Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here. Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines. Feel free to update this page as needed, but please use the discussion page to propose major changes. |
Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a neutral point of view.
Contents |
[edit] Describe the controversy
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?" It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy.
Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views in a controversy.
See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
[edit] Be careful with attribution
When writing an article on most topics in Wikipedia, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion.
However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. The more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it should be documented. Keep the following things in mind:
[edit] Be careful with weasel words
The term "weasel words" refers to expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", and "is alleged." While these may be legitimate rhetorical devices, they should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden bias, since claimed implies that the claim may not be true and that there is some reason to doubt it. For example:
- ...is widely thought to be the work of... (good)
- ...who claimed they were forced from their homes... (bad--It's quite possible the people described were forced from their homes. )
[edit] Attribute facts
When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source. Ideally, this would be an independent scholarly work, but most of us don't have access to this kind of material. For most events since 1995, and some before, Web-based news reports can be cited to establish basic facts. These should be from the mainstream media (CNN, BBC, etc.) or independent organizations such as the UN, taking into account that they have their bias as well.
[edit] Attribute assertions
When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions should likewise be attributed to an acceptable source. A regular news story from a mainstream media organization is best, but don't rely on the journalist to report the bias of its sources accurately. Alternatively, a text from conservative or liberal alternative media or a focus group may be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. For example,
- The conservative American churchgroup...
- The liberal anti-war group...
- The right-wing pro-Israel advocacy group...
- The radical Islamic group...
- The indigenous rebel movement...
Identify the possible bias of the source (including organizational, financing, and/or personal ties with interested parties). If the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible). (One example is the much-disputed distinction between a terrorist and... a freedom fighter, but other disputes are certainly possible.) In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives.
[edit] Editing procedures
If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones. First make the non-controversial edits and then the (suspected) controversial ones. If the controversial edit is reverted by another contributor then at least the non-controversial edits will be maintained.
