Wikipedia talk:Guidelines for controversial articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Citing "Centrist" Mainstream Media Organizations
The Guidelines said:
"An editorial from a mainstream centrist media organization is best, because it can usually be assumed to represent the opinion of a meaningful segment of the population, but don't rely on the journalist to always accurately report the bias of its sources. Alternately, a text from conservative or alternative media or a focus group can be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms."
"Conservative and alternative media sources" were created precisely to problematize and draw attention to the bias in supposedly centrist mainstream sources. Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the New York Times are centrist and both have clear idelogical biases on their editorial pages as do the vast majority of "mainstream" news sources.
But what is more, in exactly what way are centrists more "meaningful" than rightists or leftists? Assuming this word was meant only in a numerical sense an argument might be made that there are more right wingers than centrists and more left wingers than centrists.
In short this string of comments needs to be reevaluated. While I would agree that most mainstream sources try to pretend to be unbiased in their regular news pages or news shows no such effort is exerted on the editorial page or on opinion shows. The New York Times may strike a neutral tone on its news pages but takes clearly liberal positions on its editorial page time and time again.
Thus, while one should not refer to the "liberal New York times" when citing a hard news story one should feel free to do so when citing an editorial by that paper. Carambola 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unlabelled comments from before December 31, 2004
Some people say this article should be merged with Wikipedia:NPOV
- WHO say this?? Shouldn't we trying to avoid weaselspeak??
-
- I think this is an article that deserves development. Wikipedia:NPOV is a fine article, but an article on the specific problem of controversial and difficult articles is like an advanced course version : ChrisG 21:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that attaching a name to facts or opinions is different from Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Consider this:
Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy
Versus this:
New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison argued in the Clay Shaw case that the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Versus this:
Some people believe the CIA planned the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (People vs. Clay Shaw, 1967, III, ii, 37-45)
One axis is that of citing sources; the other is that of naming opinions. They're not really the same thing; attaching one name to a widely held opinion seems a violation of NPOV, because it draws undue attention to that one name.
Regarding linking to "mainstream" media sources, Wikipedia's POV policy is not about presenting the "majority view" or a "centrist view." It is about sticking to demonstrable facts, and not passing off controversial opinions as fact. Where appropriate, opinions should be described but clearly identified as opinions.
Let's be realistic here. There are NO universally accepted NPOV media sources in existence. There are doubtless many which try but none which 100% of the world agrees is truly NPOV. Readers are free to dismiss a link's source as biased but, unless the content of the individual article can be clearly demonstrated to be inaccurate, then it should remain. If someone else wishes to edit and place a competing or contradicting piece alongside, I have no problem with that.
I would expect that the contributors to this work understand that all media sources provide editorial/opinion articles as well as "straight" news pieces. The two are expected to be kept separate. Expressing political beliefs in editorial articles or segments that differ from one's own political opinions is not "proof" that their news reporting is inaccurate. If, on the other hand, opinions are presented as "news fact", that would be an instance of inaccuracy which all here should agree must be corrected.
Chris, I thought the following text was very useful but not quite what I had in mind for this article. Do you mind if I merge it with Wikipedia:NPOV where I think it belongs? What I was looking for was more along the line of very specific guidelines for handling difficult topics. -- Viajero 21:45, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I've had a look at Wikipedia:NPOV and I'm not sure where my additions would fit in. From my experience the comments I've made are only really necessary on controversial issues. :ChrisG 18:47, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Use every opinion Controversial articles are a great opportunity to develop your ability to write neutral point of view. Treat every criticism or rewrite of your writing as a sign that in some way you fell short of neutral point of view. You may feel your original version is closer to NPOV than its replacement, but the very fact that it has been altered suggests in some way you failed to achieve NPOV.
Often it is the way you write a point which causes someone to react, not the underlying point itself. Try to identify what part of your contribution triggered the negative reaction. Consider:
- Whether you have chosen a value laden word, which drowns out what you are trying to say. Can you choose a more neutral, less loaded term?
- Whether you have presented a balanced range of views, often people neglect to represent the full range of views. Be inclusive.
- Give an equitable amount of space to different points of view. Most conflict is usually focused on the introduction or preface to a controversial article. If you get that section agreed then often the rest of the article is much less of a problem.
I'm going to try adding what I think are helpful things for these guidelines. Please feel free to criticise. DJ Clayworth 21:42, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Copyedit and some (hopefully) NPOV edits
As this article itself could easily be seen as controversial, I will explain my edits here. Obvious is listed at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid, so I have removed the word three times, without removing the attached statements. will have to be (regarding documenting assertions) seems too strong to me in a semi-policy article; I have replaced it with should be. I reformatted the weaselspeak paragraph for clarity -- the punctuation and sentence structure was confusing to me. Also, I chose to soften the statement that the given expressions are legitimate rhetorical devices to a statement that they may be legitimate; is there consensus that these are definitely legitimate? I can't tell from the diff what I supposedly changed in the Attribute facts section. I corrected article agreement of "a acceptable" to "an acceptable". And I rephrased the parenthetical expression in the last paragraph for clarity. I am willing to discuss any part of these edits someone finds objectionable. Charm ©† 01:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed addition about the prominence of controversies
A comment in the December 2005 Nature review prods me into a proposed addition to this guideline. I'd like to add the following:
- Avoid giving undue prominence to controversies
- As noted in Wikipedia's NPOV policy, articles must represent all views of controversal subjects fairly and without bias. But as the NPOV tutorial notes, the amount of space dedicated to a controversy plays a role in bias-free coverage. Once a controversial topic has been covered, it is important to take a step back from the edit wars and other steps that led to the end result and take a broader perspective. Does the end result overly emphasize the controversy?
- If an article is a biography, is the controversial incident all that the individual is known for? In some cases, that make be the case, but a recent controversy, however major, might be only a year in the career of a public figure with perhaps decades of mostly uncontroversial involvement in high profile positions.
- Some subjects, like abortion debate, are about the controversy itself. In those cases, the controversy by definition looms large in the article. But trying to cover the pro-life/pro-choice debate about abortion in the abortion article itself could result in an article where the debate overshadows the less controversial aspects of an encyclopedic coverage of the topic.
- For the cases where reducing the prominence of a controversy seems appropriate, the simplest approach to is to create an article about the controversy, as in abortion debate or allegations of child sexual abuse by Michael Jackson in the early 1990s. For cases where it seems justified to have the controversy dominate the article, as in the case where a controversy is the only reason someone achieved his or her 15 minutes of fame (or infamy), this can be validated through a couple of techniques. One technique is to look at the Special:Whatlinkshere list for the article (both pre-existing and newly introduced); if references to the article are limited to topics related to the controversy, that helps validate the dominance. It can also be validated by consulting sources external to Wikipedia, though external sources are less useful when an article is addressing current events.
(end of proposal)
I guess feedback can come at three levels. There's the guideline itself ("Avoid giving undue prominence to controversies"), the rationale for the guideline, and the wording I've chosen. It might be most useful to see if the guideline survives scrunity at the first two levels before anyone comments on the third. 69.3.70.171 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC).
[edit] Views on use of banners
Please see the banner at the top of British Isles. I'm arguing against the use of banners like this. My view is that a banner is not for this purpose, but rather to confirm to the reader that they are at the right article, and if not, where else they might go. It seems to me that this banner is being used to push the POV that the term British Isles should be abandoned. I changed the banner to this [1] but it was quickly reverted. So that's my view, what's anyone else's? Thanks. Arcturus 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nonsensical definition of weasel words
The guidelines regarding weasel words give the following example:
- ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. )
This guideline presents a bizarre a-priori bias. It gives an inverted interpretation of the word 'claimed'. To "claim" used in such a context means to "assert" or "demand recognition of the fact" (both OED defns) yet the guideline proceeds to point out that those making the claim may well be correct, surely a redundant point. Either way, the term should not imply any hidden meaning, either the claim was made, (i.e. asserted by those making it) or it was not asserted (claimed) by those making it. The act of making a claim does NOT imply its veracity. Nor does reporting that a claim was made cast any doubt on its veracity, as is convolutedly implied by the interpretation of the given example . I would argue that use of the term in the example is good usage, not bad. RichardJ Christie 10:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
