Wikipedia:Controversial articles: Difference between revisions

{{for|a list of controversial issues|Wikipedia:List of controversial issues}}

[[File:Manifestation en Algérie contre la hausse des prix (2011).jpg|thumb|right|200px|Articles about controversial events or issues, or disputed incidents can be challenging to edit in a neutral fashion. Are the individuals in this picture "[[riot]]ers" or "[[protest]]ers"?]]

Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]].

 

== Describe the controversy ==

 

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. For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article, giving weight to the viewpoints in accordance to the weight that these viewpoints are given in reliable, published sources: "Several US organizations such as A, B and C criticized the XYZ faction for its..." If authoritative sources support the existence of positive viewpoints about the person or group, these too can be summarized for the reader: "The organizations P and Q endorsed the aims of the XYZ faction, and the political philosophers John Smith and Sue Jones defended their political arguments."

 

Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must [[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight|"give equal validity"]] to minority views in a controversy. If the vast majority of political philosophers criticized the XYZ faction, and only two political philosophers supported the group's aims, then giving substantial coverage of these two philosopher's views could be viewed as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].

 

== Be precise ==

::''Standing before the ruins of an exploded apartment building, the military spokesman claimed that "only military targets were hit".''

 

 

=== Attribute each sentence, not just a paragraph ===

 

=== Attribute facts ===

 

=== Attribute assertions ===

 

=== Raise source quality ===

A barely acceptable source is acceptable and can be cited, but try to find better (or the best) sourcing you can. The qualifications of the author (including whether the author's background is stated in the book itself), the reputation of the publisher for accuracy (such as a university press), and use of the work in training postgraduate students all indicate the quality or [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliability]] of the source. Although both easy-to-verify and hard-to-verify sources are allowed, as long as both are at least minimally [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable]], when you have a choice the easy-to-verify source is preferred, and that usually means a source that can be read online and for free, provided that does not produce a source that's worse in other respects. If you must choose between an easily verifiable source that's barely reliable and a very reliable source that's barely verifiable, choose the more reliable source. If you can cite both, cite both (you can generally cite up to [[Wikipedia:Citation overkill|three for a point]]).

 

* [[Wikipedia:Be neutral in form]]

* [[Wikipedia:Criticism]]

* [[Wikipedia:Method for consensus building]]

* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Accusations]]

* [[Wikipedia:Pro and con lists]]

 

[[Category:Wikipedia controversial topics|*]]