Wikipedia talk:Advocacy articles

Delete Orphaned Essay
I really don't see much value in this essay... it's poorly constructed and appears to have been written solely to make a WP:POINT. Unfortunately one can't just prod it. -- samj in out 01:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The aim is to show how many such articles have been around 00 look at the history of the Prem Rawat articles, the Scientology articles etc. Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So it seems the climate change denial article was previously removed. -- samj in out 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And several others now added. I think you would find it instructive to see the other editor's interactions. DNFTT applies to him. Collect (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed them all as it's entirely subjective and appears to be used to attack subjects. If they return then I'll work out how to propose essays for deletion (MfD?). -- samj in out 08:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent Collect's edit
I disagree with this generalisation. The articles about Communism, or similar controversial subjects, are not more prone to bias then any other articles. My point was quite different. Sometimes the very structure and title of some article create a base for extremely strong bias, and the Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes article is a good example of that. The very title implies that (i) mass killings did take place, (ii) mass killings occurred because the states were Communists, and (iii) all those killing had some significant common traits, which made them a separate phenomenon. As a result, the article becomes an attractor for the sources that advocate the theses i-iii, whereas the sources that (i) describe those events otherwise, (ii) see different driving forces behind those events, or (iii) see little or no commonality between those events, or group them according to other traits, appear to be beyond the article's scope. As a result, the article becomes intrinsically biased, not because the subject is highly politicised, but because its structure implies a strong bias. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting - but I try to make this an essay about a real problem - not an extension of one's advocacy interests into this essay. Nor does this essay aver that given articles are biassed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"Controversy" articles
I do not see why the "controversy" type articles are the advocacy articles. Such articles allow discussion of all pro et contra, so I see no ground for bias here (except a situation when there is no major controversy about the article's subject; however, in that case such article should be simply deleted).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Additions - should we just list two where Paul Siebert is a major personage, or a broader group ?
Pauk Siebert has added two specific articles on which he is an active editor (indeed, most active editor - with Communist terrorism getting 83 edits and its talk page 920 edits, and Mass killings under communist regimes getting 143  edits and 2,011  on its talk page from him alone!). I expanded them to groups of articles, but he insists that those two and only those two should be added. How do others feel? Should we just name the articles where Paul Siebert is the most active commenter? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the topic per se does not warrant neutrality/non-neutrality, so it is quite possible to write a perfectly neutral article on a quite politicised subject. However, some article may be built in such a way that they are intrinsically non-neutral, i.e. they advocate some particular idea (see my explanation above). Therefore, I believe it is quite incorrect to label some topic as whole (Communism related, Palestine-Israel related etc) as "advocacy" topic. In my opinion, the examples should be real examples, i.e., they should refer to some concrete articles, not topics. And it is quite natural that I provided the examples I am familiar with.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PS. I found the Collect's habit to count other's edits, and to draw some far reaching conclusions from that offensive. That is not what we need here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PPS. However, I admit I may be wrong, and some topics may be prone to one-sided advocacy. In that case, I will not object against inclusion of some areas, however, I would like to see some exhaustive explanation of why such broader group as whole is prone to advocacy, for instance:
 * Why most Communism related articles are intrinsically advocacy articles, and what prevent us from balanced presenting of pro- and anti-Communist views, along with the views of neutral scholars there?
 * Why Israel-Palestine articles are the advocacy articles, and what concrete advocacy (pro-Israel or pro-Arabian) tends to dominate? Otherwise, if no viewpoint dominate, what is the problem?
 * Why the "... controversy" type article are advocacy, if the controversy is described in a balanced manner in accordance with WP:NPOV?
 * I expect to see concrete answers which (I hope) dispel my doubts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles which attract strong views - such as those where a single editor posts more than two thousand comments on the talk page are the ones which are covered by the essay. Your own editing history demonstrates this exceedingly clearly, thanks. Collect (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you have no arguments except ad hominem ones.
 * With regard to your description of the scope of this essay, by unilaterally defining its scope you demonstrate WP:OWN. I see the scope of this essay somewhat differently, because strong views does not warrant advocacy per se, as soon as opposing views are presented in a balanced manner. In my opinion, advocacy articles are those articles whose structure implies some unilateral advocacy. In connection to that, I do not understand how can various "...controvercy..." articles be advocacy articles: thus, when the whole opinia spectrum is presented in some climate change related article, how can we speak about any advocacy? By contrast, if the article is built in such a way that it allows to include only part of the material of some subject, whereas other sources appear underrepresented by virtue of intrinsically biased article's structure, this means pure and blatant advocacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)