, contemporary sources on this?" That is exactly my question when it comes to your above arguments. Taking sources and distinguishing their definitions based on your viewpoint would be argued as WP:Synthesis if such a viewpoint were added to our articles. Even the Merriam-Webster source you cited states, "an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment." So again, bias can be based on feelings or opinions rather than facts. I see sources (other than the ones I noted above) commenting on distinguishing between fact and opinion, and on what is or is not a biased statement, but I see no sources arguing from the view you are arguing from. There are no mainstream, contemporary sources on such an issue.

We need more opinions on this. Perhaps leave a note at WP:Village pump (policy) about this discussion? Or propose the change there and leave a note here about the discussion taking place there? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, a discussion occurred with the editor who started this discussion, Coconutporkpie, on the Talk:Ajax (play), during which (July 2, 2016) he referred to this guideline, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It apparently did not support particular claims he was making regarding Ajax (play), so he edited (on July 13, 2016) this guideline — without any discussion or consensus — so that it then supported what he was trying to do on the Ajax (play) article. Something similar occurred when this same editor began to claim that an in-text attribution was needed in the Ajax (play) article: While making that claim, he then edited (on July 13, 2016) a template (Template:According to whom) in a way that would support his claim on the Ajax (play) talk page. This was again done without any discussion or consensus, and it again resulted in another long discussion on the talk page (Template talk:According to whom). This is ”gaming the system”. An example of a problem that could occur is this: If an argumentative editor in a discussion were to change a guideline or a template, he could then return to the discussion and surprise the other editors by using that change as a tool in his argument. That’s hypothetical, but it’s an example of a reason the guidelines need to be respected and not altered for the sake of some small point on some talk page. Clockchime (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC on expanded use of pull-quote templates with "giant quotation marks" for any quotations

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The RfC at Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation is relevant to several aspects of this policy, especially WP:UNDUE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Should NPOV be considered obsolete?

Based on the consensus I receive for my NPOVist editing, I believe that not only the edits I make in the name of NPOV are wrong, but that the entire idea of NPOV itself is wrong. I don't think that Wikipedia editors like me should be putting NPOV into practice, because NPOV may seem constructive in thought, but is actually disruptive in practice. I think that there is a correlation between NPOVism and getting blocked. in my opinion, NPOVist editors are more likely to be blocked than non-NPOVist editors. NPOVist contributions are more likely to be considered disruptive than an edit made by a sockpuppet. NPOVists may even be considered to be the sum of Wikipedia's unsung villains. My edits that I made in the name of NPOV have been reverted or condemned for being;

• disruptive
• incompetent
• prone to typos
• prone to grammatical errors
• nonsense-laden
• changing the meanings
• deleting essential, cited or verified information
• not improving Wikipedia

I think that NPOVists are way more likely to get blocked than vandals. I think we need to abandon all NPOV policies and guidelines because they encourage disruptive editing that makes a lot of people mad at whoever makes edits intended to make Wikipedia more neutral. I acknowledge that every single edit I ever made in the name on NPOV was disruptive. It is clearly obvious that any kind of NPOVizing will be considered disruptive to Wikipedia. NPOVism hurts Wikipedia more than vandalism. This is why I think that NPOV policies should be ignored and abandoned for good. --Turkeybutt (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I see you have added your question in various fora. This is not a forum for discussing changes to policy, but whether the existing policy is applied correctly in different articles.

Wikipedia has a "neutrality policy" because every encyclopedia must have an editorial policy. Otherwise, editors could never agree on the relative weight to assign different points of view or facts. Having skimmed through your edits, I think you may not understand the policy. It does not mean that we are supposed to provide even-handedness between mainstream and fringe views. Nor does it really affect the wording that should be used, which is covered under guidelines such as WP:PEACOCK and WP:LABEL and proper application of no original research and reliable sources policy.

TFD (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Turkeybutt JC, I don't believe that we should ignore or abandon WP:NPOV; that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do think that we all need to recognise that "neutrality", as meant in the context of NPOV, is not what any individual editor or group of editors considers to be neutral; it is the result of applying the NPOV policy and its associated guidelines. This means that it is possible for many of our articles to disagree with what an individual editor believes is neutral. The best way to address this is to a) show that the current state does not align with policy, or b) find additional sources to support a change; and always to work towards a consensus with other editors, not against them. I am not familiar with your editing, so can't make any specific comment; but if the responses you receive are as you say, then it is likely that you are not working in a way which other editors find collaborative. The only thing that you can change about that is you. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Is the MOS linked here?

The guideline WP:SCAREQUOTES appears to be related to this policy -- is it linked here, and if not why not? (Sorry, I'm not in a position to Ctrl+F the source code at the moment.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:, While there doesn't appear to be a link from this page to WP:SCAREQUOTES exactly; there is a link to Wikipedia:Words to watch, which is the same page; the section does not explicitly discuss quotes however. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion at the Murder of JonBenét Ramsey article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not WP:Undue weight is being given to a recent documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

Wow, the example they gave was that we are not allowed to say "Genocide is an evil action" in an article. That seems to be an attempt to give legitimacy to the Nazi movement by implying that genocide is not necessarily evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enormous-fart (talk • contribs) 06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the example is too simplistic for your view - but your stretching of the example is inapt quite completely. Would you prefer to have am example which could not be stretched in that manner? The intent is that opinions should be attributed as opinions to the person holding those opinions. "Jack Wilkers is the greatest movie star of all time" is an opinion. "Bill Snarf said that Jacks Wilkers is the greatest movie star of all time" properly attributes the opinion. Collect (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe your edit (diff) is good, but I wonder if it would lead to argument about, for example, scientific facts. Should Age of the Earth say that the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, or that "according to John Doe, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old"? Also, there may be a "greatest football player in the UK" (there certainly is, if the phrase could be unambiguously defined), so it is conceivable that the identity of such a person could be established as a fact. That is unlikely but I'm wondering if there are other cases with similar wording where the assertion is not just an opinion. The advantage of "genocide is an evil action" is that being evil is definitely an opinion—even if it were a universally held opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Certainly no mainstream source would view genocide as a good thing, but there is a philosophical question whether evil exists. TFD (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

This question really doesn't get the point about encyclopedic writing.
Saying something is "evil" is evaluating. It's expressing an opinion. This opinion may be right or wrong (and I do assume that we'll all agree that the opinion "Genocide is evil" is right): It is simply not the task of an encyclopedia to express an opinion. No matter how many people agree on it.
An encyclopedia can describe this opinion and say something like "99,8% percent of all people agree that genocide is evil" (providing proper sources) just as it can say something like "70% of all people are of the opinion that red apples taste better than green ones".
It can also describe the reasoning behind this opinion and quote relevant ethicists on the question of genocide being evil. It cannot however adopt their opinion, no matter how well founded it may be, and present it as the encyclopedia's opinion. An encyclopedia doesn't have an opinion. --84.190.89.111 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetical

If sources are not neutral and lets say they almost-only discuss male members of an African tribe despite women being prominent in that tribe, should Wikipedia reflect that and almost-only discuss men? Or should we attempt to cover both men and women of that tribe? Pwolit iets (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not required to be neutral. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say it's ok to include content about women of the tribe if it is covered by some sources even if it's much less coverage than of men of that tribe. There is some consideration to weighting by prominence in source but there is some leeway for editors to determine some of the weighting as well, if it's useful to covering the topic more completely. And, perhaps there is a source that even comments about the gender disparity in coverage about that tribe in sources, and then this content could be included as well. We must represent sources but we also don't have to be slavish to them. SageRad (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality means that articles reflect what reliable sources consider important. So if they write more about men than women, we should as well. In reality, it is not possible for sources to be unbiased to facts, since they must decide what is important. Saying that women should receive equal or more coverage is a bias too. TFD (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Nemo dat quod non habet. Elizium23 (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

And how do we know that women are prominent in that hypothetical tribe if there is no coverage about them in reliable sources? The Yeti 17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Grant brianna (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC) i think that you should check the link and make sure there not fake i check one and it was fake

 Not done - It is not clear what changes are requested. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)