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

Research conflict of interest[edit]

Assume an editor has performed research that has been verified and published. Would it be considered a violation of neutrality to add the results of their research to a page? This is just a hypothetical, but I'm curious to know. Gloryreaper (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFCITE. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry! I didn't see that. Thanks! Gloryreaper (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph "Due and undue weight" versus "Balance"[edit]

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]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2024[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

 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]

Category