Wikipedia talk:Controversial articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Citing "Centrist" Mainstream Media Organizations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Unlabelled comments from before December 31, 2004

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed addition about the prominence of controversies 

message: 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  but it was quickly reverted. So that's my view, what's anyone else's? Thanks. Arcturus 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on use of banners 

message: A long-running discussion on the word "terrorist" at WT:Words to avoid ended on December 18.  The high-volume discussion is a distraction for the many people who are pointed to WP:Words to avoid from the Good Article criteria, and is a deterrent to watchlisting that guideline.  Unless there's a vote to "demote" the text and discussions (that is, to move them out of the guidelines and back to the article talk page or to WikiProject Terrorism), they should be in some guideline, and this is the most closely related guideline I can find.  I'd like to archive the talk thread over there and move the guideline text and its shortcuts to WP:Controversial articles#Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?.  Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard any objections, and I'd like to make the change in time for this month's WP:Update.  I'm archiving the talk and moving today's message in that thread here.  Feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestion; I've broken the Words with multiple or controversial meanings section from WT:Words to avoid into Words with multiple meanings (left there) and Words with controversial meanings (brought over here), and moved the "terrorism" subsection over here. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I object. I haven't able to object because I was away for about a month, but I personally think that to move does not improve the quality and easiness of wikipedia and will only cause longer prolonged discussions about the usage of the words in already controversial articles. Grey Fox (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I left msgs on the talk pages of most of the people who had been involved in the discussion, everyone was okay with it (but they didn't come here and register a vote, because no one was opposing).  I can ask again if you like. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist 

message: [Moved from WT:Words to avoid]: Totally oppose the inclusion of the phrase "barring clear consensus to the contrary" in this proposal. They will merely give an official stamp to the dominant POV on en:Wiki - it will destroy any semblance of WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some new proposed wording on terrorist, extremist, freedom fighter, etc.

message: While controversy in the text of an article is handled pretty well by attribution, and this project page addresses that fairly well, controversial categories and templates are not handled as well and aren't explicitly addressed here.  Categories, etc. cannot be attributed.  Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements says "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth." Шизомби (talk) 15:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial categories and templates 

message: I would like to add the following to the "See also" section of this article. Is there a consensus on that? Please give feedback. Thanks.
*Wikipedia:Criticism
*Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode
*Wikipedia:Pro and con lists
*Wikipedia:Words to avoid
*Wikipedia:List of controversial issues
Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and do that. 132.68.27.21 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for expanded See Also section 

message: I see a need for an All-In-One template for Talk pages of controversial articles. For example, could we combine all of the below into one template for Talk pages?  Plus perhaps a template for the top the main page of the article itself?
In addition to the above key Wikipedia policies, you may find the following Wikipedia policies particularly useful in this controversial article:
Wikipedia:Controversial articles, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, Wikipedia:Words to avoid
Please let me know what you think.  Thanks.
Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for an All-In-One template for Talk pages and Main pages of controversial articles

message: There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: MoS naming style

message: On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS.  See here  Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Ain.27t_got_no_style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed that this page be swiftly removed from the MoS and guideline status entirely. See here.—DCGeist (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to remove this from the MOS

message: When there is a controversy or dispute over what viewpoint is closest to reality, NPOV requires us to avoid enshrining any one POV as correct, but we are also warned against giving all viewpoints "equal validity".
Perhaps it would help if we listed the following for every viewpoint described:
#Name of the person or organization espousing the POV
#Reasons they have given for supporting it
#*For example, "because it is true" or "because it's the right thing to do"
#Evidence and/or analysis they have given which favors the POV
#*For example, a scientific paper explains the theory of how A causes B, along with studies which associate observations of A occurring in conjunction with (or followed by) B
#*For example, C called D "anti-semitic" on the grounds that D has called for "elimination of all Jews from (fill in blank)"
#*For example, E called F "anti-Muslim" on the grounds that F has called for "elimination of all Muslims from (fill in blank)"
If the source gives no evidence or analysis, we can either omit that part or point it out. In some cases it may be better to omit pointing out the lack of evidence and analysis, especially if a party to the dispute has made a point of it.
*For example, a politician might say that G is an outrage because it doesn't respect the rights of or is insensitive t) H - but gives no evidence of disrespect or insensitivity
Sometimes we may be able to construct a table, if their are many sources with significant viewpoints. If the "reasons given" or "evidence/analysis" field is empty, this could mean either that WP contributors haven't found anything yet, or that the source really didn't provide this information. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These suggestions would work if the world was as simple as the examples given. But it is not. The guidelines from WP:NPOV are fine, no need to change them. Emmanuelm (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed guideline for describe all points of view fairly

message: WP:SIZE recommend to split article over 100Mb. The article Abortion is under 100Kb because some of the volume was transfered in Pro-choice and Pro-life. Is this a good thing?  No, it is a clear example of content forking. On the other hand, George W. Bush, a nice example of the NPOV style, is 170Kb long as it should be. 
I say that NPOV is more important than article size and that articles on controversial subjects will inevitably be, and should be, longer than 100Mb. I suggest to add this concept to this page. What do you think? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Exemption from size limit for controversial subjects

message: I have been involved in a long NPOV dispute in a controversial article. Every now and then someone has been having a go at getting the article more balanced and NPOV, but failing. The block of editors there are not even engaging in discussion about the way the article is and keep up a pretense that they are, from my point of view. I have seen a lot of this in controversial articles and often it is those who have more people and more time who dominate rather than those with the more sound understanding of Wikipedia policy. So, and I am aware that I am still a newbie and there may be sensible reasons that this idea may not have happened, but why is there not a noticeboard for content disputes like there is ANI for behaviour disputes. Surely it would save Wikipedia a lot of time and trouble to have a higher body decide on the sorts of disputes that endlessly go on in controversial articles? And perhaps articles generally.Jed Stuart (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  hijacking of controversial articles. 

message: Is there a template that I could place on a controversial article? It would be very helpful. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for controversial articles