Page contents not supported in other languages.

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Paragraph "Due and undue weight" versus "Balance"

The paragraph "Due and undue weight" begins with this sentence: 

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles [...] represent all significant viewpoints [...] by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.

The paragraph "Balance" states that: 

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources.

Isn't this quite the same and shouldn't these paragraphs maybe be merged?

KaiKemmann (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, but a little repetition doesn't hurt, especially when it's such an important rule as WP:NPOV. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AIUI the goals for DUE vs BALANCE is this:
  • DUE: Here is a summary of the views sources hold about Chris Controversial, who is supported by many supporters and criticized by many critics.
  • BALANCE: Here are some basic biographical facts that we stick in all articles about people, such as the fact that Chris was doubtless born to some parents at some point in time, and probably went to school somewhere before doing whatever it was that made Chris notable. Note, too, that editors omitted the whole drama about the neighbor's lawsuit over whether the fence encroached two inches too far into the neighbor's property (despite having two years of detailed coverage of the various claims and dueling lawsuits in certain sources), because editors decided that it's basically unrelated to the reason Chris is notable and probably would have happened to whoever was living next door to that neighbor.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BALASP paragraph of BALANCE says:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
I wonder if copyediting this to remove the "weight" language (as underlined) would make the distinction clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thought about this enough, but I'm currently thinking that it might open with something like Just like an article should not give undue weight to a viewpoint or opinion about the subject, it should also not overemphasize minor aspects of its subject.
We could give contrasting examples like "Every article should provide basic contextual information (e.g., for a biography, the time period in which a person lived; for a novel, a brief summary of the plot), but articles should not delve into details about relatively unimportant facts (e.g., a blow-by-blow description of a minor incident in that person's life; a long list of favorite quotations from a book)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need both. While BALANCE is based on DUE, DUE itself does not rely on BALANCE, particularly when we're talking inclusion of material that has no counterpoint or the like. For example, WP:TRIVIA is fundamentally based on DUE (we don't include trivia unless it has due coverage in RSes), but not BALANCE. Also, I think BALANCE is necessary to distinguish that when there are multiple points of view that could be included per DUE, that BALANCE then is applied to make sure the viewpoints are weighed based on what are in RSes. And that's where talking about the false balance needs to be discussed. --Masem (t) 17:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BALANCE might be represented as:
  • Balance of included viewpoints
  • Balance of non-viewpoint information
  • Avoiding false balance
WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought on this topic, I know many editors, myself included, often cite DUE/UNDUE when we should be citing BALANCE and it's subtopics. Would it be worth including a comment in UNDUE to that extent? Basically trying to note that UNDUE is often used by editors when things like BALASP would be the correct pointer. Any thoughts on the idea? Springee (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though overall I think the whole thing needs to be re-written to make the distinction clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know this discussion has died down but I'm hoping to add some thoughts on a few hours. Springee (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a detail but if wording details are being discussed then I'll remind that the wording "by reliable sources" was a bold addition which didn't clearly have consensus at the time, see thread Due weight only assigned between contrasting views in RS. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. The question that change seems to resolve is something like 'If most people in the world believe in ghosts, then we should assign weight to the viewpoint that ghosts really exist "in proportion to its prominence"'. A majority of what humans believe is not the same as a prominent viewpoint among reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because this is in WP:BALANCE not WP:BALASP and it says viewpoints i.e. opinions. Thus if it was a topic about which most published sources say X then that's prominent regardless whether most Wikipedia editors think Y. In fact the added word is merely adding confusion because reliability, i.e. whether a source says X, is a straightforward matter of looking at the cite to see whether the source says it, not evaluating it. It's pretty well always true but the addition can mislead people into thinking it has something to do with whether the source should be believed, we're only talking about whether it can be believed that the source said it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee, do you remember what you wanted to say a month ago?
I don't think that a viewpoint is necessarily an opinion. Imagine that we are at different ends of a river. I throw something in the river. I am upstream and view the river as "taking it away". You watch the same thing and from your point of view, the river is "bringing it towards". We're saying the same thing, and we're both factually correct, even though we see the same thing from different (geographical) viewpoints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I don't recall. I think it might have been that the WEIGHT section, if you squint, could be taken to overlap with BALASP. I think it would come down to what is a "viewpoint". Take the example of sources discussing a fictional book or movie. Various sources might say the meaning of the story is X, Y or Z. Each of those are a viewpoint and we would give promenance/length to each based on their weight in RS. If there were yet another interpretation, "Q", that was only discussed in one, low quality source, then WEIGHT says we should consider leaving it out ("Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all,"). So WEIGHT can be cited when removing something from an article. But consider if in that same article about the book, we add a claim that, "This story features a rare Buick sedan." While true (hey, this is my hypothetical), it's a trivial fact. Since it isn't a "viewpoint" my read is someone would be wrong to say "UNDUE" while removing this trivial fact. I feel like WEIGHT and BALANCE could be merged into a single section. This would mean that people who cited "UNDUE" in the past, wouldn't have the meaning of what they cited removed/changed. It would remove the sometimes pedantic argument that "UNDUE" must be with respect to viewpoints rather than inclusive of cases where something is not significant to the overall topic but also isn't technically a viewpoint. Springee (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some re-organization would help, and perhaps a little clarity on the terms. For example, I think that a good encyclopedic article will include:
  • viewpoints: e.g., the Moon as an object vs the Moon as an artistic inspiration vs the Moon as a practical calendar
  • basic description: e.g., the Moon orbits the Earth, it can sometimes be seen in the sky, it's smaller than the Earth, it doesn't have an atmosphere
For the first, you need to balance things (e.g., do good sources talk more about lunar calendars or more about art?) but for the second, you something that's so basic that the sources merely mention it in passing might well be important to include in the article. We don't need sources to harp on the importance of someone's birthdate to justify including the birthdate; saying when and where a person was born is normal encyclopedic content and is automatically justified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of this section is good. And it somewhat works if applied within it's intended context which is where there are opposing views. (although, even in that area, it's getting a bit outdated, written more for the Walter Cronkite era vs the current journalism landscape.) It's too game-able and problematic if applied outside of that context. It hints at good-editor decisions for other content (regarding non-useful trivia) but is more often abused than used when applied in those areas. Someday it could use a tune-up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this light, I've long thought that we need to also address dueness as applied to the time factor if sources, on that we should give more due considerations written well after the aspects of the topic have wound down compared to those written at the time of the to pic's heyday. This would favor more thought out journalism (research, analysis, etc) than opinions spurred from the heat of the moment. — Masem (t) 21:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024

Please change the text "non-negotiable" at front of the This policy is [...] to "non-negotiable". Making the bold text red draws the user's attention to the fact that this policy cannot be overridden. 95.141.97.245 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that will help. Also, a common misunderstanding is that non-negotiable means that negotiation and compromise (i.e., normal talk page discussions) are inappropriate. The principle is non-negotiable, but it may take quite a lot of negotiation to figure out what neutrality actually means for a given article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False dating

you cannot use CE or BCE because it is all based on a ANC model this Gregorian calendar, which was studied and scientifically made as accurate as possible is done by Jesuit priests and therefore you cannot remove that from the calendar. Therefore, you cannot reference it by creating a CE or a BCE . But in the hard work and do it yourself otherwise you millennials step off 2605:B100:323:19E6:D149:4DCF:55BE:CD41 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My changes were based on policy, per WP:MOS. Did you read the rules there? Oh, and I'm not a millennial. Even if I was, that seems an awful lot like an ad hominem argument. Please try not to do that, per our policies. Thanks. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if you really think the dates should be BC and AD, go ahead. Just make it consistent throughout the article, and don't edit war. (Speaking of which, "BCE" and "CE" have been used since the early 18th century, so I'm not "creating" it. Professor Penguino (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One last note: I found this comment by accident. You should ping users (@ them) if you want them to see your messages. I assume you're the person whom I reverted several days ago, in which case I would inform you that block evading is extremely discouraged. Professor Penguino (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Tiffany Henyard § Tag

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tiffany Henyard § Tag. The discussion has focused on due/undue (or reasonable/excessive) coverage within the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a stance

When a wikipedia article takes a stance, how is that not a violation of neutrality?

For instance, the trump article was clearly written by a democrat; the flat earth page clearly written by someone who does not believe in it.

Right or wrong, why does wikipedia take a stance? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy? Wikipedia does not “take a stance”… our articles reflect what is said in reliable sources, in proportion to their DUE WEIGHT. Blueboar (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But isnt it problematic that the political affiliation of the authors can be so reliably perceived by reading the article?
(The abortion article, trump article, etc., were undeniably written by democrats).
Is the notion that, because the majority of reliable resources are left leaning, it is permissible for the articles to reflect such a slant? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are repeatedly violating WP:AGF. You have no idea as to the political affiliations of editors and their motivations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that, from the reader's perspective, the article reveals the author's leaning. If that is an "insult" to the authors, it is only because they arent doing a good job writing the articles. And it IS problematic for this site. Even if the authors were somehow conservative, the left leaning slant is still there and a major problem for the site's reputation. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, here is a sentence from abortion page:
"Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine."
If you asked someone to guess the political affiliation of the author of that sentence, what do you think they would say? And if it is so obviously left leaning, why is that not considered a problem? 71.247.12.176 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you suggesting? That Wikipedia should suppress facts when they don't agree with someone's politics? MrOllie (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A style of writing in which the reader cannot decipher the authors ideology.
So that sentence, id say:
"Evidence has shown abortion as an operation has a very low fatality rate (x in 10000) for the mother. Opponents of abortion have argued that the fetus itself is a living human being, and its loss of life should be accounted for."
"Long term health effects for the mother are rare. Some such issues are (bla bla bla) occuring x in 10000 times, etc."
If i read such an article, i would know both viewpoints, and what they believe. I would not be able to tell where the author stands on the issue.
As it currently stands, you can call me "uncivil" all you want, but the article is undeniably written by someone on the left. Whether they intended for this bias to show or not, I can't say, but the bias is undeniably there. Linking me to other "behavioral" wikis will not change that. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP71.247, it is often true that the Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias. In that case, it would be wise to change one's bias to be a liberal one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, somehow, i was able to reword the sentence into one that had no bias, while still only stating facts. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False balance as you presented above leads to more bias, not 'no bias'. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No bias" was certainly an overstatement, although i would argue it has less bias, and by a pretty sizable amount. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abortion is a highly contentious issue, and while the majority of americans are pro choice, the article i shared gives far too little voice to the pro life population. That entire section, about health effects of abortion, reads like a press release in favor of abortion and pro choice politics. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this policy is concerned with is whether the statement represents what the published reliable sources say. That means:
  • If high-quality reliable sources usually say something like "Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures for the pregnant woman, and the most fatal medical procedure for the baby" – then the Wikipedia article should say something like that, too.
  • If high-quality reliable sources usually say something like "Abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine" – then the Wikipedia article should say something like that, too.
The high-quality medical sources (e.g., medical school textbooks) that are currently on the market sound like the second example. The Wikipedia article should match the sources; it appears that it does.
The path forward for change is to get the high-quality sources to change. The Wikipedia article will change when the sources change. By the way, if someone were to decide to dedicate themselves to lobbying the sources so that Wikipedia can "correctly" reflect those sources in the article, I'd suggest that advocating first that they stop using the word fetus to describe abortions (most abortions involve embryos), and that American publishers more clearly reject the idea that miscarriages are basically abortions. That language was considered outdated in the 1980s. (I specify American publishers, because the British ones figured out the difference between involuntary pregnancy loss and intentional abortion decades ago.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what about fair balance? Even if the reliable sources "usually" say something, why is there no voice to the rest?
Even liberal outlets will concede at least a third of the country (please read that twice) holds the belief that the embryo, fetus, whatever you want to call it, is a human with a right to life. Does that minority of 30% deserve no mention (as it has no mention in that entire section) merely because they are not "usual"?
The notion that an abortion, or many abortions on the same woman, will have no long term impact on a woman (as the article gives absolutely no voice to this whatsoever except in the one section where it basically spins it as myth-making) defies basic common sense. 71.247.12.176 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's roughly how many people believe in astrology, too, but our articles on celestial bodies aren't going to include the astrologer's perspective, because Wikipedia follows what high quality, reliable sources have to say, not opinion polling. MrOllie (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is biased in some way, by relying on what reliable sources say Wikipedia tries to overcome the bias of its editors. So if reliable sources don't mention something it isn't mentioned here, and if those sources state something isn't true Wikipedia states the same. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
71.247, I must have been unclear. When I wrote "The only thing this policy is concerned with is whether the statement represents what the published reliable sources say", I meant that the only thing that matters is what the WP:Published Wikipedia:Reliable sources say. Note that "published reliable sources" is not the same as "actual human beings".
In the case of medical subjects, it matters what a medical textbook like Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine or what a review article (NB: not the same as any peer reviewed article) in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology says. It does not matter at all what the general public believes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But reliable resources ABSOLUTELY mention what I said (that morally the fetus/embryo is a human life, and that there are some complications in long term health of women who get abortion, especially many abortions.) However, it is not what they "usually" say and apparently that is sufficient reason to ignore them altogether.
But what if the consensus of reliable sources is wrong? (As is so often the case in humsn society). In such a case, wikipedia would not merely be advocating a falsehood; it would also be suppressing the truth.
You say it is based on a 'fair balance' of viewpoints, yet amazingly you justify a population of 33% receiving 0% voice. (Which is exactly what happened in abortion and trump pages) 2600:1017:B8BC:60:853C:C3DE:6E2D:800B (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the human population view is very relevant here. The question of human life in embryo / fetus is a moral question, not a scientific one. The science makes no claim for the moral question (although some try to claim it does) 2600:1017:B8BC:60:853C:C3DE:6E2D:800B (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus of reliable sources is wrong, Wikipedia will be as well. Using reliable sources is the only means we have to determine what is 'right' or 'wrong' anyway. MrOllie (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Wikipedia need to be wrong? It can be avoided. If they advocate 70% of article to source A (which is wrong) and 30% to source B (which is right), but make no claim about which is right, then they are not wrong. In such a scenario, at least the reader has a chance to align with source B. And what's more, he can do so without wikipedia, in its editorial bias, trying to persuade him that source A is correct merely because it has a majority. (Indeed, the reader already knows that). 2600:1017:B8BC:60:853C:C3DE:6E2D:800B (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I just said, we're not going to devote 30% of astronomy articles to astrology, or what have you. Opinion polling is not a viable means to decide which facts are correct. MrOllie (talk) 00:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, nothing i have said implies such a thing. 2600:1017:B8BC:60:853C:C3DE:6E2D:800B (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are seeking is neutrality not NPOV. Wikipedia is not neutral, instead it has (as best as can be managed) no point of view of its own. It's simply restates what is available from reliable sources. If those sources don't match what you may consider to be neutrality then neither will Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the page itself --
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
The conservative views are being dismissed (not given lesser weight - but dismissed altogether) because they are not the "consensus". 71.247.12.176 (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Abortion in the United States goes into great detail of both Liberal and Conservative views around abortion in the US. The Abortion page is about the procedure and so deals with the medical opinions.
Also as a note the Conservatives in my country support abortion, US perspectives are not universal (which is why it's dealt with in a separate article). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view