User:Cs32en/911/Policy

Links

The following parts of established Wikipedia's policies are particularly relevant for editing 9/11-related articles. General policies such as the Five pillars of Wikipedia, which are important with regard to all articles, including 9/11-related articles, have not been included here. This does not indicate that they would be any less important in this context. The dates in the signatures indicate the time at which the respective text has been copied from the original policy page. Note that actual policies and the content of the policy pages may have changed. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Extremist and fringe sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Extremist and fringe sources

Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals, especially in articles about those organisations or individuals, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance. --Cs32en (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No original research

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability and weight

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content

The notability guidelines determine whether a topic is notable enough to be a separate article in Wikipedia. They do not give guidance on the content of articles, except for lists of people. Instead, various content policies govern article content, with the amount of coverage given to topics within articles decided by its appropriate weight. --Cs32en (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. --Cs32en (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Impartial tone

Wikipedia:Undue weight#Impartial tone

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-English material

Non-English sources

Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Translations

Where English translations of non-English material are unavailable, Wikipedia editors may supply their own. If such translations are challenged, editors should cooperate in producing one they can agree on. Copyright restrictions permitting, translations published by reliable sources are preferred over those provided by Wikipedia editors. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Names

Naming conventions (common names)

Determine the most common name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. When choosing a name for a page, as a rule of thumb ask yourself: What word would the average user of Wikipedia put into the search engine?

Page names should be as simple as possible without being too general or ambiguous. Remember that a link is the page name, not necessarily the topic, of the linked page. For example, the article about jazz music has the page name Jazz rather than Jazz music (a redirect); the simple page name makes linking easier. In contrast, the article about country music has the page name Country music because "country" has too many meanings in addition to the music genre. If we ignore potential ambiguity, the ideal of simplicity can be at odds with the ideal of precision.

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

In pseudoscientific topics, the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. --Cs32en (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)