User:The Four Deuces/POV

How to spot a POV article

The following features may help identify a POV article. While some features may merely show that an article is about a controversial topic; the presence of a nexus of features listed below is an indication that the article may be biased.

Title

• The use of a phrase or the combination of an adjective or pronoun and a noun. Especially a phrase that combines the name of a religious, ethnic or political group with words having negative connotations, re-enforcing stereotypes. There may not be a body of literature that uses the phrase, although various writers may have used the same wording but with different meanings.
• The use of a conjunction ("and") to combine two nouns. For example, "Ruritanians and massacres".
• The use of a lesser-known phrase used primarily by people holding a specific view. For example, "Mainland China".

Lede

• Topic defined as a tautology. "Ruritarian massacres are massacres carried out by Ruritanians".
• Sources do not use the same phrase for the topic; or, there is no evidence that the phrase in the source is about the same topic.
• Sources describe the topic as a descriptive phrase, not as an analytical category.
• No clear definition of a topic.

References

• No references.
• References primarily to non-scholarly sources, or non-scholarly references relied upon for key pieces of evidence, analysis or definition.
• Multiple references for single sentences.[31][32][33][34] This often indicates that the references may be weak; and when previously challenged, additional weak references have been added.
• Different references[31][32] used for different parts[33] of a single sentence.[34] May indicate synthesis, i.e, no source makes the exact claim made in the sentence.
• A large number of different sources used. May indicate that the article was written and the editor then searched for sources to support each sentence.
• Reference to the editors of a book, rather than the author of the article contained within it that is used as the source. May indicate that the article was written and the editor then searched for a sources to support a specific claim.

Sources

• Old articles from news media. Current views of events often differ from how they were perceived at the time.
• Tertiary sources such as general encyclopedias, abridged dictionaries and introductory textbooks. Such sources may not accurately reflect disputes in academic writing.
• Think tanks, editorials, polemical writing and partisan publishers. While no source is neutral, these sources often present minority views as mainstream or arrange facts to support a viewpoint without acknowledging other possible interpretations.
• Non-academic books and articles. May contain false information due to poor fact-checking.
• Articles and books about a different topic. The farther removed a claim is from the subject of an article or the area of its writer's expertise, the less likely that it will be accurate.
• Old books and articles. May indicate that the same claim cannot be found in modern writing. Also, current understanding of a topic may differ from how it was perceived in the past.
• Primary sources. When a writer describes his or her personal opinions, that (and the extract) is a primary source for that writer's opinions. A secondary source that summarizes the work and explains its degree of acceptance should be used.
• Sources from obscure publishing houses. May indicate mining for sources to support a view.
• Use of newspapers from regions unrelated to the subject. For example, a controversial English entertainer tours the United States and a local paper in New Zealand is used as a source.
• Use of lower quality or highly partisan news sources. While these sources may be reliable, if high quality news sources have not covered a story, it may lack significance to be included.

Weight

• No discussion of the weight assigned to the views described in the article. If the article is about a specific view, then omitting this discussion creates the impression that it is generally accepted.
• Poorly sourced discussion of the weight assigned to the views described in the article. If the claim is made "some writers have said" then there should be a source that says this, rather than references to several writers who have made said claim. We need to establish that the fact some writers have made a claim has been noted.
• Parity provided between mainstream sources and claims by the subject. "Although Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with killing the President, he denied it."
• Absence of contextualisation in relation to mainstream interpretations. While minority view points often have academic standing, failing to link to or note major orthodox or majority views may mean the article's purpose is as a vehicle for POV, not as a proper discussion of a minority or alternate view.

Content

• Use of sources that are not directly about the topic of the article. May indicate that editors are attempting to bolster a thesis.
• Content cut and pasted from other articles. May indicate that editors are attempting to bolster a thesis.

Talk page

The following will determine whether editors are attempting to insert bias into the article.

• Requests for deletion (AfDs), merger or re-naming.
• Requests for comment (RfC).
• Posting to content noticeboards, for example "no original research", "neutral point of view", "original research".
• Editors make opposite arguments in similar articles about different subjects. For example the same editor argues in favor of using the book "History of Ruritania" in the article "West Ruritanian massacres" but argues against it in "East Ruritanian massacres", using the same arguments he opposed in the first article.
• Ad hominem arguments concerning the bias of authors cited in the article. Reliability is the function of the publisher of a source, not the author.
• Extensive discussion about primary sources. The interpretation of primary sources should be taken from secondary sources.

Article history

• Edit warring.
• Participation of editors with blocks for edit-warring, incivility and sock-puppeting. May also have histories of editing restrictions.
• Page protection, 1RR restrictions.
• Edit-warring by IPs or new editors. May indicate the existence of off-wiki discussions among groups that oppose how they are portrayed in the mainstream or blocked/banned editors returning as sock-puppets.