controversial articles and neutrality problems

We cannot force the solution for everything. Our job is to point to suggestions as we presently can. If our recommendations happen to provide some core tools that are likely to be needed or useful in addressing heavy duty POV wars, and we also note this and provide an analysis how they might be used for that effect (if a project wishes), then this is likely to be the best we can do for now.

There's nothing preventing a further review in a while.

And yes, agree in principle.

Actually, this Task force cannot force any solution for anything. Indeed, suggestions are the best this Task force can do. Providing tools is out of reach of this Task force, at most it can make suggestions for developing tools. However, actually implementing said tools needs "higher powers" swinging into action. - Brya 05:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree. We cannot "force" anything; we can only make what we hope are insightful recommendations.

The page that failed on nlwiki (English translation) looks like it was a proposal to recognize topic experts (PhD's and the like?) -- "A special editor is someone who is designated by others as a specialist in a particular knowledge" ... "A special editor is basically just special regarding his/her knowledge. His/her other skills do not matter...". Under that idea the user was designated a specialist (or expert) in a given field in their on-wiki editing. We also seem to have decided not to go down that route, for various reasons, so this is reasonable corroboration, though we did consider what ways experts and expertise could be best fitted within the classic Wikimedia ethos (given their specific needs and situations) and have found what looks a more solid answer.

Yes, the details are different, but that is the point: it is all in the details. The mere idea, by itself, is not likely to get far. It will make all the difference how it is implemented. - Brya 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The recommendations of this taskforce will be likely to include a fair bit of backup material, including specifics of proposed approach. Too much is specific "this way, not that way" to avoid providing such detail. So yes, agree 100%

I just happened on this thread, and can't tell you how delighted I am to see that a post of mine has generated so much interest. And since I am the guy who lit the fire, let me add a bit to the flames:

FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis, and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content.

I, like many of those responding to this thread, am a pretty senior editor. Moreover, in the Israel-Palestinian arena, I am one of the very few editors that enjoy the respect of both sides in the dispute. And I assure you that, even with the most creative suggestions, and the most arduous and tactful negotiations, I have been unable to resolve the key POV disputes occuring in that area.

My argument that there is no such thing as neutrality in life-and-death struggles such as this one is perceived to be, was stated explicitly by the Palestinian director of a music school in East Jerusalem. Struggling with the scarcest of resources and a lack of qualified teachers, he refused to enlist help from Israelis, many of whom would gladly help out. Why, I asked him - music is one area where we can be neutral, where we can look beyond the conflict, at real human values. "In this conflict, there is no such thing as being neutral," he said. "If you are not with us, you are against us."

To suggest that we know better - that we editors can be really neutral - is not only naive, it is arrogant. --Ravpapa 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And moreover, if some of you are confident that you can resolve these issues, I suggest you give it a try. There is an ongoing dispute at w:Jerusalem on the English Wikipedia, over whether Jerusalem can be accurately called the capital of Israel. It is a dispute that, so far, has defied the best of English Wikipedia's administrators and negotiators. Perhaps you will succeed where others - including myself - have failed.

You propose a two-article solution. I'm not really comfortable with that. But to me, if you can solve the problem with two articles, then you can solve the problem with two sections in the same article.

Two sections of the article that say the same thing? Remember, in my suggestion, the rule is that the two versions of the article must have exactly the same content. Every fact appearing in one must appear in the other as well. The only difference between the two versions is in the presentation, not in the information.

Then I'm not sure we couldn't do two presentations in one version. "According to X1, Y1. According to X2, Y2."

"FT2 suggests that a POV dispute can be simply resolved by writing "Rashid Khalidi says this
and Anita Shapira says that." But that same information can take on a completely different
meaning when written, "Anita Shapira says this and Rashid Khalidi says that." Order, emphasis,
and nuances of language are the substance of these disputes, and not the specific content."

Exactly. The POV warriors have already agreed all of the substantive differences and are reduced to quibbling over semantics. That the scope of the disagreement is this narrow is IMHO a success for the wiki process. Options for resolving this last issue are:

1. pick one side. The sides are so close together that this would almost have to be at random.
2. let the POV warriors continue to discuss this till the cows come home (i.e. forever). It does no harm and keeps them occupied. Outside intervention being limited to enforcing civility and process.
3. Create two separate point of view articles which gradually drift farther and farther apart as each gets captured by extremists since no one else cares enough to fight them.

I would pick option 2 - the current system. Like Churchill said about democracy "It's the worst system, apart from all the others".Template:O Rly

I suppose that from a quality standpoint, it's not terrible to have an article that's deadlocked on a fine issue like "do we say 'X says Y is true' or do we just say 'Y is true'?" But from a community health standpoint, these kinds of debates really make Wikipedia a crappy place to do work, and drive out all but the most stubborn editors. Even if they're civil and not rude, sheer stubbornness is enough to drive people out.

Can we find a better way?

Reading the responses to my idea, I understand the reticence to the two-thread solution. I just want to clarify a couple of things about the proposal:

• The pro and con versions cannot, in my proposal, drift further and further apart. Because the rules of engagement are that every documented fact in one article must be included in the other. You can bury it in a footnote, you can print it in small type at the end of the article, but it has to be there. I trust the opposing editors to insist on this.

• I find our labeling of editors "POV warriors" incorrect and offensive. It is true that there are editors whose sole objective is to slant articles. But the majority of editors I have encountered in article battlegrounds are not fighting for their private points of view. They are fighting for their own understanding of neutrality. It is important for us, as senior editors, to understand and appreciate that. Denigrating editors involved in article wars is only exacerbating the problem, not helping.

• The parallel article approach is, first and foremost, a tactic, and not an objective. If two opposing editors have each written their own versions of an article, and both versions contain exactly the same information, there is a solid basis for negotiation on a single version. In a lot of edit wars, the rationale for this or that version becomes obscured in a cloud of enmity, where sometimes there are simple and imaginative ways to resolve problems. By having opposing versions that are completely agreeable to the sides (each version to its own side), there is a good starting place to negotiate an agreed version. I don't think this will always be possible, but in some cases it may well be a springboard for agreement.

I've participated in mediation, and one tactic that they use IS to have two different editors write the article/section in two different ways. And it is definitely a good way to start a negotiation.

I'm not worried about offending POV warriors. Frankly, I'd be glad if they left. Somewhere between this postmodern "you and I have two different understandings of neutrality", there is actually a neutral way to present the material if people can get off of their soapbox. I hope that one day I could build enough support to make it very very hard for a POV to enjoy Wikipedia, forcing them to adapt or leave. But in the meantime, I'm not going to go out of my way to accommodate their battleground mentality. There are opinionated people who can get over themselves, and then there are POV warriors. The worst threat to community health isn't one side or another, but everyone who dogmatically insists upon their side.

The difference between a POV warrior and a fair-minded but opinionated editor is this: the POV warrior wants to excise the opposing view. The fair editor wants to include both views, though he may want to present them in a way that makes clear which view is correct.

An example of this is the ongoing war over the lead of w:Jerusalem. ProPalestinian editors argue that that the lead should contain an explicit statement that half of Jerusalem is occupied, and that its status as Jerusalem's capital is disputed by almost all nations of the world. The ProIsraelis point out that the issues of occupation and status are amply discussed, including an extensive footnote in the lead, and a section in the article. None of the editors involved in this dispute wants to remove information supporting the opposing view; the entire dispute is one of presentation. None of these editors, in my mind, are POV warriors. That doesn't make the battle any less bloody.

I am curious to know what you think: should the lead of the article contain an explicit statement about the dispute over its status? Or, in other words, which camp are you in?

For some of these debates, it really would be easiest if people could acknowledge that readers could figure out the correct view. We could present all of the facts and all the reasonable opinions from a neutral point of view, and let the content speak for itself.

I think you raise a pretty fair distinction between someone who is a POV warrior and someone who is relatively fair minded, though. It's just that we're now talking about very fine and subtle distinctions -- arguing about what the lead should contain and with what presentation. I don't mean to trivialize the significance of the I-P debate, but when you remember that our goal is to write an encyclopedia it's hard not to roll your eyes.

I honestly think these issues are small enough that they can be settled by the community. If it's small enough that you can solve it by having two versions of the article with only minor differences -- one where the statement is included in the lead, and one where the statement is included in the body -- then clearly this is something that could be settled if it were put to mandatory mediation.