Controversial articles, by their very nature, require far greater care to achieve neutral point of view.
| Table of contents |
An article about a controversial person or group should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. It is not usually necessary to also describe opposing views.
When writing on article on most topics in Ireland Information Guide, simple declarations of fact and received opinion do not need to be sourced; indeed, it would be cumbersome to burden a writer with the onus of providing documentary proof for every assertion.
However, when dealing with potentially contentious topics, such as in the field of religion or current affairs, a lot more care has to be taken. Obviously, the more at variance from commonly accepted notions an assertion is, the more rigorously it will have to be documented. Keep the following things in mind:
Use of weaselspeak, expressions such as "is claimed", "is thought to be", "is alleged" -- which are legitimate rhetorical devices -- should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that they are not used to insert hidden POV, since "claimed" implies that the claim may not be true and there is some reason to doubt it. For example:
When establishing events or actions, reference should be made to a reliable source. Ideally, this would be an independent scholarly work, but most of us don't have access to this kind of material. For most events since 1995, and some before, Web-based news reports can be cited to establish basic facts. These should be from the mainstream media (CNN, BBC, etc) or independent organizations such as the UN, taking into account that they have their bias as well.
When characterizing people, events, or actions, assertions likewise should be attributed to a acceptable source. An editorial from a mainstream centrist media organization is best, because it can safely be assumed to represent the opinion of a meaningful segment of the population. Alternately, a text from conservative or alternative media or a focus group can be cited, provided the source is accurately labeled in neutral terms. For example,
However, if the status of the source itself is disputed, it is best to avoid such characterizations altogether; instead, a link to an article on the source, where those conflicting viewpoints are discussed, should be used (if possible). (An obvious example is the much-disputed distinction between a terrorist and a freedom fighter, but other disputes are certainly possible.) In the event that non-centrist points of view are presented, it is obviously desirable to include assertions from multiple perspectives.
See also: neutralizing accusations and insinuations, list of controversial issues