This is an issue that is coming up at the Gamergate controversy article, but likely applies to a larger number of places, and it would be helpful for input or clarification to avoid excessively repeating arguments.

In a modern topic (post-Internet boom) such as Gamergate, a situation can easily arise where the near-majority of reliable sources present a certain view on a topic. The counterpoint may be briefly mentioned or not even discussed in reliable sources. However, one can go to other sites, unreliable for WP's purposes, where the counterpoints are discussed in more depth, be part of SPS blog posts, etc. That is, as an editor, we know what the RSes say, but we can also be readily aware of what is said beyond the RSes that may be counter to those statements.

Clearly, we can't include non-RSes sources, so these counterpoints cannot be included, or if RSes do cover them, they should be covered in proportion to WEIGHT. But in evaluating when RSes make statements that are not explicitly labelled as opinions, in determining whether to present these statements as facts or as opinions, the question has come up if we as editors should use the knowledge of the unusable sources to help make that evaluation.

In other words, when editing with a focus on neutrality, should we strictly limit ourselves to the views as presented by the RSes only, or should we temper that with what we know the overall situation is?

For the most part, this basically means whether, per "Avoid stating opinions as facts", we simply add attribution to avoid having statement be in WP's voice; the lack of RSes with a counterpoint means we cannot insert the counterclaims, but that's not required simply for switching a factual statement over to an attributed opinion statement. But this can also mean evaluating article structure and approach that might better met with the larger picture that RSes are not fully presenting due to some systematic bias or a lack of information. Obviously, if one does consider the whole picture, one still needs to be aware of the weight of voices there. If it is only one person in the whole world countering the RSes, that's pretty much ignorable.

To me, I would think for an objective work, we should be considering what RSes report within context of the larger picture, even if we cannot document or discuss that larger picture in the article. It avoids us being blind to what else is out there. However, there is disagreement that we can even approach articles in this manner, and it would be helpful for clarification and discussion. -- MASEM ( t) 20:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• The GG discussion is here, for reference. Protonk ( talk) 20:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
• A rephrasing of my comments there, as they're germane: I feel this is flatly unacceptable as a policy choice. A critical reader cannot verify claims if we never substantiate them in the article, nor can they be expected to weight claims themselves if their inclusion is implicitly determined by editors' hidden information about what is true but not verifiable on a given subject. Our core content policies V and OR exist to prevent this sort of thing. Protonk ( talk) 20:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If "a near-majority" of reliable sources present one view, and the countervailing view is discussed in few or no reliable sources, then what’s the remainder?

In point of fact, for months on end we have discussed chimerical suppositions that the overwhelming consensus or even the agreement of numerous reliable sources on this topic should somehow be "balanced" by a proper consideration of some other opinion, apparently based on this editor’s private sources or personal knowledge. The reliable sources on the topic are abundant and superb -- the New Yorker, the Boston Globe, Boston Magazine, and many others, cited in the article at exhaustive length. The line of reasoning proposed here, which I believe is clearly against policy, has been applied to a variety of topics, including speculations on unspecified sexual improprieties of a named individual.

The underlying theory appears to be that most or all reliable sources are biased against the subject of the article. This is, of course, the very definition of a conspiracy theory. Moreover, if this line of reasoning were endorsed, the defense of the project against fringe science would be completely impossible, since every fringe theory would argue what is argued here -- that the reliable sources unjustly neglect the views espoused. MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The list of sources currently is biased, due to the way they have been carefully selected to promote a specific viewpoint. The controlling group of editors has carefully pruned and edited the list of sources so as to exclude any which present a wider viewpoint. There is no pretense of consistency. Clickbait tabloids appear on the source list, while print magazines are excluded. There is not even consistency within sources. One article from a source will be included, while another more relevant article, sometimes by the same author, is excluded.

The problem isn't the sources per se. It's the controlling group of editors and admins. They've locked the page down and are actively excluding all sources, editors, and articles which contradict their own (highly skewed) views of the article. They've even locked the talk page down, despite considerable admin support for their position anyway. The only reason for a "majority" consensus is that all dissenting editors have been banned(I wonder what the ban count is up to by now?), or excluded by default by page restrictions. In contrast, right now the talk page of the Holocaust article is generally editable, but not the Gamergate talk page. So Wikipedia is able to manage holocaust deniers leaping into talk pages, but finds it impossible to tolerate gamers, with reliable sources, trying to give an article about the video game controversy any kind of balance. It is an absurd situation.

The result of all this is the article in its present form, which is outrageously misinformative and completely biased. The articles and sources for the Gamergate Controversy page don't even reference the "Gamers are Over" article, despite Leigh Alexander appearing elsewhere in the list. The page is factually and intellectually bankrupt and you'd be hard pressed to find a less NPOV page on the site. This is the inevitable result of the page being controlled by a group of editors who aren't gamers, don't understand or follow gaming, or the game industry, who hold biased political views on both, and who have clear and documented positions on the article subject, the persons and issues surrounding it, but who still continue to totally control a page about one of the largest controversies in video games.

It's not about the sources. It's about the people picking and choosing them. That is why the article is biased and POV. AllMyEasterEggs ( talk) 21:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC) striking comments of sock of blocked user in violation of block/ban. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"Verifiability, not truth" seems particularly applicable here.

Quoting the summary statement above: "when editing with a focus on neutrality, should we strictly limit ourselves to the views as presented by the RSes only, or should we temper that with what we know the overall situation is?". While I completely understand why this question would come up in the given context, consensus interpretations of policy seem pretty definitive on the subject (emphasis below is mine):

• WP:RS: "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"
• WP:V: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that the people who are reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."
• WP:NOR: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source"
• WP:NPOV: "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"

In other words, nobody should be modifying a summary of what reliable sources say about a subject simply because of personal knowledge. Or, to put it in the same terms as the section heading: "the bounds of what RSes say" is the larger picture. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me be clear that the question is not so much modifying what the RS say, but whether we should phrase it as a fact in WP voice (w/o in-prose attribution but obviously with a source), or state is as an opinion by the source. Specifically in light of NPOV's "Avoid stating opinions as facts." and to some degree "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." What are the resources that we use to make the determine if something is an opinion, a fact, or a contested assertion? -- MASEM ( t) 23:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The concept that all editors here must now first carefully poll the RS, and then carefully weight their words here to match the majority view of the RS (read PC view) makes Wikipedia the tame lap-dog of the press magnates. Until 2009, there were no such requirements to edit in Wikipedia. Truth was simply truth, and if only one RS spoke the truth, then we would not have to automatically censor out or slant/weight against that one truthful source, because it failed the lap-dog-poll. If the newer NPOV policy that "neutral/balanced=slanted/weighted to the PC view" is kept in place for another 5 or 10 years, Britannica will probaby be restored to its place as the #1 encyclopedic information source, as Wikipedia editors will eventually be seen to only be regurgitating Fox Network/ NBC Network fluff, and self censoring out all else. Pre-2009 Wikipedia editing used to be more of a process of actual thought processing than mere "Politically Correct" information regurgitation. Scott P. ( talk) 01:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't "PC view" a bit dated, in these days of iOS and Android? . dave souza, talk

• As WP:SOURCES makes clear, we weigh quality rather than quantity, and where most coverage is in-universe promotion of fringe views, WP:MNA may be needed to show the mainstream context. . dave souza, talk 10:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

In the case at hand, however, the mass of the sources agrees with the quality sources -- the New Yorker, the NY Times, the Boston Globe, The Guardian, and so forth. Some editors have argued for months that these numerous and impeccable mainstream sources fail to grasp the true meaning or nature of Gamergate, which these editors know is not well described in the sources. MarkBernstein ( talk) 14:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Except we do do this with our BLP policy, implicitly, as an example. If a high-quality RS makes a claim about a person in an otherwise factual manner without establishing and it is a contestable claim that that BLP objects to in otherwise non-RS sources (such as their blog, a reply on WP, or elsewhere) or that an editor establishes is a contestable claim, we do not include that BLP or we make sure the claim is stated as only a claim to that source. There is no reason this same logic applies to claims, in general, just that without the BLP we don't have as fast an impedius to removal poor claims that BLP implies. We cannot state we are neutral or objective if the bulk of source say something about a group, and that group denies that and we don't properly treat that conflict of statements. -- MASEM ( t) 17:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If you think BLP requires we make the changes you're proposing, then open a discussion at BLP/N. It's far afield enough from this discussion to be a distraction. There's no need to throw policy after policy against the wall until something sticks. Protonk ( talk) 18:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm saying BLP already has this built it. The contentiousness of a claim against a BLP does not have to arise from a RS, if it looks contentious from an editor's standpoint, it should be removed (and if there's disagreements to how much contentious there is, that's where consensus reviews that fact). So we do have at least one policy that looks beyond reliable sourcing and gives editors to judge RS on their own. -- MASEM ( t) 18:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say anything like that in BLP? The closes thing I can see is WP:GRAPEVINE, which doesn't remotely describe a situation like this. Protonk ( talk) 19:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You're asking for explicit language whereas BLP is written with common sense in mind and used in practice. If it seems controversial - whether that controversy can be sourced or not - it should be removed. (For example, there is a claim made against Quinn in the GG situation that can be source to two highly reliable sources now; the fact has never been denied by Quinn nor countered by other sources so there's no source to counter that claim, but it is also highly controversial and absolutely not appropriate to include.) -- MASEM ( t) 19:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

If BLP is written with common sense in mind and this is such a common sense interpretation, why isn't there anything like it in that policy? What you are arguing ("If it seems controversial - whether that controversy can be sourced or not - it should be removed") is not in any way common sense, nor does it apply in any meaningful way to the discussion at hand. At this point I'm going to ask you to put up or shut up. Where is the consensus of editors indicating that we should write the GG article in the fashion you describe. Hell, this whole question was asked before at the RFC 1. You didn't get the answer you wanted then and we're discussing it again. Months later. Do you see a consensus here to support your view? I know there isn't a clear indication from the text of the policy to support your view, because that's literally why we're here. Why should we continue to entertain this as though it were novel or important? Protonk ( talk) 23:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Policy is not law; it is not prescriptive but descriptive of practice, and BLP is applied with common sense (this is why WP:IAR exists as well to cover cases where common sense is the firstmost principle. No, the previous RFC was a far different question about content balance, and which I have taken to say that WEIGHT is still importance but should be considered in light of the sources. At the present time, there is no way that the GG article can have anywhere close to "equal time" coverage due to the RS sourcing, and that's a result I'm fine with now. But it is understanding that the prevailing view cannot be treated as the "right" view (for purposes of writing on WP) if there actually exists conflicts in that view's claims. That clearly exists, but you have to go to weak RS (eg Brietbart) or SPS RS (like Reddit) to see that. The conflict exists in the real world beyond the bounds of WP. For WP not to consider that these conflicting points exists goes against neutrality, because we need to know the whole picture to know what is the neutral position. If NPOV is specifically designed to only consider the neutrality based on how sources report (which means if there is a unintentional bias in reporting that will seep into the WP article), then so be it, but NPOV doesn't state its approach this way, and a number of other policies and guidelines, and essays like BLP, WP:BIAS, WP:PEACOCK, all point to using common sense and knowledge beyond the reliable sources to put their statements made into proper context. This article on Salon captures exactly what the problem is when we circle the wagons around reliable sources and stick to policies like glue. We repeat bad information as fact. -- MASEM ( t) 01:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is this "we" that knows what the true neutral or "right" view is? And boy it's pretty convenient that we're only reaching out to Brietbart and KiA for all this additional information to serve our readers. Protonk ( talk) 01:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The same "we" that determine what are reliable sources, how to summarize without interpretation, and all other factors of allowing original research necessary to write a neutral, objective article. That's a role we take as a tertiary source. -- MASEM ( t) 01:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. And I'll be more blunt. Why are you proposing we add content based on what gamergate says about themselves and not content based on other sources? Surely there are more non-reliable reliable sources (or whatever your formulation was above) out there. Protonk ( talk) 01:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said in this discussion about adding content? I am simply asking if we write "The press says GG is X" vs "GG is X" in WP's voice (in the GG example) knowing that while the press's viewpoint is the far dominate one in RSes, that there actually exists counterarguments to those statements. Not adding new content from any less-than-good RS, just because aware there is more to the story in judging neutrality of statements. We don't need to include the counterpoints from weak RS simply to write a statement of the predominate view as attributed opinion than fact. -- MASEM ( t) 02:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that WP:Due weight is about weighing quantity, I don't completely agree that "we weigh quality rather than quantity." Flyer22 ( talk) 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be in slight contradiction with WP: STICKTOSOURCES which says we should paraphrase the most reliable sources. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean; I see no conflict at all between the WP:Due weight policy (an aspect of WP:Neutral) and the WP:Original research policy (which houses the WP:STICKTOSOURCES section). Like I stated above, I follow WP:Due weight, and, unlike some editors, I have no problem following it. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And I certainly was not supporting original research or poor sources with my "17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)" statement. The WP:Original research policy is also clear that it does not mean "unsourced." Too many Wikipedia editors cite that policy simply to state "unsourced." Not the same thing, unless it's a WP:Synthesis case. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015‎ (UTC)

The contradiction is here "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words", this statement weights "most reliable sources" heavier than other sources. Let's throw out a thought experiment, we have a single source, which comes from a highly respectable journal and is heavily fact-checked making one statement. Against that, we have 500 sources that are substantially less reliable making an opposing statement. Per Sticktosources, we should paraphrase the high quality source, per undue we should paraphrase the common source, quite possibly to the point of excluding the high quality source. This is why I say it's a slight contradiction. Also my apologies if any of this appears to be directed at you, I think your interpretation of UNDUE to be accurate, I just think the way it is written is slightly counter to other policies. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't view that matter the same way you do. But then again, people always interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and essays) differently, as they do with a lot of other things. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

: > "In other words, when editing with a focus on neutrality, should we strictly limit ourselves to the views as presented by the RSes only, or should we temper that with what we know the overall situation is?"

And how do we know what the overall situation is? Because we have sources, often reliable ones, or at least as reliable as much which is referenced in the page currently. Therefore, to give a reflection of the overall situation, we need only cite those sources.

But this is presently impossible. Not because these sources do not exist, or that they do not exist in sufficient quantity or quality, but because they are being actively excluded by the controlling editors. Often in the full knowledge of what the sources say and the reality they reflect. Controlling editors are deciding what reality, or "wikiality" should be for the page, and one of their primary methods for doing so is to exclude reliable sources they don't agree with. Every wiki rule in the book is being leaned on to support this, the denial of objective reality underlying all this is the root of the present NPOV in the article.

There is a much wider reality which the article should reflect, a reality even referenced in several of the sources which have been permitted. But the NPOV stems from the way the article, sources and all, is being controlled by the editors. Editors with more objectivity would not have a problem producing a more NPOV page, even with the list of sources as they stand, and they could more fairly assess sources and potential sources as well. AllMyEasterEggs ( talk) 21:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC) striking comments of sock of blocked user in violation of block/ban. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

AllMyEasterEggs displays a remarkable understanding of NPOV, the history of Gamergate, Wiki collegiality, and Gamergate conspiracy lore, considering the account has existed for six days and contributed a total of six edits -- 2 in article space. Suffice it to say that their opinion is far, far from representing a consensus at Wikipedia. MarkBernstein ( talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Of course we assert what the reliable sources state over and over and over again and do not "hedge" what what they present because we somehow "know" that the reliable sources have not covered the "whole" story. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If an opinion is ignored in reliable sources, then the policy is we ignore it here. In some cases the views in unreliable sources may be mentioned (although not defended) in reliable sources and therefore we can mention them here to some extent, particularly in articles about people who espouse them. We could say for example that many Americans question the Warren Report. As a result reasonably intelligent editors acting in good faith can come to agreement about content and readers are looking for the same sort of information they would find in reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 03:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

To try to be clear, again: it is not the intent here about adding content or bringing in non-RSes or very weak RSes to establish counterpoints, but simply how to predicate content already given in strong RSes which is controversial when considering the big picture. The specific example related to GG is, for many facets, the press predominately have made statements on GG's ultimate goals as apparent fact (no clear statement being op-eds, etc.) GG supporters have denied/countered what the press has said about them but these denials/counterstatements are only given in GG-related forums/websites which are far from being RSes (or at times, at best, mentioned in very very weak RSes like Brietbart). If you know the whole picture, you know the statements are controversial, which would seem to make some of NPOV's clauses apply when it comes to controversial statements, in this case, specifically stating the press's statements as opinions/beliefs/claims but otherwise not changing what they say. If instead we are supposed to completely ignore the topic beyond what RSes say, then in this case NPOV would seem to require us to keep the press's statement as apparent fact since there's no RS-appropriate counterclaim to this. From the article standpoint, this is simple whether we write "GG is about X" or "The press claim GG is about X", citing the same set of sources but not otherwise adding any new content to support the counterclaim. -- MASEM ( t) 13:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You have been perfectly clear. You want us to take into account sources that are not reliable when we present content from reliable sources. We do not do that. We do not "hedge" the overwhelming assessment of the reliable sources, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:ITA doesn't apply because we're not talking facts that are undeniably obviously correct. For example, forcing the opinion of Flatearthers into the article on the spherical nature of the Earth. Further, it is very hard to dismiss, in this case, what GG thinks of themselves as a fringe theory to what the GG situation is. when that group is central to the entire mess. (GG's opinion of unethical nature of the video game press is definitely fringe in the topic of video game journalism, but that's a different issue). -- MASEM ( t) 14:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course ITA applies. You are wanting to hedge ALL of the mainstream sources against inconsequential blogs and your personal knowledge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Some OR is necessary in the writing of any article to navigate the topic and develop the narrative, which means looking at the 60,000 ft picture which often doesn't happen in RSes; this doens't mean RSes are bad, but they are writing the day-to-day, we're writing for permanency. And of course we have used acceptable amounts of OR to actually decide was is a RS or not. So there is allowed OR in developing an article. And if a group is central to a controversy, you cannot call what that group thinks of themselves as a fringe concept. -- MASEM ( t) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

When the choice is between "some OR to develop a narrative" and "following the sources", we follow the sources and do not make up a narrative that is not present in the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Most of the time we have to develop that narrative because we are assembling from multiple sources that are typically not broad summaries of a topic, particularly for ongoing, contemporary topics. When no such summaries exist, we are required to create a narrative and that requires us to engage in a minimal amount of fundamental, editor allowed OR to figure out the best organize, which sources are better than others, and the like. This is standard practice. We can't interpret or synthesize things that are not said by sources (that's where WP:NOR enters play), but in figuring out how to paraphrase sources, how to order information, how to determine what quotes or statements are more appropriate to include are all "original research" every editor does day to day. And of course we have to apply NPOV to make sure that we don't use sources to push an agenda, misweight the sources to force inclusion of a minor point, and the like, but NPOV does suggest we have the ability to make decisions if a source is speaking factually or as a claim on a controverial topic as to keep our writing objective and non-judgemental. - MASEM ( t) 21:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Determining the reliability of sources is not WP:OR - it is using editor judgement, but it is NOT OR. Determining how to structure an article is not WP:OR - it is using editor judgment but it is NOT OR unless we are creating implications which are not in the sources. Leaving gaps in what the reliable sources present because we know there is stuff they are not covering IS WP:OR. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Modern flat Earth societies says that modern flat earth theories are pseudoscience. In their forums and blogs, flat earth society members say that the theories are not pseudoscience. Does this mean that the statement in Modern flat Earth societies is controversial? - MrOllie ( talk) 15:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, going by our article on them, it says that it is a claim that the press that their ideas are bunk "This is usually regarded by mainstream media either as mockery of the original belief or as a form of denialism." It does not say as fact they are wrong, but that the press sees them wrong, even though, as with GG, the predominant opinion is that they are wrong. We write the statement as if it is controversial. -- MASEM ( t) 15:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that other statement, but I am referring to the two occasions in the lede where the article uses the word 'pseudoscience' in an unqualified manner. Do you consider that appropriate? - MrOllie ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

In those cases, we're basing it on the well-established scientific fact (proven over and over again) that the Earth is a globe, so the flat earth theory is pseudoscience, though it does help that we have established by the sentence I quote where this being called "pseudoscience" is coming from. In the case of GG, here, it is basically a situation of "he said, she said" as the truth is far from clear, certainly not the body of science there is for the flat earth theory. -- MASEM ( t) 17:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A controversial matter is one where reliable sources agree there is a controversy. Here, you have argued -- for months of time and for hundreds of thousands of words -- that reliable sources are all colluding to suppress something -- something you can only source to unreliable right-wing blogs like Breitbart or to 8chan gossip. You have referred the matter to this page, where it has now sat for three long weeks and 4,800 words of discussion -- almost all of it simply affirming NPOV and agreeing that we must follow reliable sources and cannot modify our approach to them because we “know” the mainstream press is biased against the Gamergate conspirators. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never said the press were colluding (though that statement has been made in other weak RSes). And it is hard to call ourselves neutral and objective when we know there's more to a story than what one side has claimed. -- MASEM ( t) 16:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

while you may have never outright stated that, it is the entire premise behind you neverending POV PUSH . We do not consider our own personal interpretations or content outside of the reliable sources. WP:V / WP:OR pretty damn standard BASIC content principles.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

I am under no impression the press are colluding here. Please do not put words into my mouth. -- MASEM ( t) 17:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You say above that 'we know there's more to a story than what one side has claimed.' Who is the 'one side' if not the press? - MrOllie ( talk) 17:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That would the GG supporters themselves, along with a handful of journalists that sit at an extreme political view and thus their writing falls into weak/unusable RSes. -- MASEM ( t) 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that it is from, as you clearly identify yourself, weak and unreliable and unusable sources has from longstanding encyclopedic approach meant that we do not consider it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

And again, this is not about giving equal time or validity to the viewpoints we cannot use, but instead if we should be considering what has been stated by RSes as fact or opinion based on the ability to look beyond the sources. -- MASEM ( t) 21:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You can keep saying that 2-3= absolute value of 1, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a negative number. To not give full weight to the reliable sources ... because... non reliable sources is the exact same as giving weight to non reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, not what I'm saying. It's not about weight, its whether we summarizes RSes as fact or opinion when we know there exists contention on the statements made by RSes. It is absolutely not a weight issue. -- MASEM ( t) 21:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Since when is "what we know that is not covered in any reliable source and in fact countered by reliable sources" EVER something we work into an article in any way? The is EXACTLY the type of editing that all of our content policies prohibit both expressly and in spirit. I am pretty sure we are done. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a fundamental aspect of BLP. Even if high quality RSes make claims about somebody, and we know that's contentious or the BLP has denied that, we remove the information. So we have that ability. While GG isn't a BLP situation in that matter, the same common logic and courtesy should extend when a group is denying what RSes say about them, even if that group is primarily anonymous. -- MASEM ( t) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. Fundamental to BLP is VERIFIABLE IN HIGHEST QUALITY SOURCES and APPROPRIATE WEIGHT for given coverage - exactly the opposite of what you are proposing. There is no "except for stuff that we 'know'" in either explicit text or in spirit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

If the NYTimes reported that Jonh Q Smith was homophobic, and John Q Smith stated on his blog that he flat out denied that - even if no source picked that up, we would still remove it per BLP. -- MASEM ( t) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

How is that applicable to this situation at all? First of all, I am not certain we would remove it. The NYT is a pretty damn solidly reliable source - we are pretty likely to present the NYT statement while also present Smith's denial under WP:SPS - Smiths authenticated blog is a COMPLETELY reliable source for Smith's statements. But if we removed the "homophobe" , it would be under the SPECIFIED actions of BLP in relation to WP:UNDUE - with only a single source making a claim about a living person, it can be argued that the incident doesnt belong in an article. But that has NOTHING to do with your gamergate example where you are PUSHING to carve out of what MULTIPLE HIGHLY reliable sources have stated because... "you know" better and random irredeemable blogs. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is directly applicable. BLP does not care if the one random person's blog is the only counter source to multiple RS making a contentious claim about that person, as long as we have good authority that the person's blog is that person, we would act on that. We should be doing the same for any group that has contested a claim about that group that is otherwise the plurality of sources when a contentious statement is being made about them, because that keeps us neutral and objective and avoids us getting involved in the situation. -- MASEM ( t) 04:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

it is not at all directly applicable. if it is verified as the subjects blog it is the most far thing away from a random non reliable blog. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Since RSes have identified forums where GG people discuss issues, we have affirmation these are the blogs that we can to determine what GG are stating about themselves. Those forums are not RSes, but they are affirmed sites that we know where GG supporters' opinions can be guaged. -- MASEM ( t) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Which blogs? the ones that say "we need to fuck up the Wikipedia article!!!!" or the ones that say "LW needs to die!!!!" ? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Or the ones that discuss their issues with journalism ethics, or their complaints about the media coverage, or how they are organizing consumer campaigns to try to alter perceptions (eg primarily the reddit forums). Or we can turn to people like Milo Y. or Christina Hoff Sommers who are now identified as members of GG via other RSes. Existing RSes have clearly directly people where to go if they want to read on what GG says for themselves if they want. -- MASEM ( t) 14:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You do realize the exponential difference between John Smith stating "I deny the statement X that appeared in Y" on a blog specifically identified as Smiths official blog and some post by anon on a board somewhere being taken as the official positions of a group of anons that have stated hundreds of other positions? you are attempting to equate apples to existentialism. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

At no point has Masem suggested we "work" non-RS info into an article - it's disingenuous to suggest he has. To your point above, ignoring the fact that 2-3 does not equal the absolute value of 1 (which is of course 1) what you're saying is even when we know something to be untrue it should be included in articles as fact so long as it's reported in multiple RS. I don't think you'll find much support for that position here or anywhere outside fundamentalist circles. 168.1.99.206 ( talk) 22:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We are asked if we can temper reliable source by our knowledge of "the big picture." What is this big picture? Masem explains (at last!) that is comes from " the GG supporters themselves, along with a handful of journalists that sit at an extreme political view and thus their writing falls into weak/unusable RSes". In the first case, the "big picture" is, it seems, one editor's personal knowledge of what some personal acquaintances believe. We can, I think, pass over this without further comment.

What sort of a handful of journalists possess such extreme political views that their writing all falls unto weak or unusable sources? This is the very definition of fringe -- ideas so extreme that they find no hearing at all in reputable magazines, newspapers, and journals. That’s fairly extreme! George Will, Greenpeace, Karl Rove, Bernie Sanders, Russ Limbaugh, John Conyers, Steve King, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachman -- they all have ready access to the press. And we're not talking here about a subject that lacks for press coverage -- we've had what, a dozen newspaper stories, just about Wikipedia's role in Gamergate! We're talking, in other words, about the arguments of people so extreme that no reputable editor in the US or Europe will publish them.

Keeping in mind that the subject matter in this case is an anonymous conspiracy to threaten to rape or murder women in the software industry, we can perhaps imagine the opinions of these journalists (if they exist) who are so extreme that no one will publish them. But we need not imagine, because we follow sources. There is no "big picture" here. And this is why we've been arguing here for three weeks and on the Gamergate talk page for six months? MarkBernstein ( talk) 21:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You just identified the big picture, but it is one unreported by the reliable sources for reasons unknown, but it clearly exists, otherwise you have all these people writing articles on something imaginary. So we can't pretend this doesn't exist. The question still remains if we are so bound to the sources to be purposely unaware that this big picture exists, or use common sense to create a more conservatively neutral article that recognizes that there might be more to the story than what RSes but that we cannot immediately include in the article. -- MASEM ( t) 22:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We do not cover what reliable sources do not cover. All the content policies are aimed at preventing just that. And we do not create room in the reliable sources coverage for what "we know" they are not covering, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, I am not asking for adding material to the article. -- MASEM ( t) 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

and again, you are pushing that we need to be hedging content because "you know" better than the reliable sources. You need to stop beating that dead horse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

We should know better because we are an objective, neutral tertiary source with no agenda beyond providing a free educational resource. -- MASEM ( t) 22:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct - a tertiary source built following the perspectives of the reliably published sources have repeatedly presented about the subject and NOT injecting/molding/pounding under our flippers because "we know" better than the reliably published sources do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. -- MASEM ( t) 04:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to state that you keep pushing over and over and over the position that that we should edit from the point that you "know" something that the reliable sources do not when you keep repeating and repeating and repeating that we need to take into account what you "know" and that the reliable sources do not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

It is a personal attack to call me a GG "Sea lion" implied by the phrasing you state "pounding our flippers". I have repeated said I'm not pro GG, so that's a falsehood. -- MASEM ( t) 12

05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we agree, then, that we will neither add material to the article nor hedge the content of the article because we claim to know a "big picture" which apparently no reliable source covers? I agree with TRPoD: this is an ex-horse, it is no more, it has gone to meet its maker. MarkBernstein ( talk) 23:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy that says we have to report what RSes say as fact, if the statements being made are contentious. This is what I am trying to ask, and it has yet to be answered. To determine if a statement made by an RS is contentious or not, are we strictly limited to RSes or do we have a full view of the situation. The way most other controversial subjects on WP are written, its clear we look at the big picture and not limit ourselves to RSes but this is not exactly spelled out in NPOV or any other policy. -- MASEM ( t) 04:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Masem, there is WP:ITA which you have been pointed to several times today and ASSERT: Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

ITA doesn't apply as already mentioned: there is no way a group's statements about themselves can be considered fringe if they are the central point of a topic - that's like saying for Flatearthers we don't consider their viewpoint all in an article about them. And the fact that the enter thing is called the "gamergate controversy" (in RSes even) pretty much means most of it is based on controversial statements, by default, with no one - GG and press alike - having a right answer. ASSERT doesn't say to limit oneself to only RSes to determine if a fact is uncontested and uncontroversial, but it also doesn't say the other way (to look beyond the sources) either and that's what we need to get clarification on. Are we are to purposely limit ourselves to only the RSes in considering when a statement is controversial or not, or do we consider the larger picture to make that assessment. Again, this is not just GG, but any modern controversial situation where many of the contradictory voices are not those covered in traditional RSes. -- MASEM ( t) 06:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheRedPenOfDoom, The assertions do not appear to be "uncontested and uncontroversial", they appear to be verifiably contested & controversial (see additional information below the arbitrary break). The issue as I see it is not that we want to consider non-RS, it is that we are filtering what we regard as a reliable sources incorrectly (and in a way which is used to justify biasing the article).

We are basing our decisions on RS to exclude opinions based on our thoughts on the same publishers as sources of fact - these are manifestly different things, with manifestly different requirements. There is no way in which we can possibly justify regarding a blog post or article by an author as not reliably verifying that author's opinion or point of view.

This is an article about a controversy, and we have a great deal of, as yet un-mined, reliable sources for all sides of the issues at the heart of that controversy. We should be using them. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, orchestrating and participating in massive rape and death threat campaigns is "controversial" , but there is no controversy in the sources or analysts about the vicious campaign being linked to Gamergate. And there are certainly no reliable sources that contest that fact. And Masem while you may continue to stonewall to deny that claims of a massive mainstream media coverup are not fringe, such claims are indeed WP:FRINGE and WP:ITA applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no logical or common sense to consider the opinions of a group that is the central focus of an article as FRINGE to that article, as that enables editors to whitewash the group. The group's opinions on other matters may be fringe. but not for the topic of themselves (in the case of GG, their statements on video game journalism are clearly fringe for the topic of video game journalism). In the topic about the group, they may have a ton of criticism leveled at them, and WEIGHT does demand that if no one speaks positively for the group, we don't force that in to balance the article. But we also don't purposely ignore what the group has to say for themselves if we are staying neutral, objective, and non-judgemental. -- MASEM ( t) 14:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah, whah? why would fringe theories not be considered fringe theories because some bloggers are spouting them????-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The opinions and statements from group X about their own goals and motivation on the Wikipedia article that is primarily about group X is in no way a fringe theory, but for that and only for that specific page, regardless of how much the rest of the RSes say otherwise. We don't exclude what Westboro or Flatearthers or Scientology on their respective page despite the RSes that paint them otherwise, but we certainly treat their views on other pages as fringe. Same situation here. Everything else the group might state that is not about themselves in other topics is very clearly fringe and sufficiently ignorable, but not when we have a topic they are the central focus of. Of course, in the case of GG there's a lack of strong RSes that go into their view, but we still should be considering their stances specifically about themselves to judge if what is being stated by the strong RSes are controversial statements with that group or not. -- MASEM ( t) 18:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The Flat Earth Society claiming the earth is flat does not make that any less of a fringe claim. Some random random anonymous postings on one of several boards frequented by gamergate harassment campaign claiming there is a gigantic media conspiracy covering up what they are really about interspersed between dozens of postings about taking over the Wikipedia article and rehashing untruths about LW6 , doesnt make the media conspiracy theory not fringe. Even if there were an official GG website with an official Gamergate posting stating that the media was all being unfair to them would not make it any less of a fringe claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This misses the point completely. The Flat Earth Society's take on the physical shape of the Earth is clearly fringe in the topic of the shape of the earth and probably several other topics, but their claims on their own group and only their own group as fringe on an article about the group can never be fringe, as it is immediately relevant to the topic. There may be an overwhelming amount of more RS sourcing that is critical of the group as there is in the case of Westboro, for example, but that doesn't mean as an objective, neutral encyclopedia that we completely disregard what the group has stated about themselves. -- MASEM ( t) 22:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Westboro, for example, have an official organization, an official spokesperson, an official website, official membership - you know things grown up organizations have that represent an organization. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 1

Fellow Wikipedians, I will attempt to put together something more detailed on this, but at a high level:

• WP:NPOV requires that we: not state opinions as facts; not state contested assertions as facts (especially where the Article deals with the disagreements around those assertions); err on the side of treating things as opinions.
• WP:NPOV is not able to be consensus-ed or WP:IARed around; 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.
• WP:RS standard for reliably sourcing opinions of the authors is manifestly lower than that for the same authors (or publishers) as sources of fact.
• when covering a disagreement or controversy (especially a polarised dispute), we should include all points of view, attributed.
• popularity does not make opinions facts.

We simply cannot (by policy) assert things in Wikipedia's voice which are opinions. I hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me any questions that you might have. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

You're not proposing any wording changes to the policy based on the above which totally ignores WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, right? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, Many thanks for your response. You are correct, I am not proposing any changes to the WP:NPOV policy. I am proposing that we should, as we are required to do, follow that policy. It requires that we not present opinions as facts - it does not provide any caveats around this requirement, and explicitly prevents using consensus, WP:IAR or other policies to supersede it.

But lets examine WP:UNDUE, as it is a part of the WP:NPOV policy; 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. This states that we should be including the range of views. It then goes on to talk about Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. There is nothing in WP:UNDUE which suggests that the other sections of WP:NPOV do not apply; nor is there anything to suggest that opinions should be stated, in Wikipedia's voice, as facts. We should be including the range of points of view, stated as opinions, and attributed.

To state assertions as facts in Wikipedia's voice, it is required that they not be controversial or contested ( WP:NPOV). It is clearly supported by reliable sources that there is a great deal of controversy & contention about a number of assertions w.r.t this issue.

1. "Whether the crux of Gamergate is ethics in video game journalism or misogyny among gamers continues to spark heated debate online." [1]
2. "Gamergate is “a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games, and the identity of those who play them,” according to CNN. It is “a movement of sorts,” says The New Yorker. Its focal point is reported as a critique of ethics in video games media—or as a relentless campaign of harassment towards women." [2]
3. "At its most basic level, it's a heated debate over journalistic integrity, the definition of video games and the identity of those who play them." [3]
4. "Ethics in games journalism: The #GamerGaters argue that the focus on harassment distracts from the real issue, which is that indie game developers and the online gaming press have gotten too cozy. There's also a substantial, vocal movement that believes the generally left-leaning online gaming press focuses too much on feminism and the role of women in the industry, to the detriment of coverage of games." "The #GamerGaters have some actually interesting concerns, largely driven by the changing face of video game culture." [4]
5. All of this Slate piece by David Auerbach [5]

Notwithstanding that it is a guideline, not policy, and that WP:NPOV cannot be avoided or superseded, the differing opinions in a controversy are not WP:FRINGE for an Article covering that controversy. We must, as required by policy, state contested assertions as attributed opinions; and we must, as required by policy, cover the range of those opinions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have to ask - why is is this discussion on this talk page, which is supposed to be about the policy itself rather than the application, instead of on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard? -- NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, That seems like a very good question to be asking, and I think it probably raises a very good point. However, given the extensive discussion which has occurred here, I think it's probably worthwhile to allow it to continue, and probably counterproductive to try to relocate it.

NB: This is the same discussion as this one; I just threw in an arbitrary break to make navigation easier - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

To point, my original question is non-GG specific: in determining whether a statement made by an RS is considered controversial as to state it as an opinion or fact, do we look only to other RSes or do we consider the entire set of sources even though some of those sources will never be RS. GG is the best example but far from the only one. -- MASEM ( t) 13:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Masem, It is definitely an interesting question in the abstract sense, and certainly one to consider. However, in the specific sense, what I'm hoping to express is that we have reliable sources which verify that this is a controversial, contentious area; consequently, assertions should be attributed. For the question of "Do we state assertions as facts or as opinions" we don't need anything more. WP:NPOV has given us our answer.

I also believe that we have set the filter for "reliable sources" wrong. The requirements for reliably verifying opinions of authors of sources, in which those opinions are expressed, are manifestly different from the requirements for verifying facts. There is no reason that the opinions of either side of a polarised dispute/controversy should be excluded from being used because we do not like the publishers of some of those sources.

I think we have fallen prey to a kind of illogic; along the lines of:

• A. "source X is not considered reliable for facts" -> B. "source X is not reliable for opinions of the author" (This is a false conclusion, it does not follow from the premise);
• B. -> C. "no reliable sources support the existence of opinions as expressed in source X". (This is a false conclusion, because the premise is false);
• C. -> D. "opinions contrary to those as expressed in source X should be considered facts". (This is a false conclusion, because a) the premise is false, b) the conclusion does not follow from the premise).

Hope this helps - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The tendentious cherry-picked quotes above fail to acknowledge that each reliable source concurs that the ethical concerns are either delusional or deceitful. But of course Gamergate fans are eager to have Wikipedia contradict the opinion of the sources, hoping that they can make their case that harassment is a productive approach to driving women out of their profession. By this standard, any fringe theory is contentious if some Wikipedians decide that it is -- and once they have decided, they can skew the handling of the reliable sources as they please. MarkBernstein ( talk) 22:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors are invited to note that a search of each of the five sources identified above for the word stems "delu", covering delusion, delusional, deluded, and "decei", covering deceitful, deceiving, deceived, produces zero hits. These sources do not make the assertions claimed in the comment by the editor above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Editors are also invited to note that the "By this standard, ..." section is a gross misrepresentation. Wikipedians are not deciding that this is contentious. Reliable sources, only some of which are listed above, have decided. Wikipedians are not attempting to "skew the handling of reliable sources". Wikipedians are attempting to follow the requirements of core content policy - by not misrepresenting contentious assertions as facts. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 11:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

We have zero business judging a group's claims as "delusional or deceitful" if we are a neutral source. We must state a group's claims (as can be cited to RSes) without passing judgement, outside of making sure this is the claim as said by the group without acting as if their claim is fact. We will state the opinions of press that make those claims cited appropriately to them. -- MASEM ( t) 22:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Strictly applied, that might make is a little awkward to write an article about Delusional parasitosis. "This group says that they have parasites crawling out of their skin, but this other group says they're delusional" is "even-Steven" but not exactly neutral. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Medical diagnoses aren't the type of "opinion" we're discussing. If they were we'd allow sourcing "patient X has delusional parasitosis" to the opinion of bloggers from Buzzfeed, Gawker and The Mary Sue, which we don't. 168.1.75.48 ( talk) 03:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a good thing we're using sources such as the New York Times, then. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 14:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

If you'd said "we're only using sources like the NYTimes", that'd be commendable. Unfortunately (or fortunately) including good sources doesn't make content cited to questionable sources any better. 168.1.99.211 ( talk)

Only the opinions of reliable sources matter in determining what is WP:FRINGE, what is controversial, and what can be described as a fact (rather than as an opinion) in article text; and changing that would undermine the core of WP:NPOV. To understand why, you only have to look at our article on Evolution; certainly there are many, many people who feel that evolution is controversial or just some people's opinions (and even if we were to poll the public, many areas would find it controversial), but they are not reliable sources on the subject of biology and are therefore largely disregarded in our article on evolution. Likewise, we describe evolution as a fact, since the overwhelming majority of reliable sources state it as a fact, even though many, many people would strenuously object and insist that it is merely their opinion. I'm not just making this comparison for illustration; many of the arguments people are suggesting above would dramatically endanger our article on Evolution by throwing the policies we've used to build it into question and inviting editors to say "well, yes, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say X is fact, but that's just their opinion, man... here, look, I have some articles that disagree!" This discussion isn't new or unusual; these are exactly the sorts of questions we've wrestled with repeatedly when it comes to articles on evolution, climate change, conspiracy theories and so on. -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

"Only the opinions of reliable sources matter in determining ... what can be described as a fact rather than as an opinion"

Logic and the scientific method determine what is fact and what is opinion - not the consensus of journalists. "Vanilla tastes better than chocolate" will never be fact no matter how many reliable sources repeat it. You're ignoring a pretty fundamental and accepted distinction between objective (fact) and subjective (opinion.) 168.1.99.211 ( talk) 21:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

To nit: Evolution - in the sense of the evolution of life on earth and not the basic scientific principle - is still called properly a theory though one well backed by scientific demonstration of its likely validity. That still leaves the fact that creationism and intelligent design and other origin of life theories to play out against it in a comparative nature at Creation–evolution controversy. In the case of GG, there is no sound scientific study or analysis to understand the situation outside of the review of twitter messages, so there's no sound scientific basic, or the result of any legal case, to be able to say what are "facts". -- MASEM ( t) 22:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

No, our article on Evolution doesn't call it a theory in the sense you mean; the third sentence outright states it as fact in Wikipedia's voice, saying: "All life on Earth originated through common descent from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago." Beyond that, even if you feel that we should only weaken WP:RS in the way you're suggesting when it comes to "non-scientific" articles, that leads to similar problems. Our article on the September 11 Attacks states that they "...were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda". We describe Barack Obama as being born in Hawaii, and the Armenian Genocide as something that definitely happened. We describe the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as an Islamic extremist terrorist group (certainly not how they describe themselves) based on the consensus among reliable sources. All of these things (and many lower-profile things contradicted by various conspiracy theories) are statements that significant numbers of editors have argued, repeatedly, are just the consensus of the "mainstream media" and that we shouldn't state them as fact. If we took "there are people on blogs who don't feel this is factual" as the standard for calling that sort of consensus among reliable sources into question, we would be unable to write a reputable encyclopedia. -- Aquillion ( talk) 15:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Except we are talking the people that are being reported by RSes of doing something or being something that they say is not true about themselves. If there was a single named individual involved, we would have zero issue with removing the claims or making sure they are clearly marked as claims as per BLP if we knew that individual countered the claims. Add in that there is nothing anywhere close to the detailed understanding of evolution or 9/11 or the like that we can say which side is "right". It is not weakening the RSes to state that what they say is a claim vs a fact, when the facts are unknown and unestablished in this case, and is the most conservative method of staying neutral and unobjective in a matter where there is no clear answer. (And the ISIL aspect: there is actually a government definition of what a terrorist group is as to be able to act against the group within law, so it is clearly fine to use that language for that purpose. There is no similar "legal" definition here yet for GG, even though many sources want to use the language "hate group" which does have legal ramifications). -- MASEM ( t) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Also on ISIL, keep in mind the group have openly claimed responsibility for various attacks with no question, compared to GG here that have denied various actions they have been accused of. -- MASEM ( t) 15:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions like "do the sources indicate that this aspect of the situation is clear?" or "who do we identify as members of this group, and what are they doing or saying?" are things better worked out on the talk page for the article (using reliable sources, of course); they're not really questions about NPOV policy. (I think we've had this discussion before, and for the record I disagree with your implicit assertion that it is clear or obvious what "they say about themselves"; the sources cover a wide range of views and people involved in the controversy, often pushing for different things or advancing disparate agendas. Covering that has been part of the problem; but we still have to rely on reliable sources to untangle it and make broad statements about the overarching direction of the topic.) Regardless, when there is sufficient unity among sources, we can put things as fact in an article which its subject might disagree with; for instance, we describe the political position of the Ku Klux Klan as "far-right racism", which is certainly not how they describe themselves. The article's sources overwhelmingly identify actions which they say are a part of Gamergate and describe those actions the way you see in the article; that is sufficient for us to describe those events as fact. We can and do note that there are other aspects to the discussion, in detail, but eg. "there are bloggers who have used the hashtag and who don't agree with the definition of harassment used by the mainstream media" or "there are bloggers who say that the people identified as committing harassment are all outside trolls" isn't really sufficient argument to describe the overwhelming coverage of reliable sources as non-factual. Trying to change our rules to allow such disreputatable sources to be used to call that coverage into question -- to say, in effect, "no, I speak for the article subject, and this is what's really going on, regardless of what the mainstream media tells you..." -- would introduce problems of the sort I outlined above. -- Aquillion ( talk) 16:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

No change is being asked for here, just clarification because the policy does not specify the answer either way. How do you determine when something being said by RSes (which is going to be included in any situation as a predominant view, not omitted) is considered controversial within the scope of a topic as to label it an attributed claim or as uncontested fact in WP's voice - do you strictly limit it to the RSes, or do you consider all sources, usable or not? The details of how this applies to GG has been discussed before on the GG talk page, but a core matter to this is how this policy is meant to be read and in nature of how objective and neutral we're supposed to be. -- MASEM ( t) 16:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Masem: the word "theory" used by scientists has a different definition than the laymen's version - that discussion will only confuse things.

Aquillion: Again you don't distinguish between objective and subjective. The examples you give above deal with objective statements: whether Obama was born is Hawaii is true or false regardless of perspective, as are the identities of the 9/11 masterminds and the existence of the Armenian Genocide - it's possible to imagine a collection of evidence sufficient to settle those questions conclusively for all rational observers.

There are subjective statements one could make about each: The international response to the Armenian Genoicide was not sufficient. The 9/11 masterminds were not justified in their use of terror tactics. Discussion of Obama's birthplace was motivated by racism. These statements may be generally agreed upon but they will always remain opinions subject to the perspective of the observer. I hope that distinction is now clear and we can move on.

The WP:NPOV policy recognizes only one exception where non-objective statements shouldn't be attributed: when the opinion expressed is uncontested. Contrary to your suggestion, the Klu Klux Klan is a good example. "Far-right racists" is how they would describe themselves. They may not use those words but if you asked their beliefs on racial and political policy their responses would align with the dictionary definitions of racism and right-wing. "We don't want the races to mix but that isn't racism" is a semantic objection. Gamergate objects not just to the semantic characterization of their beliefs as misogynistic but to the existence of those beliefs . We claim Gamergate is a misogynistic movement to drive women out of the games industry, they would say "not only are we not misogynists, we don't want to drive women out of the industry." It's a fundamental objection to what we state they believe, not a semantic objection to the definition of misogyny. The flat-earthers wouldn't contest the statement they believe the earth is flat, the Klan wouldn't contest the statement they oppose miscegenation. I haven't read a single article, besides Gamergate, where we attribute beliefs to a group in wikipedia's voice which the group contests. If you can link such an article and the general agreement is that it doesn't need correction then we should leave the Gamergate article as is. If not, it should be changed to align with the rest of our articles and comply with policy. Can we agree on that? If your objection is that we can't know what Gamergate says, that's a valid discussion but it's separate from the question of how we handle cases where what we state a group believes (rather than how we describe them) is contested by that group. 168.1.75.52 ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

168.1, I can only read this and think that you've never worked through any articles about sexual minorities on Wikipedia. We have a number of articles that essentially read like "Academic psychologists agree that that (fill in the name of small sexual minority group) behaves this way because they find it sexually gratifying to (fill in name of behavior, like wearing a particular style of clothes)", while self-professed members of that group say "This is all wrong. Nothing I do is motivated by sexuality. (Also, please don't tell my mother/children/ex-wife's lawyer/any politicians that being a _____ has anything to do with sex)".

In this situation, the views of academic psychologists that a minority group is ultimately motivated by sex, even if those views were 100% correct, will have damaging consequences in the real world for many of those people: their family members will reject them, their neighbors will stigmatize them, laws will be written to persecute them. Even if those academic views were 100% correct, members of those groups would have many personal and political reasons to remain blind to corroborating information – to refuse to believe the academics – and to publicly deny it, even if they did believe that there could be something to it. The denial therefore rings hollow: anyone, with any basic understanding of how society fears sexual minorities, would deny it. But the fact of a self-serving denial doesn't mean that the academics are wrong. (Nor does it mean that they're right: a denial can be both self-serving and accurate.)

I suspect that the Gamergate people are in a similar bind. They have been strongly and credibly accused of a socially reviled behavior. There is no immediate social or political benefit to them from believing or agreeing that they behaved like misogynistic monsters. There is some (small) benefit to them from denying it. If we assume that they're basically rational, then we can expect the group to deny having engaged in any reviled behavior. Their denial has no bearing (either way) on the truth of the situation in that scenario. The most you could expect in that situation, in a properly written encyclopedia article, is a long description of the widely believed accusations followed by a short statement of the self-serving denial.

The only way to change that balance would be to get an independent, high-quality source that offers a different explanation for the behavior. Then you could have a solid explanation of the "Gamergate is a bunch of misogynistic people who behaved badly" followed by "Gamergate is a collective prank on the mainstream media" (or whatever alternative theory is put forward), and all of that followed by the self-serving denial. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Academic psychologists agree" is the key phrase in your example. Even where it reflects the consensus of credentialed medical experts regarding a medical issue (which doesn't apply in this case) we still attribute it, i.e. we do not definitively claim "X behaves this way because of Y." I've still yet to see an example "where we attribute beliefs to a group in wikipedia's voice which the group contests. " 168.1.75.40 ( talk) 18:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous group of misogynist harassers, without organization or spokespersons, cannot possibly contest a view. What we are asked here is whether a small tag team of editors who claim to possess insight that no reliable source can access may therefore override the reliable sources. That the participants of this page are willing to countenance such a proposition for such an extended period is deeply disturbing. MarkBernstein ( talk) 00:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's worse: your personal attack on the "small tag team" of editors or the implication that some rather publicly identified Gamergate supporters are misogynist harassers. I'm sure Milo Yiannopoulos and Christina Hoff Sommers would love to hear they've been identified as misogynist harassers on Wikipedia. I suggest you show the same respect for BLP claims about those you oppose as you expect others to show those you support. I'd advise an admin revdel the above comment. 168.1.75.47 ( talk) 03:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm following the reliable sources in saying that Gamergate is an anonymous group of misogynist harassers without organization or spokespersons. Thanks for playing, IP; which banned editor are you socking for? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

We are required to be nonjudgemental, meaning we cannot assume the group as a whole is doing something wrong when both members of the group and other RS acknowledge the whole group is not at fault. Even if they were legally marked as harmful such as being a hate group, ignoring the group's voice outright because what they did was immoral is being too judgemental on WP. We as editors must ignore morality for purposes of writing a neutral article. -- MASEM ( t) 11:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

If you agree that we should follow the way reliable sources describe the group, without injecting “perspective” (or, equivalently, “divine inspiration”) bestowed privately on a small tag team of editors but denied to any reliable source, then we agree that the answer to the question you posed at the outset of this interminable discussion is “no”, and we will follow what the reliable sources say without injecting our private “knowledge” that informs us that the reliable sources are all wrong. Can we end this? MarkBernstein ( talk) 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, We do not have a current policy which allows us to blindly repeat the opinions of sources as fact - there is no "follow the sources" policy. We do have a core policy, WP:NPOV, which says that we must not repeat contentious or contested assertions as fact, but must attribute them to the sources.

The "misogynist harassers" narrative is an important aspect of this controversy, and absolutely should be included in the Article, as attributed opinion; likewise, the "grassroots consumer movement" narrative is an important aspect, and should be included, again as attributed opinion.

I could not agree with you more that we should not rely on "divine inspiration" in constructing our articles. However, we do not need to in this case. There are ample sources which reliably verify the alternate narratives - both those strong RS's which we would accept for "facts" supporting that the varying opinions are contested (only some of which are listed above), and also a number of sources which present the alternative narrative. These include sources by: Yiannopoulos, M; Sommers, C.H; Young, C (Reason, etc); Young, G et al (TechRaptor); Finnegan, L (The Escapist & EveryJoe); Campbell, O (former Games journalist; in the working group to determine the panel for SJP Florida's "Airplay" discussion). The challenge, burden & duty for each of us as WP editors is to work out how best to use the available sources.

I also agree with you that we should perhaps move on from this discussion - Wikipedia's core policy is clear & unequivocal - we must not document contested assertions as facts. We should get on with the business of building an article which documents this controversy fairly & without bias or judgement. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 10:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Restating what a reliable source has said as "fact" as instead a claim to them is in absolutely no way stating that the source is flat out wrong (to do that, we absolutely would need a reliable source, and the case of the Guardian's initial article on the result of the GG ArbCom case is a good example. We couldn't say anything immediately to say that their assumption that ArbCom banned feminist editors was wrong just based on our take of the Arbcom closer, so for that, we would not have reported it as fact but a claim made by the Guardian. But as soon as the ArbCom and the WMF came out to say "Uh, no, we were not banning feminist editors", we would have been able to say the Guardian's story was wrong with clear sourcing to support that. However, they did update and redact their original story in light of these). However, we should also not say they are "right" when the statement is controversial. Hence, using holistic knowledge of the entire topic aids us in writing in the most conservative neutral non-judgemental stance possible. If one limits themselves to only the usable RSes (to Ryk22's point, in that these sources presented are all being rejected as users RSes on the current article), you may be forced into a narrative that is clearly slanted by the well-known implicit biases in today's media. Again, this is not saying the media is wrong, but it is better to not say they are 100% right if we know there is something controversial about their statements, for all topics, not just GG. -- MASEM ( t) 15:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem has been arguing for months on end that facts that reliable sources consistently report as facts, but which he personally believes are not facts based on his personal knowledge and perspective, here argues (and argues, and argues.... 14,750 words on this page and many tens of thousands more elsewhere) that we should change the facts to mere "claims" because "this is not saying the media is wrong." Of course, the whole point is to insinuate that the media are wrong. This is pure conspiracy theory. Wikipedia's core policy is clear and unequivocal: if the preponderance of the reliable sources agree (as they do) that Gamergate is a conspiracy to harass female software developers, that is what Wikipedia should support. If Wikipedia were to permit the preponderant conclusion of reliables sources to be reduced to a "controversial claim", as Gamergate message boards are constantly clamoring for it to do, that would merely invite those reliable sources to ridicule Wikipedia again. Masem reminds us that Wikipedia's missteps in Gamergate (and GGTF before it) have already been widely condemned in the press as well as the research literature; he merely hopes to be given freer rein here to ignore NPOV and RS.

After this principle is applied to Gamergate, imagine how Wikipedia will look when "it is better not to say that [the reliable sources] are 100% right if we know there is something controversial" is applied to Evolution, Scientology, Smoking, Birth Control, Fluoridation .... MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

If journalistic sources had remotely the same level of quality of research as hard sciences there might be a comparison between Gamergate, and Evolution, Scientology, Smoking, Birth Control, Fluoridation. However, they do not. There are definitely narratives being pushed by the media, and it Wikipedia's responsibility to not engage in them. It is our responsibility to be impartial, and Wikipedia should not "support" anything. It should document the positions held. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time I looked, Scientology wasn't a physical science, and both WP:RS and WP:NPOV were still policies. The question placed before us is essentially whether we should revoke NPOV when one or more editors "know" that the media are “all bias” and should replace the "narratives being pushed by the media" -- that is to say, replace the reliable sources -- with what some editors (here brigaded offsite) know to be the real story. Sigh. MarkBernstein ( talk) 18:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, that's not what I'm asking for. NPOV says "do not present controversial statements as fact but as claims". But it does not say either direction if the controversy has to be something that is documented to RSes, or that is of the entire picture. Obviously, NPOV does state that to include the counterarguments you do need RSes, and that's likely not going to happen for the GG situation. But to simply state a fact as a claim, NPOV does not provide enough advice to determine if we need to stick to RSes or not, and so this has all be about getting clarity on that fact. -- MASEM ( t) 18:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You should have followed my link on impartial. That is a part of NPOV policy. Also note, biased sources are RS, but we still have to account for their bias, and write in a npov. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I have never said the media was wrong nor that there is a conspiracy theory in the press. I have said we don't know if they are 100% right, especially in the light that the people that the media are making statements about are saying they are false. I'm not saying that the GG side is right either. I've also warned that there are unintentional and implicit biases that the press have due to being - at the end of the day - a commercial product designed to bring in money through subscriptions. A story that involves young women being harassment is going to see a heck of a lot of light , and add to that this harassment is coming from the Anon/4chan culture which already has a negative connotation in the press, and you basically have a double whammy against the GG side. And that's not by design, that's just how the bulk of the press swings, in any type of topic. That's being aware of the systematic biases in the press, which was already something we were told to watch out for in the previous RFC on GG, that they can exist and we can route around them by consensus.

The problem is that the actual truth is very much unknown - that's why this is a "controversy" to start. On the second point, taking things like Evolution, etc. (save for Scientology) - there's hundreds of scientific articles on all these topics that built upon sound scientific method to present these as facts. We know that there remain fringe views that deny these reports, or present potentially bad science to try to counter these reports, but given the power of peer-reviewed scientific publications, we can pretty much ignore these in determining the above list as fact, and simply note that there are fringe views of these topics. There has be absolutely zero analysis of the GG situation of the same resolution and detail as the above list, outside of what is publicly seen from social media where the harassment has been done. The closest in-depth analysis came from Jesse Singal's attempt to reach out to a core GG group to understand their ideas, and that was far from scientific. The press is not a rigorous scientific method in the first place. As such, we have no factual basis of any ilk to be able to say that that press is right in their assessment of GG, in the same manner that we can readily dismiss fringe claims, for example, Evolution is false. As a tertiary objective source, we should be very much aware of that before we make a claim as a fact. Note this is how the Scientology article is approached. We are not calling their religion a scam in WP's voice, but attribute that as claims made by reliable sources, so as such the article balances what Scientology claims against what people say against it, and does not act if one side is right or wrong. But Scientology is also different in that many RSes can be used to document the Scientology's claims, and we are still on the question if we require controversy to be limited only to RSes or to the entire situation. -- MASEM ( t) 18:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

HOMG! Masem, you are RIGHT. All of those viscous vicious #gamergate harassment posts MIGHT have come from the Xenu lizards - and we JUST DON'T KNOW!. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that we have RSes that describe the existence of third parties who have no interest in gamergate engaging in harassment just to stir the pot ( BBC), then yes, the conservative, neutral, objective stance is that we don't know who is engaging in harassment here. -- MASEM ( t) 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not "third party" when it comes from people identifying as gamergate and gamergate consists of people who call themselves gamergate. That is "first party" as the multiple reliable sources state. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And we have other sources that state it is from third party sources or from a small vocal minority of the extremist side of GG supporters. That makes the statement of what people are actually engaged in the harassment contentious, and thus must be present that way per NPOV. -- MASEM ( t) 22:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Request to close

Can someone please close this? it is obvious that the proposal has nowhere near the sweeping support that would be required for such a radical reinterpretation of the policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification that does not exist but that needs to be setttled, not re-interpretation. And that question has not been answered, and we've only had a few other editors opine on this core policy clarification. -- MASEM ( t) 00:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

W.r.t the specific question "Do we consider NPOV issues only within the bounds of what RSes say or the larger picture?", there may not be consensus. W.r.t to the particular application discussed at length above, however, there appear to be sufficient reliable sources for both the assertions being contested, and for alternative counter assertions, to support the assertions being attributed as opinions - per WP:NPOV.

The better question may be "How do we determine if assertions are contested &/or controversial?" - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the question was asked and answered: Do we implement a radical reinterpretation of the policy to include a "white space" around what the reliable sources say because "we know better than the sources"? and there has been nothing like the overwhelming groundswell of support that would be needed for the radical change.

We are done and anything else is merely beating the dead horse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no present language to support "we must only use RSes to determine if a statement is controversial". None. There is also no language present to support "we should consist the entire scope of sources including those that can't be RSes to determine if a statement is controversial". Hence we have a question that has not been answered by people outside the scope of the current GG situation which is why this is being discussed here to gain input. It is absolutely improper to close this by claiming this is a reinterpretation of policy and conseneus has been formed when that clearly doesn't exist. -- MASEM ( t) 02:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Masem, your claim has zero validity. WP:V and WP:OR] clearly answer the questions that you have asked. YES WE MUST ONLY USE RELIABLE SOURCES AND NOT OUR INTERPRETATIONS. And there has been no support here for overturning them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no language in any policy of what you say that clearly says what you claim it is saying. No policy or guideline or combination thereof says that we must use the situation as only described by reliable sources to determine if a statement is controversial, only for what content actually can go into the article. I've looked, trust me. There's language that implies this, but there's also language that implies the other case as well. -- MASEM ( t) 04:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you are asking about a specific article, then you are in the wrong place; as it says at the top of the page, "For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view)." This page is to discuss the overarching NPOV policy and to suggest changes to it, not to seek additional opinions about how it applies to specific articles. The general policy questions you've asked have already gotten extensive answers from numerous experienced editors; "I know those people feel that way, I was looking for other people's views" isn't a meaningful response in this context, because the purpose of this talk page isn't to seek third opinions. Bring it up on the NPOV noticeboard if you want additional views, basically. Anyway, given that you're saying that you are looking for additional voices for that specific content dispute, I move to close this based on this talk page being an inappropriate forum for what you're actually requesting. -- Aquillion ( talk) 04:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've already tried to close this section, but Masem reverted it. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 04:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking about a specific article, that's the problem. I'm using GG as an example of a situation where we need to have clarification of this policy, so asking at the policy page is exactly where it is appropriate, but others are trying to isolate the situation to GG. I'm focusing on the broad issues that affects all of WP, not just GG. The few non-GG involved responses that actually address my need for clarification point out that we should look beyond the RS, but I'm certainly not going to claim that's consensus yet, and there's clearly no consensus on the other view from non-GG participants. This talk page is exactly where this discussion needs to talk place but we need to consider the situation at the broad scale, GG just provides a useable example of where the clarification is needed. -- MASEM ( t) 04:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The policies are crystal clear Masem. We present content as verifiable in the reliably published sources as appropriately representing the views of the mainstream academic voices without our personal knowledge or investigations or interpretations. We do NOT write "white space" into the article to represent something that "we know" that is not held or established by any viable source. And the GG is a clear example of why. The current article version would be a hagiaography of gamergater compared to what the article would look like if it were written around what I know about gamergate that has not been published. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

That is not the question that is being asked at all. In NPOV, it says to not present contentious statements as facts but as opinions. But it does not provide any advice of how to determine what a contentious statement is. So the question is whether we use only the RSes or do we use all possible knowledge to make that decision. And all that impacts in the case of the current GG article is tone and wording choices, establishing more statements in the voice of the press instead of in WP's voice. It is not asking for forced white space at all, new facts, or anything else, as I've repeatedly said. Policy is otherwise silent on this question, though other statements can be read to support either possible answer, and thus needs clarification. Simple as that. -- MASEM ( t) 13:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The 'new fact' at issue is that a particular statement is controversial. Since policy provides no overriding advice on that specific matter, that should mean that we settle this question of fact the same way we settle any other question of fact: by going with the reliable sources. There is no special case rule, so follow the general purpose one. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I would say that a "contentious statement" is one that we (the editors of Wikipeida) agree is contentious. This is one of the areas where WP:NPOV meets WP:Consensus. Consensus is not unanimity... a fringe minority of editors crying "this is contentious" can be ignored when lots and lots of editors say "Sorry, no, it is not contentious at all."

When RSs disagree we say that a good way to remain neutral is to "teach the controversy"... presenting both sides of the debate as "opinion". Unfortuantely, this concept gets abused by fringe advocates. They will claim that a "controversy" exists (and demand that both sides must therefor be treated equally as being opinion), when in fact there isn't any real controversy at all. Claiming a controversy when there isn't one is an old trick used by fringe advocates to demand that we give more weight to their views (or to decrease the weight we give to majority views). We need to be alert for that. Blueboar ( talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You're framing it incorrectly. This is not a case of how we represent fringe views where for example the young-earthers argue the earth is 6000 years old and we're debating whether to represent "4.5 billion" as opinion or fact. It's a case where we claim the young-earthers believe it's 60 years old and a whole bunch of them say: "Hey we said 6000 not 60!" Masem and others are not even arguing so far as to say we should write 6000 rather than 60, just that we attribute the 60 claim. You invoke "fringe" but how could it ever be fringe to source a group's beliefs to the group themselves? If it were then the repeated requests for a single article where we attribute as fact beliefs to a group which the group contests, would be easy to satisfy. No such article has been linked and judging by my searches no such article exists. 168.1.99.218 ( talk) 16:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It is no less a fringe claim that the earth is flat just because it is coming from the Flat Earth society as their belief. In addition here, you have the whole issue of the fact that all of the many many many divergent and contradictory claims that have come out under the #gamergate hashtag to select merely the ones that you want to claim as "real gamergate" and ignore all of the others because .... The particular claims that "gamgergate is about X" from gamergaters are still fringe within the claims made by gamergaters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is a sham. The originator asked this page to endorse his novel (!) theory that NPOV would allow him to substitute his own "perspective" for the consensus of reliable sources, and undertook to abide by the outcome. That undertaking, clearly, only applies if the outcome favors his effort to "compensate" for what he says is universal media "bias." Since, he believes, all the reliable sources are "biased," he wishes to qualify the facts they report as mere "claims." Many, many discussants here have pointed out that doing this is contrary to policy, and would have the effect of reopening Scientology, Evolution, and a host of other contentious pages to fresh assault by followers taking a page from the Gamergate playbook. Since the originator will only accept an outcome that NPOV cannot possibly provide, and has been arguing this point for six months and tens of thousands of words, there is little hope it will ever end, but ending it here would, at least, send it back to the fetid swamps of Talk:Gamergate_Controversy where is has been stewing so long. MarkBernstein ( talk) 16:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

It's already been established how those articles are far different from the example GG situation, in that either there's sound and numerous scientific papers to negate the fringe views, or that there is RSes to address both views of a controversy. So in absolutely no way does the result here affect how those articles should be treated. And I am asking for input from people not involved with GG, not the result I want. We simply don't have that input yet. -- MASEM ( t) 16:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The only people who are arguing for a position that NPOV can't provide are those who are consistently and tendetiously ignoring NPOV, specifically WP: IMPARTIAL, and Masem is not one of those people. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. Scientology has nothing to do with science, and the belief the Gamergate is really about ethics is every bit as WP:FRINGE -- and the incessant pleas for permission to unskew the biased media is every bit was WP:FLAT -- as anti-fluoridation. This discussion has been dragging on for weeks on end, the question been answered repeatedly, but since it's not the answer the questioner wants the answers aren't applicable and the goalposts (always invisible) move again. If Wikipedia NPOV permitted us to reduce the consensus of reliable sources to a claim because we know something, all the people who say "the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with evolution" would say, "science is bias!" and insist that their big-picture perspective, like yours, must be applied throughout Wikipedia. After all, you only claim to have insider knowledge of Gamergate; some of them have the Word of their Lord. Good grief. MarkBernstein ( talk) 17:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

actually, I am also claiming "special knowledge" of what gamergate is really about and if this proposal gains consensus - ha ha ha ha ha - I plan to radically rewrite the article to accommodate the whitespace of my personal knowledge that has not been appropriately covered in the media (due to the legitimate fear that their accurate coverage of what gamergate is " really" about would place them and their families as targets of the vicious vicious harassment spewing from gamergate.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop the personal and condescending attacks immediately - I never said I have insider knowledge, only that I read what are the open forums that are clearly identified as the GG talk spaces and organizational spaces. And see what Blueboar wrote above - this is all mitigated to be mitigated by consensus, which is certainly a reasonable expectation on all this, and would prevent the situation you describe of "the second law of thermodynamics is incompatible with evolution". -- MASEM ( t) 18:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)