Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation

5.6 million people have been expelled from Palestine and registered with UNRWA as refugees as of 2019

That's just factually untrue. "5.6 million people are *descended* from Palestinians expelled in (1948, 1967) and are registered etc" would be an accurate statement (though that would probably have to be attached to an earlier section rather than it's own misleading headline). 3:20, 27 November 2023 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.235.199.209 (talk)

The accusation has been rejected by …

Homerethegreat and others. While I would not wish to spend very long defending the prior summary in the lead of who rejects the 'genocide accusation', (The accusation has been rejected by a majority of Israelis and supporters of Israel) I'm not too sure that this] is much of an improvement, mainly because the summary, isn't comprehensive, isn't clear and isn't even well sourced IMO. The new text is: "The accusation has been rejected by the US, Israel and several organizations". I agree with you that the "majority of Israelis", while it may well be true, is probably not cited anywhere in the article.

Firstly, some things we should remind ourselves of is that the lead is a summary of the body and as long as claims are properly sourced in the body, and the lead is an accurate summary of the body, no specific refs are required in the lead.

Secondly, the article is about the whole history of accusation from 1948-ish to the present day - not simply about 2023, nor any specific time within that period.

Thirdly neither the source for US rejection nor Israel rejection of the accusation actually supports such a general proposition. The source for the US covers a specific White House official in 2023: White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby appears to smack down allegations that Israel is committing “genocide” against the Palestinians in Gaza, while the source for Israel rejecting the accusation speaks of a group of "Jewish and Israeli human rights lawyers across the political spectrum use words like “ridiculous” and “baseless” to describe the accusation", specifically referring to 2021 accusations.

While I don't doubt at all that all, or almost all US administrations, all Israeli administrations (and many other Western governments), would have rejected the genocide accusation at all times since 1948, the sources not only don't support the rejection (Kirby is not America and a group of 2021 Jewish/Israeli lawyers don't speak for Israel). They also aren't a very comprehensive summary of who does reject the accusation.

Lastly, "and several organizations" is vague to the point of being almost meaningless, as someone has tagged it. The source is ADL, which technically only speaks for ADL itself, but presumably our wording is intended to cover "supporters of Israel", pro-Israeli groups, or some-such.

I'm not sure how we should approach this, but the 'who' (and 'why'??) of rejection doesn't seem to me to be well phrased, comprehensive, nor well sourced at present, nor an especially good summary of the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, regarding several organizations. It was following the TOI source which pointed to several different groups. Regarding the rest I agree that the article seems misoriented and its unclear what the scope is and also where and what should be cited in lead. But I did not wish to strike down large sections. Thank you for bringing this up.

What would you suggest? Perhaps we need to focus article on 1948? Perhaps on 2023? Homerethegreat (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing in the lead doesn't greatly bother me, balanced summaries of relatively uncontroversial material shouldn't need independent sourcing in the lead IMO, but inadequate sources are worse than none also IMO. These don't really support the text they follow AFAI can see and we would be better trying to summarise the body. Pincrete (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The accusation has been rejected by the US... We should avoid using the term supporters if its not sourced. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

The US having officially rejected it is certainly not sourced - a named spokesman apparently 'slapping down' the idea of genocide in the aftermath of Oct 2023 isn't official US rejection. I'm sure US would reject if asked, as it is the principal ally of Israel, but AFAIK it hasn't been officially. So would most of Israel's nominal allies, which is most of the EU and the West, so why single out the US? 'Supporters' is a generic term covering nation states and orgs and individuals and is justified as a summary of the body. I agree that the wording is imperfect, but are we going to list all those states, organisations etc that have nominally rejected the accusation. We were previously using a bunch of Jewish and Israeli HR lawyers responding to an earlier Gaza incursion to justify Israel having officially rejected the accusation. Pincrete (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC) signed retrospectively by Pincrete (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

as many 3500 civilians at Sabra and Shatila

this violates the neutral stance as the main Wikipedia page places the death toll at around 460 to 3,500 civilians. The use of only the largest (and least official estimate) would appear to be in order to emphasise the author's point of view. Daddyoftwo (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It was actually done for reasons of brevity, in what is a 'background summary', but I don't object to using the 'range' figures. Pincrete (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If it's an accusation then we should not show numbers that may accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Some recent sources discussing genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza

For reference, here are some recent sources where scholars are raising concerns about genocidal intent and/or genocidal action in Gaza:

• Raz Segal in Jewish Currents and the Los Angeles Times,
• Omer Bartov in the New York Times,
• William Schabas, widely considered the world's leading genocide scholar, as part of the Center for Constitutional Rights lawsuit against Joe Biden et al.,
• Adam Jones, another leading genocide scholar, here and here,
• Martin Shaw, another leading genocide scholar, here and here

As the Google Scholar links show, the last three of those have written the world's leading current textbooks on genocide. You also have Jason Stanley, a world expert on fascist propaganda at Yale University, raising the same concern. This TIME Magazine article lists a few more names. Andreas JN466 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this. ProgrammerinEZ (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of deaths and displacement figures

The removal of deaths and displacement figures in an article about genocide accusations - which also documents 'auxiliary' accusations of ethnic cleansing seems perverse. IMO both are invaluable backgound info. The edit reason seems equally wrong headed "Remove WP:SYNTH. The sources do not say anything about genocide. The data could be seen as off-topic, it could be seen as an implied PoV, but it isn't SYNTH - which is explicitly defined as combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." or combining "different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source". It is difficult to see what information is combined, or what novel conclusion reached. The section simply records UN supplied numbers, which of course don't mention 'genocide'. I think it should be restored. Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously not synth, not entirely sure how relevant the figures are on their own, think it mighty be better if linked in genocide related sourcing that referred to them or the results of Israeli acts, as here. Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The numbers provide context. Scientelensia (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've restored the section. Pincrete (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information

2023 Palestinian death statistics were given from Hamas, that should be added for more information 2600:1017:B0C7:7A5C:75F3:7ED6:7135:8CD9 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Not done, discussed at other pages, and the Gaza MoH figures are considered reliable. See here or the latest report today from Reuters, Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already made clear that the figures are from the Gaza MoH - who are generally considered reliable.Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Sabra and Shatila

The Sabra&Shatila massacre was committed internally by Lebanese paramilitary group,and despite the disputes about Israeli responsibility on the area,it’s simply can not be part of the relevant allegations (or at least:clarify it). עמית לונן (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The text is very explicit that Israel is accused of complicity, not of having committed the massacres. How could that be further clarified? Pincrete (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Well,it did not. עמית לונן (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Did not what? Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel did not took part.

Those paramilitary groups were indeed backed in general by israel but israel did not sent them in any way to commit such a terrible massacre. עמית לונן (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say Israel took part. It says Israel is accused of complicity. Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Conceptions of Genocide

This entire article lacks neutrality and is agenda-driven.

The "conceptions of genocide" sub-header declares one man's opinion that "genocide" does not necessarily entail mass death. Interestingly, not only does the section not include any other "conception of genocide", but it omits the dictionary definition and, presumably, the definition accepted by the common man:

"the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group" (Oxford Languages).

Finally, there is no mention anywhere in the article that the Palestinian population increased from 2,783,084 in 1997 to 5,227,193 in 2021, which would seem to serve as a nontrivial counter point to the allegation being "addressed" by this article. Chupster811 (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The definitions employed are not opinions - they are based on the legal and academic notions of genocide, as defined in about 1948. Those definitions are largely based on the notion of "intent to destroy in whole or in part" {. There is no requirement of "minimum kill number", nor that the "victim group's" population reduce in size. You are probably right about the "common man" definition, though even that definition would not preclude Israel being accused. That OED definition still focuses on intent to destroy, and doesn't say that population numbers must decrease or that there is any minimum 'kill' number. Srebrenica was legally declared to be genocide, despite the number killed being the (relatively) modest number of about 8-9000 in a specific locale. The ruling came about because the International court ruled that the intent was to destroy the wider ethnic group. Not a single person has been killed AFA we know in the Uyghur genocide, but various countries and scholars and lawyers (and WP?) have written about the intent behind Chinese policies.

To use a very crude - possibly cruel - analogy, the fact that the number of weeds in my garden has increased, has little bearing on whether I have been trying to eliminate them. Pincrete (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel has enacted plans to ensure the slow, quiet death of Palestinians as they are deprived of the resources they need to live (food, water, shelter, etc.) It is a systematic genocide, something that has been seen many times before in history, where a population is slowly killed by the incremental actions of an oppressor. A population growth does not cancel this out. Your failure to see Israel's genocidal intent does not mean that the article is biased. Salmoonlight (talk) 11:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If Israel wanted to commit a genocide and level the entire Gaza Strip and West Bank, it could have done so at any point in the past 75 years; however, it chooses not to. One would also presume that Israel would begin a Palestinian genocide by wiping out the 20% of its citizenry that is Arab. One would also tend to think that, people being subjected to genocide would not feel close to the state committing an alleged genocide of their people. None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

First, Israel would receive immediate condemnation from the world over if they did what you suggested. Second, you are ignoring how it is a systematic genocide that has been happening since 1948. Third, the conception is completely normal in genocide studies. The destruction of infrastructure, culture, resources and safety all serve as the incremental actions that make up a genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and also, that excerpt was literally written by the man who coined the term genocide. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

None of you have addressed my point of there being a "Conceptions of Genocide" section only containing one "conception". You are free to believe that Israel is a genocidal state, but at least recognize the need for other such "conceptions" to warrant the section's existence. Chupster811 (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually answer what I said instead of just copying your last comment. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You did not pose a question; there is nothing for me to "answer". I will reformulate my point in the form of a question to which you may directly respond if you so choose: Why is there a "Conceptions of Genocide" (with "conceptions" being in the plural) section only containing one "conception"? Chupster811 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is the conception not sufficient enough for you? Why does there need to be multiple conceptions? Adding more interpretations would not make it any more "neutral" if that's what you want. Salmoonlight (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Could I remind you both of WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:AGF, our own personal opinions on Israel's actions have little place here and the topic can be discussed civilly. Equally, there really is only one (legal) definition of genocide. Legal scholars, judges and others can/do interpret that definition variously, just as they might interpret any legal concept, but the definition remains the same. Lemkin - who coined the term - placed even less emphasis on the number killed and even more on 'intent' than the 1948/legal definition does. Pincrete (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Since you reiterate that your contention is with the title implying multiple conceptions, the title has been adjusted to refer to the conception of genocide. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Chupster811, and anyone else, I owe a slight apology. Rather foolishly I didn't check our text and (wrongly) assumed that the definition we were using in this article was the 1948 UN Genocide Convention one (the legal definition). In fact we are using Lemkin's description (possibly his 1944 one). It's reasonable to assume that any legal or academic scholar is working from the 1944 UN GC definition, so we should include it, even if we leave Lemkin in place. Lemkin & the UN GC don't differ substantially, but the latter is more precisely phrased/codified - legally. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the UN GC definition. Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Pincrete: -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The original text is from a 1945 article by Lemkin, which is quoted in the source we use. I've added this info to the text as a footnote. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

Are these sources reliable? I wonder if there is a consensus about it. Can they be used as enough of citation to refer to the "accused genocide" as a "genocide" in Wikipedia? If yes, I request this article to be renamed as "Palestinian Genocide" and change its formatting to a tone that is acknowledging that these events are indeed a genocide. Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC) Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done this has been extensively discussed and rejected, please see Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation/Archive_1#c-Starship.paint-20231031230600-Requested_move_24_October_2023. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well, then let's apply whatever has been said in that discussion to Holocaust; rename the page to "Holocaust Accusation"!!!! Eastern but not so Middle (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

References

still others argue that none of these have occurred - citation needed tag.

"still others argue that none of these have occurred" is the final phrase of a para in which the preceding text says that some scholars have said not genocide, but rather "ethnic cleansing, politicide, spaciocide, cultural genocide or similar". The final phrase is summarising that some scholars reject ALL these -cide allegation against Israel. The text is a summary of the body of the article, but the likelihood of finding a source that rejects ALL these specific allegations is very slim IMO, but if we don't include we are implying tha Israel is generally thought to be guilty of at least one of these crimes. A cite, and the tag is not needed IMO for content that is expanded in the body. Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

"Gaza holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Gaza holocaust has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 2 § Gaza holocaust until a consensus is reached. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱 ☎️ 📄 14:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of Jewish expulsion from Arab lands

As per my edit, I encouraged discussion on talk page here prior to reversion, but here we are. If we are going to bring up the Nakba and create an entire section for discussing it, we have to present both sides, or else have a

For raising issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. For advice on applying this policy, see the NPOV tutorial. For frequent critiques and responses, see the NPOV FAQ. For the template, see Template:POV.

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

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.

Explanation

See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Achieving neutrality

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Naming

See also: Wikipedia:Article titles § Neutrality in article titles

In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names). Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Article structure

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

Due and undue weight

"Wikipedia:UNDUE" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:UNDO.

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means 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. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly 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 briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority 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 rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

Balance

"WP:BALANCE" redirects here. For balance regarding the "In the news" section, see WP:ITNBALANCE.

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Balancing aspects

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

See: False balance

When considering "due impartiality" ... [we are] careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance", meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but [it] must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

—BBC Trust's policy on science reporting 2011
See updated report from 2014.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

Selecting sources

Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Some types of sources, and Wikipedia:Academic bias

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

Bias in sources

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Impartial tone

See also: Wikipedia:Writing better articles § Information style and 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 tones can be introduced through how 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, formal tone.

Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations

The Starry Night—good painting or bad painting? That's not for us to decide, but we note what others say.

Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Words to watch

Main page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate flattering expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).

Handling neutrality disputes

Attributing and specifying biased statements

Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Point of view

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)

Point-of-view forks

See also: Wikipedia:Content forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

Making necessary assumptions

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.

Controversial subjects

Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

Further information: Wikipedia:Fringe theories and § Due and undue weight

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical negationism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Religion

"WP:RNPOV" redirects here. For neutrality of redirects, see Wikipedia:Redirect § Neutrality of redirects.

Further information: Wikipedia:Myth versus fiction

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Common objections and clarifications

For answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales talks about NPOV at WikiConference India

Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, please review the links below.

Being neutral

"There's no such thing as objectivity"

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

A simple formulation—what does it mean?

A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." What does this mean?

Balancing different views

Writing for the opponent

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie to represent the view I disagree with?

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

Editor disputes

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the nonbias policy, but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Other objections

Anglo-American focus

The English Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Not answered here

I have some other objection—where should I complain?

History

Main page: Wikipedia:Core content policies

"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's "rules to consider". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Wikipedia was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001. Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008

No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was established in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.

See also

Policies and guidelines

• Conflict of interest
• Fringe theories
• Words to watch
• No original research
• Verifiability

Noticeboards

• NPOV noticeboard

Information pages

• Describing points of view
• List of controversial issues
• NPOV dispute
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV quiz
• Recentism
• Positive tone (historical Meta policy)
• Understand bias (historical Meta policy)

Essays

• Be neutral in form
• Cherrypicking
• Civil POV pushing
• Coatrack articles
• Conflicting sources
• Controversial articles
• Criticism sections
• Describing points of view
• Don't "teach the controversy"
• Let the facts speak for themselves
• Let the reader decide
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• NPOV tutorial
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Presentism
• Scientific consensus
• Scientific point of view
• Systemic bias
• Why NPOV?
• Wikipedia only reports what the sources say
• Ye shall know them by their sources

Articles

• Criticism of Wikipedia § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
• Consensus reality
• Journalistic objectivity
• One-sided argument

Templates

• General NPOV templates:
  • {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
  • {{POV section}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed
  • {{POV lead}}—message when the article's introduction is questionable
  • {{POV statement}}—message when only one sentence is questionable
  • {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
  • {{Political POV}}—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
  • {{Fact or opinion}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g., "Jimmy Wales says")
  • {{Attribution needed}}—when in-text attribution should be added
• Undue-weight templates:
  • {{Undue weight}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
  • {{Undue weight section}}—same as above but to tag a section only
  • {{Undue weight inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

References

violation. The argument that the Nabka was a form of genocide has been articulated and backed up with 3 sources. The argument against just says authors "do not consider it to be genocide" with no details, still calling it an ethnic cleaning. I have provided 2 sources that discuss the Nakba in the context of the Jewish expulsion from Arab lands and been reverted with the explanation: "off-topic and not contextually relevant, and only really of relevance in a related context to Nakba apologetics and denial". Louiedog (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)