Wikipedia talk:Tendentious editing

Fringe advocacy and disloyal behavior

Tendentious behavior includes advocacy of fringe views, IOW views inconsistent with mainstream narratives found in RS and our articles, which, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we should assume are based on reliable sources.

Where there is disagreement in RS about the "proper" narrative, it is legitimate to hold differing views, but this is always in the context of differing mainstream views found in reliable sources, not fringe views documented by reliable sources. Fringe views have no weight, even when found in reliable sources, but it is those same reliable sources that give them due weight for mention, but not that we should believe or advocate them.

It also includes dissing of RS and pushing for favorable treatment of unreliable sources. Repeatedly griping about what most editors consider reliable sources is tendentious behavior. Such actions are a direct attack on Wikipedia's core content policies and guidelines and have the effect of undermining them. This is an unwikipedian and disloyal way to effect change. It is better to directly address attempted change at the relevant policy's talk page and then, regardless of whether or not you like the decision, to follow the spirit and intent of those policies as worded at the time.

Can we find places to use these points on this project page? (Feel free to improve them.) -- Valjean (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to say that we should assume that a Wikipedia article's "narrative" is based on reliable sources, but this is not always the case. For one, there are often multiple mainstream narratives, and sometimes an article has been skewed or was from the beginning. This thus defines someone trying to fix that as a tendentious editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You may have missed the "Where there is disagreement" part, but please point out any weaknesses or inaccuracies. The point is to improve it.

I forgot to mention that you are also mentioning an aspect I didn't deal with, and that should be fixed, so feel free to suggest something. -- Valjean (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I have just added more. -- Valjean (talk) 06:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valjean: Vague.
…Repeatedly griping about what most editors consider reliable sources is tendentious behavior. … Given prior consensus this may be dealt with by WP:SNOW. You however have to always remember that the WP:consensus can change On the rest - I strongly disagree with any attempts to set categorical rules that would prevent editors from discusssing issues with sources or biases toward certain narratives. This kind cast-in-stone WP:STONEWALLING is unacceptable. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:30, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is a bit confusing to me, so I may have missed your real points.

Do you know what STONEWALLING means? There are only three people in this discussion, so it can't apply here.

Is there some prior consensus based on a SNOW decision regarding the subject of this thread? Is that what you mean?

Of course consensus can change, including what are considered RS, and I'm only dealing with the consensus at any given time. That is the only thing we can do. If a consensus about some situation changes, so will the way we deal with that situation and which sources are used, so I don't understand your point.

We are always free "to discuss issues with sources or biases toward certain narratives". I haven't said anything that would forbid that, but of course we're talking about discussion of "sources and biases" found in RS that may disagree with each other. We do not compare them with unreliable sources as they have zero due weight here. They are off-limits. If a formerly unreliable source becomes reliable (that occasionally happens), then its voice can become part of the discussion, but not before then. My point above is that pushing of currently fringe views from currently unreliable sources violates ADVOCACY and is disruptive because it pits RS (with varying due weight) against unreliable ones (with zero due weight). That is a fruitless, tendentious, and timesink effort.

If there are questions about the reliability of a source, and a talk page discussion gets bogged down on that subject, then stop pushing the matter at the talk page and go deal with it at WP:RS/N or Wikipedia talk:RS/P. That is the proper way to effect change about what we consider a RS, not by continual griping on other talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is about what most editors consider reliable sources - Alexander reads "most editors" as meaning "most editors in a given discussion". Implicitly change "most" to "overwhelming majority" and you get WP:SNOW. In that interpretation, the suggested text would mean that the minority not only loses but is officially categorized as tendentious, thus WP:STONEWALLING. That is how I understand Alexander's response, but I may be wrong.

Of course, that is not the real meaning of the proposal - what most editors consider reliable sources talks about the general rules in WP:RS and the application in WP:RSP. Only two users are needed for this scenario: one who wants to use a source that is clearly unreliable according to WP:RS and one who points out that it is. I think the wording of the proposal should be changed accordingly. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to clarify myself a bit. When I mentioned WP:STONEWALLING I meant that I oppose establishing actual policies or guadelines that may/may not exclude certain views (whether fringy or not). Especially given an extensive framework of policies that are already doing that. Regards. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

And you intend to perform Repeatedly griping about it on article talk pages, instead of trying to change the guidelines on the talk pages of the guidelines? That would be highly annoying, and the suggested text would be a great way of preventing you to do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Who are you referring to? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion I wish to record my thoughts on the problem of WP:RS and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that should be resolved in some manner especially as the words "disloyal", "fringe" and "narrative" and other non-encyclopaedic terms are given undue weight. I read that primary sources are not good but reliable secondary sources are gold standard because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is not reason enough to ignore primary sources ESPECIALLY when they contradict the secondary sources that are setting the narrative. Where did these secondary sources get their facts if the pool of primary sources mostly disagrees with their finding?

I am convinced that Wikipedia is under the influence of "state capture" when it comes to medical sourcing. There is probably no way to determine how it happened but it is incumbent on Wikipedia to determine if it is in fact the case and to develop strategies to counteract the influence of external control.

I recently came across the guideline WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and was quite struck by the blind spot there that can be and appears to be used to weaponise Wikipedia. The implication is that it is not Wikipedias place to fix the world but to meekly follow the trends of secondary sources (because primary sources are not acceptable).

I have not edited as much of late because it seems I hold what the Mainstream media consider fringe views in spite of being supported by voluminous primary sources yet denied by the mainstream media and by proxy Wikipedia which also considers them fringe views, this causes me concern.

When it comes to biomedical matters this fervour has been amped up a few notches and the gold standard for secondary sources has shifted from published meta studies or reviews to mainstream media (that should be assumed to be propaganda as our history books tell us) to the public health departments that now appear to be run by individuals that are financially very conflicted, there is no easy way to demonstrate that they are not captured yet their behaviour indicates that they are.

So what Wikipedia is doing is promoting the great wrong and is, in a way, smug about just following rules that cause this to happen. Perhaps Wikipedia should not champion to right the great wrong but I do believe when it seems to be complicit it is time to consider change. I am a bottom tier editor who knows that a wrong is occurring and can see the mass of the policy machinery that is in place, policed by well meaning helpers that will thwart any steps I take alone. Does anyone know of a forum where this could be discussed formally at higher levels that has some hope for a fair hearing?

What I read in this Talk thread led me to feel that editorial consensus determined which mainstream or Public Health Department narrative was encyclopaedic and that was the end of it.

It appears to me that no amount of credible primary sources would indicate bad faith by mainstream media or public health departments and Wikipedia is HAPPY to be party to this. I want the world to be a better place and Wikipedia is sabotaging that ideal by serving commercial interests.

An encyclopaedia is intended to contain knowledge not commercial narrative. There are guidelines for conflict of interest and often the 'reputable' secondary sources should fail because they are based on WP:SPONSORED content yet they get a free pass and editors will delete any balancing viewpoints.

The use of statements giving any credence to social media fact checkers should also stop. They have been shown to be wrong, certainly out of date, rarely if ever prepared to correct mistakes, often written by journalists instead of someone skilled in the field and Facebook by their own court admissions says their fact checkers are simply offering a "protected opinion", they are not worthy of mention on Wikipedia and any 'facts' attributed to fact checkers must be drilled down to reliable sources or eliminated.

The level of capture can be determined simply. Change policy to allow a balanced viewpoint if large quantities of primary sources contradict the secondary sources. If this level of truth cannot be tolerated then we know that Wikipedia is captured because truth must stand on its own and not need the support of conflicted and captured parties that claim narrative and editorial consensus is more important than facts.

Idyllic press (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to push such conspiracy theories. You seem to be under the impression that your original research and synthesis of primary sources would somehow be better than the research of those with the experience and training to do that job.

Sorry, but you don't carry any weight around here. In fact, none of us do, not even Nobel Prize laureates. (Yes, I know one who is blocked for not following our policies.) We all bow to the superior skills and experience of reliable secondary sources who have done the original research and synthesis for us.

This is not the place to right great wrongs.

I suspect you are not here to follow our policies and guidelines, so goodbye. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

False balance

Regarding this edit: I think the final sentence, Sometimes one side of an issue really is right and the other false., works against the overall theme of the section, which explains how "Seeing editing as being about taking sides" is a characteristic of some problem editors. I propose removing this sentence, as I think the linked term "false balance" is sufficient to convey the message. isaacl (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

isaacl, it may or may not be enough to convey the message of what a false balance is about, which is often a resistance/failure by editors to take sides with RS when they say one thing and unreliable sources don't agree with them, so they compromise (a misunderstood "staying neutral") by not taking sides with RS. We are always supposed to side with RS, unless there is a real disagreement between RS.

I have removed the final sentence anyway, and others can restore it or a better version to demonstrate the relevance of "false balance". BTW, it would have been nice if you had pinged me. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Valjean: Sorry, but I reverted the rest of it. It's not that it was exactly wrong, but more like it was out of place and resulted in a mixed message. The status quo language to which I reverted it isn't implying that everything has to split the difference 50-50, but just that one shouldn't go automatically to side-versus-side. The language immediately before it simply says to consider what the other "side" is saying. To follow it immediately with the message that, yeah, but sometimes one side is entirely right and the other side is entirely wrong just muddles the point. There's definitely a place for the message you are giving, but this isn't it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Accusing others of whitewashing

"Accusing others of malice" section lists accusing others of "suppressing information", "censorship", or "denying facts" as signs of problematic behaviour. I think the list should also explicitly mention "whitewashing", a fairly common incivil accusation closely related to "censorship". Which is why I will now boldly add "whitewashing" to the list.

A separate but loosely related issue is that WP:WHITEWASH and WP:WHITEWASHING currently redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I have considered going to Redirects for discussion and propose targeting this essay. (Before those redirects were created, I actually planned creating a redirect or redirects pointing to this essay.) Politrukki (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing isn't inherently an incivil accusation. See also: sugarcoating. It's a description of providing a euphemistic or overly positive spin. I can see a legitimate use for this term in the discourse. Also, in my edit summary, I wrote "this is a policy" and I mean to write "essay."Andre🚐 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Imagine a user says torepeatedly asks another (in an edit summary or discussion) to "stop whitewashing this article". What would be the legitimate purpose of saying that and how that would not be incivil? Now switch "whitewashing" with "censoring", what changes (except that "censoring" may go both ways)? Note that an accusation of "whitewashing" can be totally baseless. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC) edited 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

In some circumstances such a statement might be regarded as a personal attack in violation of NPA if it is done in a way that implies ill-motivation rather than innocent bias. However, I think that "tendentious editing" refers only to what editors put into articles, not to what they say to each other. Zero^talk 13:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I was caught in edit conflict, but I was going to add this: Accusing others of censoring is not inherently incivil behaviour, e.g. there are very specific cases where using the class of {{Uw-notcensored}} templates is appropriate. Politrukki (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This is about the editing of articles, not discussions and personal attacks. In this context, whitewashing is tendentious editing, and confronting such editors is proper. Don't muddy the waters. Deal with this at NPA. We do not take the side of tendentious editors when they complain. Only if they have been grossly and unfairly accused do we deal with it, and we do that at NPA. We don't do it in a way that undermines the continued fact that they are engaged in tendentious behavior and pushing of fringe agendas and unreliable sources, or, as is usually the case, ideas from unreliable sources where they don't mention the source. We know where their ideas are coming from. We do know what unreliable sources say.

Unfortunately, the waters are a bit muddied because we discuss "the behavior" of tendentious editors, which includes whitewashing of articles. When they fight back against such accusations, things can get nasty. They don't usually say that there is whitewashing. Instead they usually say their information is being kept out of articles, that the left-wing controls the narrative, that only left-wing sources are used, etc. It's very rarely the other side of the coin, so don't give it too much weight. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Misinterpreting someone’s behavior as tendentious editing

Is it possible to misinterpret someone’s behavior as tendentious editing.CycoMa2 (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Tendentiousness is generally associated with intent, i.e. decisions one knows to be partisan, prejudiced, or subverting consensus. As I see it, someone's editing cannot be tendentious due to their lacking competence or necessary information. Remsense ‥ 论 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

What if an editor was misinformed, like what if they got a source from a party they thought was neutral or met well? Then later found out that party had bad intentions.

Or what if a party tells an editor a certain fact that is true. But the party uses that fact in a terrible way.

Or let’s say an editor cited a reliable source that says that group A accounted for 70% of crimes in a certain country. The source is reliable by all measurements. However, the only reason the editor knows that the source exists is because some member of group A told them.CycoMa2 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion: no, yes, no. Though I am suddenly a bit leery, since this seems this might be related to some situation I'm not privy to, so I'm not sure I can offer any further analysis. Remsense ‥ 论 05:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)