Editing Incubator escapee wiki:Controversial articles (section)

== Describe the controversy ==
{{See also|Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia:Don't teach the controversy}}
An article about a controversial person, issue, group or organization should start with facts/opinions from others: "According to the FBI, the XYZ faction had over 1,000 active members in 1982.{{fakeref}}" Next, the article should accurately describe their views, no matter how misguided or repugnant. Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader: "According to the XYZ faction's 1983 manifesto, which was published in the ''New York Times'', the three main aims of the faction were to..." If the organization's leader or its members have been convicted of crimes committed in the furtherance of the group's objectives, these legal outcomes can be summarized for the reader: "In 1984, members A, B and C of the XYZ faction were convicted in a court of law for hijacking..."

Remember to ask the question, "How can this controversy best be described?"  It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all comers; it is our job to be fair to all sides of a controversy. For a controversial individual or organization, it is likely that many sources have criticized the person or the group. A well-sourced summary of these criticisms should appear in the article, giving weight to the viewpoints in accordance to the weight that these viewpoints are given in reliable, published sources: "Several US organizations such as A, B and C criticized the XYZ faction for its..." If authoritative sources support the existence of positive viewpoints about the person or group, these too can be summarized for the reader: "The organizations P and Q endorsed the aims of the XYZ faction, and the political philosophers John Smith and Sue Jones defended their political arguments."

Please be clear that the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must [[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight|"give equal validity"]] to minority views in a controversy. If the vast majority of political philosophers criticized the XYZ faction, and only two political philosophers supported the group's aims, then giving substantial coverage of these two philosopher's views could be viewed as [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]].