User:Selfworm/Info

WP:NPOV - " neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

• Importantly: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."
• Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
• "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
  • See also: Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources.

Arguing against undue weight:

WP:WEIGHT - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

• Importantly: "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."
  • The second part was important enough that it was repeated: "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."
• Importantly: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."
• "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
• "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it"
• "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view."
• "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."

Arguing for a minority view: (See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ)

• If the prevailing argument and your counter-arguments are due to some division of humanity (e.g. by nationality, religion, education, etc.) then try to find a valid source that indicates this and add this information to the article.
  • See also Wikipedia:Systemic bias.
• To show that the view is held by a significant minority (and is not a fringe view):
  • Show that it is held by multiple "prominent adherents" since "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"
  • Try to add as many valid sources for this information as you can to show that this information is not fringe, but only non-prevailing/unpopular.
• Make it clear to the reader that it is a minority but non-frige view point where ever this view point appears.
  • Since "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject", this will help hinder incorrectly justified undue weight removals
• Try adding a sourced explanation of how and the reasons causing the minority to deviate from the majority view (and maybe also add the majority's counter argument) since "controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained."
  • In particular, this places on the majority the burden of providing sourced information that clearly identifies what the opposing majority opinion is (assuming that there even is disagreement), which may be useful if, for instance, the article is already presenting a minority view as if it was the only/majority view.
• Make sure that a statement upheld by the opposing side is clearly identified as such since "it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view."
  • If it has not already been recently mentioned that this view is the minority view then make this clear to the reader.

Anglo-American focus

• "Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective."
  • See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Policies to cite if someone adds false/non-neutral statements or removes one of your properly sourced statements:

• WP:PROVEIT - The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
  
• WP:BURDEN - "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."
  • It also notes that: "Once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., undue emphasis on a minor point, unencyclopedic content, etc.). All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back."
• WP:ONUS - "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (emphasis added).
  • "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article."
  • "Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article."

Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions

• Just pointing at a policy or guideline|While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why. The same is true when asserting that something does follow policy.
• Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change

• "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered"
• "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
  • See also: Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources.

WP:SOURCES - Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

• Importantly: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

Sourcing News Organizations:

• "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."
• "Most newspapers also reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Interfax, Agence France-Presse, United Press International or the Associated Press, which are responsible for accuracy."
  • Importantly: "The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it."
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources#Non-independent sources
• Breaking News: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news
  • "Claims sourced to initial news reports should be replaced with better-researched ones as soon as possible, especially where incorrect information was imprudently added. All breaking news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution per WP:PSTS."
  • [Allowing time to pass] "gives journalists time to collect more information and verify claims, and for investigative authorities to make official announcements."
  • "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added)
  • "Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy
  • The Breaking News Consumer's Handbook
• Wikipedia:Recentism - "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view, and can result in: Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens...."

WP:EXTRAORDINARY - "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."

• "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"
• "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;"
• "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people."
• Consider using the tag: {{Citation needed}}

• WP:WEASEL - Weasel words
• WP:LABEL - "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution."
• WP:CLAIM - "Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate."
  • "Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable."
  • "To write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly for living people, because these verbs can inappropriately imply guilt."

Quotations:

• "Where there is good reason to change the wording, enclose changes within square brackets"
  • Ex: [her father] replacing him, where the context identifying "him" is not included in the quotation: "Ocyrhoe told [her father] his fate".
• "If there is a significant error in the original statement, use [sic] or the template {{sic}} to show that the error was not made by Wikipedia."
• "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment (for example, correct basicly to basically and harasssment to harassment), unless the slip is textually important."
• "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text."

Misc:

• WP:NOT - A long list of things that Wikipedia is not.