Wikipedia talk:Controversial articles

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)

Unlabelled comments from before December 31, 2004
Some people say this article should be merged with NPOV 


 * WHO say this?? Shouldn't we trying to avoid weaselspeak??


 * I think this is an article that deserves development. 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 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 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 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)

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 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 &copy;&dagger; 01:29, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

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).

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

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)


 * I just stumbled across this page and find the discussion of weasel words quoted below has it backwards:


 * ...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. )


 * The phrase "widely thought to be" is an unattributed claim that immediately causes me to ask "thought by whom?"; it's a classic case of weasel words. On the other hand, the statement "...who claimed they were" specifies precisely who is the source for the claim, thereby avoiding the classic kind of weasel word.  The word "claim" might be replaced by a more neutral term "who say they were," but I don't think the problem here is weasel wording.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just translated this into Serbian and I have to concur with the above — the discussion of weasel words in this guideline does not look good at all. --Dzordzm (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrorist
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. Any objections? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Some new proposed wording on terrorist, extremist, freedom fighter, etc.
[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)

Words to avoid
It seems to me better to include "Words with controversial meanings" in Words to avoid not here. I see no benefit in moving "Extremist, terrorist or freedom fighter?" to here as the objections to is are not that they are in the guideline Words to avoid but that a prohibition on their usage exists. I think the status quo should be maintained unless there is a consensus to move it here and there is no indication to me that there is. --PBS (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding whether there's consensus: I'm not sure either, but I think there is (otherwise I wouldn't have made the edit), because every time I've brought the issue up over the last few months that the "terrorist" thread might be out of place at WT:Words to avoid, no one has objected. So, let's ask around and see.  Check out the WT:Words to avoid archives: compare what people talked about from Jan-May 2007 (50 different registered users discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Jun-Dec 2007 (not much besides heretics, martyrs, apostates, freedom fighters, apartheid, and terrorists) vs. Jan-Aug 2008 (around 60 registered accounts discussing a wide variety of topics relevant to the guideline) vs. Sept-Dec 2008 (not much besides terrorists, martyrs, concentration camps).  What you'll see is that that talk page tends to be lively and useful for the intended and important purpose (people at GAN and GAR have insisted that it stay in the WP:WIAGA criteria, with good reason), up until the time that there's vigorous discussion on "bad guy" topics, and then everyone else stops watchlisting and goes away (despite efforts by G-Guy and myself to get people interested in new topics).  In contrast to all the "bad-guy" discussions, I don't see any bad guys here :)  But inadvertently, we've allowed a very important guideline talk page to get hijacked for single-purpose advocacy. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's this new thing going 'round. I dunno if you've heard of it. It's called common sense. TERRORISM is NOT a word to AVOID. It isn't even a controversial word; no one denies it exists. Its use may be controversial with respect to certain topics; that is is CONTENT ISSUE. Holy Crap, people. Wake up. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 00:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ling has hit the nut on the head, in his typical inimitable style. Use of words like "terrorism" is primarily a content issue, not a style issue. It only becomes a style issue when it is used to label: this is particularly true for "terrorist" used as a noun to describe a person. I would be in favour of adding an example or brief discussion involving terrorism or something similar to WP:WTA. However, I think this guideline is a much better place to discuss the general neutral point of view issues concerning controversial applications of works like "terrorism", not WP:WTA.
 * This does beg the question, why the heck is this guideline part of the Manual of Style? It has nothing to do with style, but is an adjunct to WP:NPOV. Geometry guy 19:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * re: "brief discussion": see my first paragraph in this section. The evidence suggests that discussions on use of the word "terrorist" on Wikipedia are not short; thus the move.  Agree that "style" isn't the best description for this page, but I tend to be conservative and only change the minimum necessary to deal with the issue of the moment. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I also oppose the move, at least for now. The last discussion did not achieve any concensus to change, and didn't end long before you made the move. It's better to invite previously involved users back to the discussion and try a concensus before making any major changes. Grey Fox (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is as much about people not objecting as it is about people approving. This thread is a good example of consensus discussion. This isn't a major change - it is simply common sense. Geometry guy 11:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a word to avoid as a general matter, not a question of articles that themselves are controversial or about controversial subjects. Whether it fits or not in that other article is a different matter.  It certainly does not fit in this article, which is about how editors can get along without shanking each other.  Someone made a suggestion to branch it and several other content-related problem words into their own article.  If that's the case it is not the only one.  Quite a few of the "words to avoid" are included on that page because they create POV issues, not because they are purely stylistic problems. Wikidemon (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I only now became aware of this discussion. I have so much to say, and find that almost everything has already been said. But, as always in wikipedia discussions, I am going to say it anyway.


 * First of all, it seems pretty clear to me that the word terrorist always says what side you're on. The terrorists are always the bad guys.  Can someone point me to a use of the word where the terrorists were the good guys? So the suggestion that the use of the word is a content, and not a POV, issue, is simply wrong.  Regardless of how rigidly you define the word, its use always contains an opinion.


 * Second, no one seems to have asked this question: can you write the same thing without using the word terrorist? Look at Passover massacre.  In that article, the word terror appears only in direct quotes.  By any objective definition of the word that attack was terrorism; yet our article presents the attack as no less heinous than had we used the word.  So it isn't like we're censoring the encyclopedia.  In the encyclopedia we don't call slums shitholes, and we don't call politically motivated acts of violence against innocent civilians terrorism.  You just need a little imagination to say the same thing another way.


 * Third, I believe the word "massacre" should be another banned word. Massacres are something that bad guys do to good guys.  There is no agreed objective definition of the term.  It is used consistently in the Wikipedia as an editorial comment, and it is used liberally.


 * Anyone interested in my views on this matter is welcome to read my essay User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was do not move. A redirect could be helpful however.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this article should be moved to Controversial issues. There are very few articles where the controversy does not spill past simply the relevant article page. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right that controversial articles are almost always a piece of a larger controversy. But this guideline deals with editing the specific article, not with handling the larger issue.


 * However, a redirect from "Controversial issues" would certainly be in order. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per Ravpapa. Issues is such a wishy washy word that it means nothing. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree a redirect would be in order, but as the topic of the page is how to handle controversial articles, changing it to "issues" really solves nothing. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversial categories and templates
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. Neutral_point_of_view 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)

Need for expanded See Also section
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.


 * Criticism
 * Avoid thread mode
 * Pro and con lists
 * Words to avoid
 * List of controversial issues

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead and do that. 132.68.27.21 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Need for an All-In-One template for Talk pages and Main pages of controversial articles
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?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style
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)

Proposal to remove this from the MOS
On going discussion about removing this page from the MOS. See here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style Gnevin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Proposed guideline for describe all points of view fairly
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:
 * 1) Name of the person or organization espousing the POV
 * 2) Reasons they have given for supporting it
 * 3) *For example, "because it is true" or "because it's the right thing to do"
 * 4) Evidence and/or analysis they have given which favors the POV
 * 5) *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
 * 6) *For example, C called D "anti-semitic" on the grounds that D has called for "elimination of all Jews from (fill in blank)"
 * 7) *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)
 * 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)

Exemption from size limit for controversial subjects
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)

Allowing "passionate" quotes in controversial subjects
Quotations states that Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided.

The article Muammar al-Gaddafi contains a quote from Ronald Reagan calling him a mad dog. This quote is clearly non-encyclopedic but well known; that article would be incomplete without it. Balance can be achieved by the juxtaposition of biased opinions. I suggest that controversial political subjects be exempt from this guideline. What do you think? Emmanuelm (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Quotations is an essay, not a guideline. You can do what it says or not, depending on the context.


 * I think that the sentence is referring more to the situation where editors with a strong opinion on a subject use extreme quotes to introduce bias into an article. Using biased quotes is okay, as long as the political position of the speaker is made clear (Doctor Dicklewood, a spokesman for the extreme right-wing group Blurbls, called the president "a porcine platypus.").


 * I think that, on the contrary, when the topic of an article is a subject of vitriolic debate, that vitriol must be documented in the article. Otherwise, the article is not complete. So Reagan's quote (which I assume is in quote marks) is certainly appropriate for the article.


 * Downplaying of controversy is one of the methods used by POV pushers to belittle their opponents. You can read about this at my essay User:Ravpapa/Tilt: How to get bias into a Wikipedia article. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Gee, Ravpapa, thanks for agreeing with me. But WP:controversial articles still says nothing about it and WP:quotations remains contrary to your and my opinion. Will you support me in changing this? Emmanuelm (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

hijacking of controversial articles.
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)

Template for controversial articles
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)