Wikipedia talk:Content forks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

retrieved from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive#Wikipedia:Content forking 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC):

This is listed as just an essay and it's pretty much stating the obvious - we don't fork articles. But for those editors prone to rules lawyering, is there a policy or guideline that does spell it out? If not, why not paste a policy template on this essay? SchmuckyTheCat 05:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The worst way to deal with rules lawyering is creating more rules, and I think don't fork articles follows from both some of our general principles (like WP:NOT) and plain common sense. I have no specific objections to declaring that essay policy, but I haven't read it carefully. --fvw* 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on your first statement, which is why I'm hoping a simpler formulation already existed. SchmuckyTheCat 06:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Expanded Wikipedia:Content forking a bit, for example made a connection to wikipedia:summary style which explains a technique how to split, while avoiding content forking. And added an example where POV split was denied by wikipedia community.

Also put the {{proposed}} template on top, so that the community can assess whether or not to make it a guideline ("policy", as in Category:Wikipedia official policy probably not so suitable IMHO, implicitly it is covered by NPOV policy)

Asking for other guidelines who reflect the no content forking: the wikipedia:naming conventions (people) also indirectly advises to give each person one single article, with the most obvious name, and only use "summary style" type of splits for those so famous that they get more than one page (which, all in all happens not so often, and is as far as I know normally not from a "circumvent NPOV" outset). Whether a similar guideline can be found re. articles not on people I do not know. --Francis Schonken 21:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

It was suggested to merge this project page in the NPOV page. Well, wikipedia:neutral point of view is already a very long page, and this "content forking" page is maybe rather about practical considerations regarding how to avoid POV when splitting content. So I added a "Article splitting" section to wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, where it seems more on its place. That "Article splitting" section is only a short summary of this article (using the {{main}} template under the section header directing to this page), so it isn't actually a "merge" - such "merge" of the complete content would make the NPOV tutorial too long too.

Considering all that, which I think a workable solution, I remove the "merge" suggestion from the project page, and upgrade this from "proposed" to "guideline", for which there appears to be no opposition (or am I wrong in that?) Provisionally I put it in the "how-to" subcategory of guidelines --Francis Schonken 08:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge suggestion (II)

A merge with wikipedia:POV fork seems much more logical, so I proposed it myself --Francis Schonken 08:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I support this idea, regardless of what else is done. This appears to be duplication on a basic level. KillerChihuahua 15:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I am the creator of the article Wikipedia:POV fork and I also support merging the two forks. Andries 19:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I am Wikipedia's foremost supporter of NPOV - if not our leading expert, even if I do say so myself a bit too often! - but no one else seems to want to claim the title, and Jimbo seems to agree with my observations quite a bit on the mailing list. Anyway, I support a merge, especially one which will distinguish between valid and invalid forks. Uncle Ed 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality, consensus and "points of view"

The neutrality policy of Wikipedia is a core community value. It's not subject to debate or revision. (Check with Jimbo, if you're not sure about this.)

While whether to comply with NPOV is never subject to a vote, how to comply with NPOV is certainly up for grabs. We should do our best to reach a consensus on how to make any given article neutral.

Some people feel that "points of view" are appropriate only in some articles and should be excluded from others. This attitude crops up most frequently in politically-charged controversies over scientific topics, but also can be found in politics itself, as well as culture, sociology, mental health, religion and many other areas. I have repeatedly dialogued with Jimbo on this point, and as most longterm Wikipedians know, he his always affirmed that any significant view should be included - even when it's a minority and often simply because it's a minority.

There is no grounds whatsoever for excluding a "POV" from a controversial article simply on the grounds that "it's a POV" or that it is "POV text", a "POV explanation", or a biased view of any kind. To say so is either to miss (or maybe to refuse to accept) NPOV policy:

  • all points of view (POV) are to be described accurately and fairly, in articles on controversial topics.

There can be no doubt that US national policy (as in Vietnam, Iraq, and presidential elections) is a controversial topic. So are global warming, the creation-evolution controversy, Macedonians (ethnic group), and hundreds of others.

--Uncle Ed 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good forking

Often it is helpful to divide a long controversial article into parts.

The best example is Augusto Pinochet, although there are many other good examples. Contributors were edit warring over several aspects of his political and military career. After a long time, some of realized that his role in the 1973 Chile coup was the main focal point of the squabbling.

When this segment was split off, it became much easier for editors to work together and express the main POVs about the coup - and the respective roles of Pinochet and the United States.

A summary was subsequently put back into the main article, but the "sidebar" or "fork" worked better when left to stand on its own. And no one could predict this, until the fork was made. Uncle Ed 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That is already covered in the article, as is the fact that it is possible for people to create supposed "spinout" articles in ways that dodge consensus and the fact that this is not acceptable, just because spinouts themselves are not always unacceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I might be misunderstanding you. Or not. I'm saying that content forking is not always bad, and often can be good. Your response, "already covered in the article", doesn't really tell me whether you agree with me or not. It smacks of disagreeing, actually. :-(
And I'm completely mystified by your follow-on comment about "ways that dodge consensus". What is consensus, and why is it important? I thought we were talking about neutrality (considered good) and biased writing (considered bad). Uncle Ed 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Ed, what you are calling "content forking" is something the article already clearly states is not content forking unless it is done wrongly. If you want to make contributions to the discussion it really would be helpful to use the same vocabulary as everyone else. Is it really that hard to engage in a discussion using the same terms as everyone else? The Wikipedian definition of vandalism states that "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia ... is not vandalism"; if I start arguing that we shouldn't be so hard on vandalism, because "hey, a lot of vandals are really honestly trying to help the encyclopedia!" then I am not making any actual point; I am just muddying the waters by refusing to use the established definition of the term and trying to sneak in my own.
As for "What is consensus, and why is it important?", well, I really shouldn't have to tell an admin what consensus is, should I? Your assertion that Wikipedia policy suddenly has nothing to do with consensus and everything to do with neutrality is startlingly, puzzlingly naive. Neutrality is not something Wikipedia expects to find in individuals; it is something Wikipedia expects to emerge from the consensus of multiple editors. As such, to ask "why is consensus important? I thought we were talking about neutrality!" is like asking "why is it important for the jury to hear the argument of both the prosecution and the defense? I thought we were talking about a fair trial!"
You do not provide enough details about the example you hold up of supposed "good forking". When you decided to split off the details of the 1973 Chile coup from Augusto Pinochet to Chilean coup of 1973, did you start with what consensus had already produced as a description of the coup? Or did you start from scratch, assuming that what you wrote alone would be more imbued with "neutrality" than a description which had come out of a process involving multiple editors representing multiple points of view? And when in the process did you let other editors know that you had created a new article on the Chilean coup? (Would you call a trial fair, if only the prosecution or only the defense was notified of which courthouse it would be held in and what date it was scheduled for?) These are factors that separate what you are calling "good forking" from what the rest of us are referring to when we talk about content forking. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask about this too. Currently there is the statement "The sub-articles can each treat a particular aspect - which might reflect a point of view for each of the sub-articles - but these sub-articles should anyhow be linked to the other subarticles and to the main article, for instance by a navigational template." This seems to imply that an individual article can be POV, as long as some ensemble of articles is NPOV. I believe this to be utterly wrong. Every article on Wikipedia must be balanced unto itself, and in fact that's the whole point of this guideline. I'll remove it for now, please comment if you violently diasgree.

Bad forking

Unless I read the article too hastily, it seems to be saying that if the majority of contributors to an article gang up against a lone contributor, who is trying to add a neutral statement about a point of view, then:

  • the article is deemed to correctly exclude all information about that POV
  • any further attempt to describe the POV they are trying to censor should be deemed a violation of policy (because it's "evading consensus")

I have an e-mail in hand from user:Jimbo Wales which says precisely the opposite of this. I wish you guys would simply agree with Wikipedia because you understand it and support it. Please don't make me drag Jimbo down into this. Uncle Ed 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly there are many ways available to resolve NPOV disputes, but trying to avoid discussion by forking disputed content should not be seen as one of them. Lone contributors who feel that they only trying to add a neutral statement to an article and are being unfairly ganged up on should attempt to engage people in conversation and seek outside opinions; if that fails, they should take the article through the dispute resolution process. While there are many good uses for forks, they do not strike me as the correct recourse in the situation you describe... Forks should be created because someone thinks that creating a fork is the right thing to do to improve the article, not because of temporary infighting among editors. --Aquillion 23:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Ed, there's a saying where I come from: "When one person tells you you're drunk, ignore him. When ten people tell you you're drunk, sit down." What's your version of that saying? From what you've written above, it sounds like it's "When one person tells you you're drunk, ignore him. When ten people tell you you're drunk, ignore all of them. No matter how many people tell you you're drunk, ignore them. They're just ganging up on you, oppressing your sober self." -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Asking for clarification

I must admit I have a bit of puzzlement regarding the references to summary-style articles. In the context, I believe it's referring to what happens to some articles after detailed articles have been spun out of them; eventually the original article may become primarily, or wholly, just the summaries of content now located in spinout articles. However, the wording is confusing, so I can't be sure this is what it's saying.

I think it's important to be clear on this, because otherwise people might try to argue that under the letter of the policy, they are entitled to create new POV fork articles, as long as those forks are "summary-style". -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what problem *exactly* you're talking about. Maybe a good idea to give an example, so we're not talking about different topics.
I don't see the sequence of events you describe in the first paragraph above as obligatory. Often it occurs one encounters an article that's near to 30 Kb with a, say, 2-paragraph section that might benefit from elaboration. In that case one might first insert the {{details|...}} tag under the section header (which makes this article "Summary style", as in wikipedia:summary style), and then start the subsidiary article as an elaboration of the two original paragraphs that were in the main article. No harm done.
Further, it's the main article that is summary style, not the subsidiary articles. I don't know if there's possibility to misunderstand the "content forking" guideline text in that sense.
The thing is, that with "Summary style"+"subsidiary articles" format, things are still more or less controllable (NPOV-wise, etc...) - unlike the scheme proposed presently at wikipedia:village pump (policy)#Sub-article notation (a system for which I predict a noble death sooner or later) --Francis Schonken 06:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, let me illustrate what I mean with a scenario: Say there's a general topic Foo which, if you try to break it down, breaks down fairly completely into the sub-topics Blue Foo, White Foo, and Grey Foo, such that if you've fully discussed Blue, White and Grey Foo you've pretty much covered Foo.
OK. Here's possible sequence of events number one. Wikipedia's coverage of Foo begins with someone writing a Foo article which covers Blue, White and Grey Foo. Multiple editors contribute to that article until it gets too large; when that happens, coverage of the three sub-types of Foo are split off to Blue Foo, White Foo and Grey Foo, and Foo becomes a summary-style article.
This is an acceptable scenario. But unfortunately, long experience dealing with editors who think they can blatantly violate the spirit of policy, as long as they stay technically within the letter and never disclose that they're well-aware they're acting in bad faith, leads me to think someone might try the following (possible sequence of events number two):
Articles on Blue Foo, White Foo and Grey Foo were all started independently. Each article is edited to consensus. Editor Scofflaw feels very strongly that a particular claim about Blue Foo's qualities should be included; the consensus of other editors, however, is that this claim is not appropriate for Wikipedia so it is excluded from the article. Scofflaw thinks he knows much better than consensus ever could, so he creates a new summary-style article Foo, which points to Blue Foo, White Foo and Grey Foo, and which also contains the claim about Blue Foo which consensus already decided was not appropriate for Wikipedia.
Here we have a clear case of content forking: Scofflaw has already submitted the claim he wants Wikipedia to make about Blue Foo for the evaluation of others; the consensus of those others has already determined that the claim is not Wikipedic; now Scofflaw is trying to evade that consensus by creating a new article and inserting the claim there. However, we have already seen some editors profess some confusion, presenting the fact that this page says spinout articles are not necessarily POV forks as if it said spinout articles are not POV forks, missing the point that they are POV forks when they are made for that purpose. (See Talk:Evolution#Content fork.) I'd like to leave as little room as possible for people to claim they misunderstood the policy and believed their article was provably not a POV fork because it's summary-style. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
At Talk:Evolution#Content fork Ed Poor/Uncle Ed at 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC) makes the remark:

Have you read Wikipedia:Content_forking#Article_spinouts_which_summarize?

There is no "Article_spinouts_which_summarize" section in the Wikipedia:Content_forking guideline. That is to say, at 18:28, 9 December 2005 Ed Poor had created that section header in the "Content forking" guideline [1]. Exactly 8 minutes later someone removed it [2]. Ed was just trying to bend the guideline his way. Which didn't last.
And whatever way it is turned neither wikipedia:content forking neither wikipedia:summary style make an "exception" to NPOV policy. If one wants to make a "summary style" article out of several existing articles:
  • NPOV has to be applied as well to the "summary style" article as to the "existing" articles;
  • None of these articles has any type of "exception" status w.r.t. any of the other policies & guidelines;
  • In particular, on top of usual policies and guidelines the recommendations of wikipedia:summary style are best followed for the "Summary style" article (which seems quite obvious to me...)
  • Putting together several theories (even if each of them separately is acceptable in wikipedia) in a new format to make a new type of assertion, might be infringement on WP:NOR. Quote from that guideline:

    An article that makes no new low-level claims, but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish.

    (See: Wikipedia:No original research#Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder)
Don't know if this answers your questions, but I tried to give you some complementary info which might help you guys to get on track re. the issue you're presently discussing. --Francis Schonken 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

origin of name?

anybody know where the name "content forking" originated from?69.22.224.249 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Both "POV forking" and "content forking" originated by analogy with code forking. The derivation of code forking probably comes from the fact that in such a situation, one contingent continues with its original plan and another goes off to do something different. This is similar to how some multitasking systems work; when a running program wants to start another sequence of instructions executing in parallel, the facility it uses to do so is called "forking off a process". -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
And all this originates from fork.--Patrick 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged from Wikipedia:POV fork

There seemed to be clear consensus for this. I defined a "content fork" as a neutral term for duplication of articles, usually unintentional, and a "POV fork" as a deliberate evasion of NPOV by using a content fork. If this is no good, you know what to do. Stevage 09:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Stevage for putting an end to this "Wikipedia:POV fork"/"Wikipedia:Content forking" content forking! --Francis Schonken 09:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Heh, yeah it would be ironic if the two pages had separate irrenconcilable definitions of the terms...Stevage 10:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

An editor having some trouble understanding what POV forking is and why he's not allowed to do it pointed up a very problematic sentence in the text:

Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism.

I believe I understand what it's trying to convey: that as part of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, one should not immediately leap to the conclusion that an apparent duplication between articles is a POV fork. However... the sentence is actually saying that even if someone has openly admitted that they created a new article on an already-covered subject because the existing article doesn't say what they want it to say on the subject, we can't call it a POV fork (even though that's exactly what it is) unless there's also been repeated vandalism by the forker? I really am trying to understand; if there's any reason why it shouldn't just stress that Assume Good Faith applies here as elsewhere, please explain it to me... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Antaeus, by what would you replace this sentence:

Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism.

? If you give an alternate text proposition, that would maybe be easier? --Francis Schonken 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I must note before starting that the recent changes to the page represent an attempt to change, rather than to describe, current practice: in practice, most Wikipedians use "content forking" and "POV forking" pretty interchangeably, but we're trying to establish a definite difference between the two. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but we have to recognize that this is the case. With that in mind, I would suggest the following:
If you think you have discovered a content fork or a POV fork, be careful not to jump to conclusions; many things can look like content forking when they are not. See Wikipedia:Content forking#What content/POV forking is not for some examples. Even if it becomes clear that forking has taken place, remember the important policy of Wikipedia:Assume good faith; it is possible for something to be a content fork, but not a POV fork.
That's probably not perfect, but I think it is an improvement on the current text. The Wikipedian definition of vandalism is in fact very limited; it does not cover all forms of bad faith and we do not want to give people the idea that they can run riot with content forking and be untouchable as long as they never "make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit". -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to admit when i did the merge I was unable to tell from the text whether they were the same thing or not. It would certainly be useful to have terms to distinguish malicious forks from ignorant forks. If this is totally at odds with current usage, feel free to change them to being synonymous, and possibly propose a different term to describe non-malicious cases. Well, feel free to do anything at all, really. :) Stevage 07:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that current usage is for the most part very inconsistent, except for what a "POV fork" is: it's an article created on an already-covered subject for the purpose of allowing an editor to bypass consensus. Some people might say that "content forking" is just a synonym for that; some might say it's a euphemism; some might say that 'content forking' only implies the creation of an article on an already-covered subject, but not that it was done deliberately or for a particular purpose.
I think the question of whether we can and should establish more precise vocabulary to discuss these matters needs to be pursued, but my more immediate concern is that currently the article seems to be stating (please tell me if anyone reads it in a different way) that you cannot refer to a particular article as a POV fork unless it meets the Wikipedian definition of vandalism.
To illustrate why this is a problem, let me point you to the example of Microwave auditory effect; this is a real and known phenomenon which causes people to sometimes hear audible noises actually generated directly inside their ears by reception of certain microwave frequencies. As you can imagine, many people with paranoid delusions have jumped to the conclusion that they are being manipulated by the CIA/KGB/FBI by means of technology based on this effect. One such sufferer tried to edit Microwave auditory effect to include claims about the effect such as that it "constitutes the founding principle behind modern long range active invasive Brain Machine Interface." These edits were of course reverted. He therefore started a new article at "Frey effect", which is another name for the same phenomenon, and which should have been (and now is) a redirect; instead, he placed in the new article exactly the material which had been reverted at Microwave auditory effect. The contributor admits [3] that this is exactly what he did: He created a new article on an existing subject so that he could insert material that would not meet consensus.
But according to the current text of Wikipedia:Content forking, this wouldn't be a POV fork, or at least we couldn't refer to it as one: since the author sincerely believed that they were acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, by publishing their personal beliefs about the CIA mind control weapons, it isn't vandalism by the Wikipedia definition. This is why I think it's clear that we need to fix the text to make it clear that content forking/POV forking is an unacceptable procedure for trying to get content to go your way -- even if you are convinced that your way is in fact the way it "should" be. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

forking and redirects

Because unlike a link, a redirect can not point to a specific section in an article. It is sometimes desirable to fork out a section into a stand alone article, (even if it only initially duplicates information in the main article,) so that a redirect works properly. As time passes, either the section which has been spun out develops a life of its own, or it gets redirected back into the main article. I think that there should be a mention in this article covering this. An example of where I have considered doing this is for this link Varangian#The Varangian Guard for which the Varangian Guard redirect is not adequate. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Forking religious, mythological and other more or less fictional articles

In my opinion all such articles should be forked, or at least clearly seperated (in all cases), to historical, archeological and other scientific evidence based pages (or sections) and _(mythology) or _(fiction) variants covering information obtained from mythological, religious or some other fictious literary source. Forked especially if the event or item in question is held as undisputable fact among the practicioners of the religion and generally advocated as true(tm) thus earning a valid NPOV tag.

For example, Jesus: Instead of Historical Jesus it should be Jesus for the historical character and significance of Jesus in other sources (eg. Jesus is important in Christian tradition - See...for more info) and then the religious view of Jesus would be under the articles Jesus (mythology) (or Jesus (religion), Jesus (Bible)) - similarly as is done with Deluge (mythology) and Deluge (a disambiguation page to pre-historic deluges and the mythological Deluge).

Alternatively someone should introduce tags, like {{RELIGION}}, {{MYTH}}, {{TRADITION}}, {{BOOK}}, {{FICTION}}, {{FAD}}, etc.., on top of the page to represent an article which either has more or less fictional and/or uncertain source(s) or discusses the validity of the aforementioned sources (eg. Jesus-myth). - G3, 02:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to know what actual academic historians writing in peer reviewed academic journals (Wikipedia's advertised preferred source) say about the history of "Israel". But all I find in Wikipedia is bible myths. Fourtildas (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. "...all such articles should be forked..." – irrealistic: the examples used are some high profile articles ("Jesus" of all sorts), for many of the average ones separating the possibly mythological (hagiographic?) elements in a separate article would fail WP:NOTE, or at least be a WP:NPOV trap, see e.g. Louis IX of France#Sources: of course there are some potentially "hagiographic" (etc) elements in the hagiographies: sectioning these off in a separate article would be, imho, ill-advised for this example: the article can be clear about such elements without needing a content fork.

Re. "I would like to know what actual academic historians writing in peer reviewed academic journals (Wikipedia's advertised preferred source) say about the history of "Israel". But all I find in Wikipedia is bible myths." – {{sofixit}}, Wikipedia:Content forking in its current form is your friend. I see no need to rewrite any part of the guideline for these purposes (note: this talk page is for discussing improvements to the guideline wording). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad forks and good spinoffs

This month is the 2-year anniversary of Chilean coup of 1973, which is (I think) Wikipedia's first successfull spin-off article.

I think that some contributors willfully misunderstand the difference between a POV fork, which is always bad, and a spinoff, which often can be good.

Creating another version of an article, to hide the fact that there is a dispute is dishonest. It's cheating. The policy which forbids this is a good policy.

Spinning off a part of an article, to resolve the dispute, i.e., to describe both sides fairly, is entirely in accordance with Wikipedia:NPOV. --Uncle Ed 14:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sidebar article"

inserted in project page by Ed Poor, moved here for discussion by Francis Schonken 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead, a sidebar article can be created which focuses entirely on describing each viewpoint fairly (see "spinoff" section below). If nearly everything about a topic is uncontentious, but one part of it leads to contentious edit wars, instead of protecting the article consider creating a sidebar. The first and best example of this is Augusto Pinochet, which came to a screeching halt over the issue of US involvement in the coup against the Allende regime. After the 1973 Chile coup article was created, the edit warring stopped because writers could focus on the sub-topic of what happened in the coup, what were the reasons given for and against the coup, and so on.

Don't know why this was added to the project page, the example is inappropriate (I don't see a "sidebar" in the Augusto Pinochet article, nor would I think a "sidebar" in that article a good idea - "sidebars" are covered by wikipedia:navigational templates). The Augusto Pinochet/Chilean coup of 1973 example is covered by:
I also don't know why Ed put some things under a new "How these forks happen" section title, some of which obviously don't belong under that header.
In other words, the only thing I saw happening is an inappropriate rehashing of the project page, using wrong terminology (e.g. "spinoff" instead of "spinout"), for unknown reasons. --Francis Schonken 15:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The project page said, the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article. If this is the wrong terminology, then perhaps I was wrong to follow it. Should we replace "spinoff" by "spinout" everywhere in the project page?
And what's wrong with the example? Calling it a "sidebar" instead of a "spinout"? The point is that extracting the troublesome part (into a new, separate article) defused the edit war. --Uncle Ed 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
A splendid example of a POV fork. FeloniousMonk 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What is an example? How is it an example? (Are you talking about spinning the coup article out from Pinochet? --Uncle Ed 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "spinout" (which is good) and a "POV fork" which is bad. My addition to the intro helps to distinguish the two.

If I have have added something which is against Wikipedia policy, please point out the difference between (a) what I said and (b) what policy actually is.

Reverting my changes with terse edit summaries isn't helping clarify anything. --Uncle Ed 15:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion Ed, and your judgement on POV forks in the past has been questionable, considering you created a good number of article that were deleted in AFD as POV forks. Sorry Ed, but you're forcing the issue here with your multiple reverts; there's been no community discussion on this, and the two here participating with you oppose it. FeloniousMonk 15:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As for what's wrong with your proposed addition? Well, the passage "If nearly everything about a topic is uncontentious, but one part of it leads to contentious edit wars, instead of protecting the article consider creating a spinout (or "spinoff")" weakens the prohibition on POV forks by allowing for any "contentious" material to be shuffled off to a subarticle. Most legitimate criticisms of a subject are going to be objected to by those sympathetic to the topic and viewed as contentious, and thats not even considering contrived, bad faith objections on contentious topics. Shuffling criticisms under the guise of "contentious content" off to a subarticle violates WP:NPOV (which says all significant viewpoints must be covered) and thus a POV fork is created. That's the first problem. Do I really need to go on? FeloniousMonk 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfounded accusation of POV forking

recopied to this page from user talk:Francis Schonken

PS. Might be accidental, but I see some similarity with a trick previously played by Ed Poor/Uncle Ed, see above #Asking for clarification. --Francis Schonken 15:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of playing a trick, wouldn't you rather ask me what I meant? Please assume good faith, at least for a single hour. --Uncle Ed 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The example in the #Asking for clarification section above shows that at that time, long ago, you couldn't be trusted for a minute. You fidgeted with the project page, and within a minute you hade made claims elsewhere that there was content on this project page which had only been there for a minute, planted there by you, i.e. content that was removed another seven minutes later. I don't want to hold that against you, you may have changed your mode of operation after RfC and similar troubles you had to undergo, so please note that I assume good faith, and want to keep these things in the past and not repeat them. But it may provide an explanation of why someone else said in an edit summary reverting you: And you have a history of creating POV forks, Ed --Francis Schonken 16:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a false accusation, designed to damage my character to sway this discussion: a personal attack, actually.
If I had such a history, you would be able to list several articles created over a period of time along with a sufficient explanation of how each of them evading NPOV.
I have asked repeatedly to see such a list, but everyone refuses (on the grounds that it's too obvious to mention, or that they've already done it or as FM says, "I won't play that game"). But the burden of proof is on the accuser. So please provide evidence for your claim, or withdraw it. --Uncle Ed 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Francis' comments strike me as an accurate description of what I've seen with you trying to tweak policy to gain advantage in the content disputes you constantly contrive. Those tweaks were often made within minutes of your attempt to fork an article. That no one now is willing to waste their time documenting that history here is only evidence that we've have gotten wise to the game, not that such evidence doesn't exist. If anyone were genuinely interested though, which I seriously doubt, they can start with the partial list of your deleted POV Forks here, Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ed Poor (2)#AFD_history, which in and of itself is sufficient evidence enough to make scrutinizing your changes to Content Forking policy and guideline more than warranted in my opinion. FeloniousMonk 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Creating a spinout

Then when is it a good idea to create a spinout article? Currently, the Cuba article is protected because of an edit war about whether Cuba is "the only non-democracy in the Western hemisphere". Bruce Hallman suggests spinning off (out?) this issue into a separete article.

The spinout would not be for the purpose of creating a biased article. And it wouldn't be a "content fork", because there would not be two different versions, each with its own POV. Rather, the issue of "democracy in Cuba" would be entirely removed from the Cuba article. There would remain only a link (e.g., to Government of Cuba or Democracy in Cuba).

Is what Bruce is proposing (and I am endorsing) a violation of Wikipedia:Content forking policy? Or is it an example of following the policy? --Uncle Ed 16:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"entirely removed" would be the difference between spinoff and spinout. The Content forking guideline is clear that one would always have a NPOV summary of the subsidiary article in the main (or "summary style") article. Note that that was also what is currently the case with the Pinochet/1973 coup example.
FYI, that's where I saw the similarity with the previous incident. The trick you played then was only changing the section title, implementing a terminology that could be understood differently from the actual content the newly proposed terminology was describing. Exactly what you tried to do now, proposing to cut the democracy issue off from the Cuba article. Of course, the description of the way democracy is treated in Cuba is a logical part of the Cuba article. Entirely removing that to a separate article is not a solution. Note that also talk pages can be used to sort out issues. --Francis Schonken 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what you shouldn't do. For example, don't create an article "criticisms of Foo religious cult" in order to remove all criticism from the article on the "Foo religious cult" in order to subvert NPOV policy. — Dunc|☺ 17:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to remove the content from the article simply because a few editors have difficulty with reality (or at least have differing perceptions thereof). In fact, in looking over the article, I see no reason why the neutrality of the two issues in dispute is questioned. Both sections, while needing minor tweaks, ring true to me, but then, I suppose my college background in PoliSci (my major) allows me to see the forest for the trees. In any case, moving "The government of (insert country name)" section from any article on any country is utterly ridiculous -- would you suggest the same for the article on the US?
What if, for example, someone were to easily dispute some of the assertions made there by noting that what is decribed is true only when the process works properly? There is little doubt that others would join in, thus creating the same problem the Cuiba article is now experiencing. That, I'm afraid, is the price we pay for having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
In other words, the best way to resolve the dispute is by following current guidelines and allowing the process to work. •Jim62sch• 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I propose to do with Cuba precisely what you mentioned (in positive terms?) about the Pinochet/1973 coup example. Which, by the way, I spun off (or out) or forked or whatever you want to call it. I call it a sidebar article, but no one seems to like that term.

We should mention as briefly as possible, in the Cuba article, that there is a dispute over this or that aspect of life in the country. I am suggesting we split off (or spin out?) the controversy over whether it is "non-democratic" (as Adam keeps maintaining). The most neutral title I can think of is Cuba and democracy. The most neutral way I can think of to mention the dispute (at the moment) is "See Cuba and democracy."

Neither the title of the new article, nor the link to it, make any assertion of any point of view. So it would not be a "POV fork". The new article would be developed in accordance with NPOV, while the old article could be unprotected.

Any attempt to "push POV" in the Cuba article could be reverted (or better yet, properly sourced). But if this once again began an edit war, then the disputed text could be moved (not simply deleted) to the sub-article (or sidebar article or spin up down in out off...) to keep an edit war from paralyzing Cuba. --Uncle Ed 19:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

So far as I can make out, Ed Poor is trying to change the guidelines unilaterally here, against the wishes of everyone else who has contributed to the discussion, in order to justify what he intends to do at Cuba. Have I misunderstood?
In any case, whatever the reason, unilateral changes to guidelines (which are, as the template explicitly says, the result of consensus among editors) are unacceptable. (It doesn't help that in this case these changes are couched in language unsuited to the context; "came to a screeching halt"?) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll wait until the spinout (or spinoff) from Cuba to "Cuba and democracy" succeeds. A few more cases like this, and it will be obvious that it's a good policy. --Uncle Ed 21:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • But bear in mind that the policy currently states: Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. --Uncle Ed 13:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a guideline, not a policy, and the way you're trying to spin it makes it run counter to WP:NPOV, a policy.
In the current wording, to "isolate a controversial aspect" does not mean you can remove a significant viewpoint that is critical (criticisms, in other words) to a subarticle. That's clearly a POV fork and prevented by WP:NPOV, and NPOV, being a bedrock policy certainly trumps WP:POVFORK, a guideline.
Were we to implement what you suggest in the guideline how long before every partisan with an ax to grind objects to the criticisms found in their pet articles as "controversial aspects" do you think? How long before you do it in creationism-related articles?
Considering your history with creating POV forks, all deleted now I'll note, I think you'd better give this one a rest Ed. FeloniousMonk 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

What history? You've made that claim dozens of times and never explained why even ONE spinout I made turned out to violate NPOV.

Consider the spinout I made of Cuba and democracy in May. The initial version states:

This article explores the ongoing controversy over whether Cuba is a "democracy" or not. Much of the dispute hinges over which definitions of democracy the various sides are using.

Several other contributors joined in over the last 2 1/2 months, and the article is a sub-topic of Politics of Cuba.

Both the intent and the effect were to create a neutral spin-off. Also, to reduce the edit warring over the parent article. Note that neither Politics of Cuba or Cuba and democracy have a {pov} tag on them, so in this case I must have done something right. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say Zleitzen (talk · contribs) has done quite a good job on improving the original article and making it NPOV. — Dunc|☺ 16:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversial aspects of a topic

It was Antaeus Feldspar who added the following to the policy page nearly one year ago:

Even if the new article was created because it's a particularly controversial aspect of the article subject, that does not mean that the new article is a POV fork; if one aspect of the article subject is more controversial than the others, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate that aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. [4]

There is barely any difference between that section then, and the current version of the policy. It has stood the test of time. So despite what Mel said in the previous section - and which I didn't contradict him about yesterday - I'm not actually trying to change the policy. --Uncle Ed 13:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a POV fork

Francis wrote in an edit summary:

per "I'll wait until the spinout from Cuba to Cuba and democracy succeeds" - I see no success yet, currently a POV fork

I don't understand how this justifies the deletion of the text I added to the intro, i.e.,

On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to extract a controversial aspect to another article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. See below, "Summary style" articles.

Did you delete this addition because it contradicts policy, or what? --Uncle Ed 15:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • And why did you revert to the 7 April version of the article again? I wish you would discuss this here on the discussion page. You have not addressed any of my questions or comments. --Uncle Ed 15:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The reasoning given by as justification for this is particularly specious. Even if Ed's efforts at creating a subarticle of Cuba succeed in calming the debate around that page's content, how long before the ideological ax grinder there learn to shuffle uncomfortable bits they don't want to subarticles by contriving a dispute over "controversial aspects"? No, this proposed change will never work in practice or make it into the guideline. FeloniousMonk 16:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit war is stupid - pls discuss

Francis reverted all changes since April 7 with this edit summary:

Ed, stop it - you've currently *not* proved the Cuba fork was a success, and even less that an uncertain future success would warrant a *rewrite* of the guideline

I don't see what this has to do with my addition. Is there anything I added which amounts to a rewrite of the guideline? What specifically do you feel I am changing? Please answer before your next revert. I will undo your unexplained reversion only one more time today, because I don't want an edit war. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed, and your suggested change has been roundly rejected so far. Make the change, then discuss? That's not how it works Ed, and you know it. So yes, please stop edit warring Ed. FeloniousMonk 16:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Discussed my edit where? Rejected my edit for what reason? Saying that my edit "would change the guideline" without saying that that change might be is no discussion. --Uncle Ed 16:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Above. I poked a number of significant holes in both your proposed change and its justification. I can understand how you may have missed them though, with all the forcing of your change and restoring it you've done at the article and the starting of new sections here for every other paragraph. How's it working? FeloniousMonk 16:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Handling disputes

Above FeloniousMonk falsely accused me of a "history of creating POV forks". I know what he's referring to, but none of the articles I created was in any way a POV fork.

Here is what the guideline says:

  • Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.

I attempted to "isolate controversial aspect" of certain evolution articles, so that "all POVs [would be] represented fairly in the new article". How is this wrong? Only someone who was pushing a POV of their own would object to the creation of a new article in what all POVs are represented fairly. FeloniousMonk is the POV pusher, not me.

My addition to the intro here says only:

On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to extract a controversial aspect to another article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious. See below, "Summary style" articles.

I see no way in which this contradicts the content forking guidelines or the NPOV policy. If anyone here sees such a contradiction, please point it out. --Uncle Ed 16:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, your tactic here of creating a new section for every thought you have while ignoring or rejecting the reasoned explanations made to you why your proposed change is a Bad Idea, is not helping your cause or making people here want to discuss the issue with you. It's simply a discussion terminating move on your part to keep any discussion off-balance and off the real issue, which is your behavior here. FeloniousMonk 16:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

@Ed: above you wrote:

Okay, I'll wait until the spinout (or spinoff) from Cuba to "Cuba and democracy" succeeds.

...I keep you to that assertion.

From Talk:Cuba and democracy it is clear that there are still many problems... I've considered to put a cleanup template on Cuba and democracy... but when I found out I would need 4 or 5 at least (Merge suggestion to Politics of Cuba; insufficient/unchecked/poorly formatted references; uncategorised; general content policy issues...) and many other problems for which there are no specific templates: the page name doesn't cover the topic (currently the topic is limited to: "Cuba and democracy under the Castro regime", as if Cuba (or democracy) didn't exist before Castro's raise to power); various style issues, among which: written in the style of a school essay (WP:NOT), intro not formatted according to MoS standards, etc.

So I await success... the only reason why the article wasn't listed at AfD yet, appears to be that at Talk:Cuba and democracy people wanted to give it benefit of doubt for a few days... so I'd recommend you to use those days to improve the article... instead of messing around in the Content forking guideline. The fact that you remain bent on changing *something* in the guideline without improving it, only results in us taking a closer look at your so-called success.

As long as the Cuba article remains "protected", there is also no indication that the strategy you propose and implement by starting the subsidiary article on democracy is a true *success* (I mean, with regard to your own goals, and what you wanted to prove).

Further, when there is a success with the Cuba fork we can evaluate:

My personal tentative intuition is that you're trying to evade a NPOV summary in the main article (that is the article from which you started a split), and which is required to be conform to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles. I understand that the Cuba article is protected, so here are some suggestions:

--Francis Schonken 17:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ed, regarding your edit that: "On the other hand, it is perfectly legitimate to extract a controversial aspect to another article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious." This is arguably precisely what we shouldn't do, because it suggests that criticism be left out of pages in order to keep editing "harmonious." SlimVirgin (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Last try this week

I copied and pasted the following from the body of the article into the intro:

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article, in order to keep editing of the main article fairly harmonious.

If you delete this from the intro, please delete it from the body, too. But please say WHY you feel it violates NPOV policy. --Uncle Ed 17:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Not clever enough by half. It should read "Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article and the main article". WP:NPOV clearly states "All significant points of view are presented" and shunting a significant point of view to a "controversy" subarticle to "maintain harmony" (whatever that means) clearly side-steps WP:NPOV and its undue weight clause and opens up a loophole for POV forks to be created whenever someone makes a big enough stink. The original phrase you took this from was poorly thought out. FeloniousMonk 17:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, speaking as the person who authored it... It's true that the phrasing was not perfect. Ed Poor has demonstrated how someone could entirely violate the spirit of the guideline while claiming that they were abiding by its letter. This is true. However, I ask you to remember that there are two kinds of loopholes that we have to try and avoid in crafting any guideline or policy. The first is the kind that Ed demonstrated -- creating a clear POV fork and twisting the letter of the rules to argue that it isn't one. The other, no less damaging to Wikipedia and possibly worse, is twisting the letter of the rules to falsely describe something as a POV fork and call for its deletion on that basis.
As for "whatever that means", I would like to correct your misquotation and then give you an example of the sort of situation the paragraph was meant to deal with. The paragraph says "Provided that all POVs are represented fairly in the new article, it is perfectly legitimate to isolate a controversial aspect as much as possible to its own article" (emphasis added). That really isn't the same thing as "shunting a significant point of view to a "controversy" subarticle to 'maintain harmony'". You are talking about taking just one POV and moving it into a different article, whereas the paragraph you are criticizing specifically states that what is proposed to be moved is a controversial aspect of the subject, on which all POVs must be fairly represented. As for an example, I suggest you might look at what happened with David Miscavige. David Miscavige is the effective head of the Scientology organization, the successor to L. Ron Hubbard, who created virtually all of Scientology's doctrines. Miscavige is controversial even among Hubbard's own followers, in part because he instituted something called "patter drills". Some people think the patter drills are just a logical extension of Hubbard's doctrines. Others think that they are actually a specific contradiction of doctrines Hubbard laid down. Now that there is all you need to know about the issue of patter drills as it relates to David Miscavige! However, what people were doing were filling the David Miscavige article with long explanations of why patter drills were 100% on-policy, right in accordance with "TR 101" and others added long explanations of how patter drills violated "HCO Policy Letter 13 May 1972, 'Chinese School'". People were fighting back and forth, creating huge article churn in David Miscavige over this issue. Moving the detailed explanations of why the different factions believe what they do about the issue to its own article, and leaving an NPOV summary in the main article, allowed editing on David Miscavige to proceed much more smoothly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of consensus vs. breaking up a page

FM reverted this without discussion (other than declaring it "not an improvement").

On the other hand, it is also possible for editors to abuse "consensus" by maintaining a biased version of an article. Any attempt to add well-referenced opposing points of view might be falsely labeled "POV forks". If the spin-out article conforms to NPOV, then this is not a POV fork.

Wikipedia:Summary style says:

The length of a given Wikipedia entry tends to grow as people add information to it. This cannot go on forever: very long entries would cause problems. So we must move information out of entries periodically.

Moreover, sometimes an aspect of an article becomes so contentious that it leads to edit wars. It behooves us (those of us who support NPOV) to facilitate alternatives to edit warring. The best way to do this is to write a separate article about the dispute.

The first time I did this was 2 years ago with Chilean coup of 1973. At first, others resisted (fearing it was a POV fork). But the tactic proved itself, and in fact the article remains as a spin off (or "spinout") of Augusto Pinochet.

Many users, seeing an edit war (especially when it gets personal and nasty) simply avoid editing such a contentious article. The edit war deters users from contributing. A spin-off of just the controversial aspect makes it easier for other contributors to join in.

Sometimes, once the spin-off is complete, it can be reintegrated with the parent topic. It can become a section, and be replaced with a redirect. If not, it can remain separate (a standalone or "sidebar" article). We use the {{main}} template to indicate the relationship, while providing a summary in the parent article.

There are two topics (both related to science) in which some users have resisted spin-offs, spuriously labeling them "POV forks". I have asked repeatedly on what grounds they call these spin-offs "POV forks", but they never give any reasons. They simply repeat themselves and ofter accuse me of 'having a history of doing this'.

It would be a POV fork, only if the purpose or effect was to evade NPOV policy. That is, if either the parent article or its spin-off became biased as a result of the split. However, leaving behind a neutral account of the dispute (however short) is not adding bias to the article, nor is it "POV editing" as defined by the ArbCom. Nor is creating an article which is only about one controversial aspect, provided it's not a one-sided article.

I request those users who have been claiming a "consensus" to keep biased, slanted articles intact according to their personal notions, to stop doing this. Instead, allow Wikipedia articles to be unbiased by having them describe all points of view fairly. Allow spin-off article to isolate controversial aspects and describe the dispute in detail, leaving behind a neutral summary of the controversial aspect.

This is in accordance with policy, as I'm sure the ArbCom and (if it comes to it) Jimbo Wales would agree. --Uncle Ed 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained to you on this page and elsewhere Wikipedia:Summary style is not a justification for creating POV forks, and neither is content covering controversies or content disputes arising from controversy. FeloniousMonk 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You apparently have missed my point altogether. As I just now explained I (also) oppose the creation of POV forks. What I am talking about is different. Please respond to what I wrote, instead of putting words into my mouth. --Uncle Ed 18:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You apparently have missed my point altogether. As I just now explained I (also) oppose the creation of POV forks. What I am talking about is different. Please respond to what I wrote, instead of putting words into my mouth.
It would be a POV fork, only if the purpose or effect was to evade NPOV policy. Splitting off a controversial aspect of a topic into its own page is different from "creating a POV fork" because:
  1. It fulfills NPOV by summarizing the disputed point neutrally in the parent article.
  • It fulfills NPOV by describing the disputed point in detail neutrallyy in the sub-topic article.
If you think any part of what I'm suggesting is opposed to NPOV, please point out that part and say why you think so. --Uncle Ed 18:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, "spin-offing of just the controversial aspect" clearly opens the door to POV forks. "Making it easier for other contributors to join in" is not a particularly sensical justification for your reasoning. FeloniousMonk 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
From the standard guideline template, which is on top of this guideline:

When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus.

There was no consensus. Two editors reverted it. Your reasonings above don't establish consensus. They don't follow from the sentence you quote from wikipedia:summary style. You have presented your identical arguments on this page several times, the consensus always being against these always returning proposals of you. 3RR is not a viable excuse for changing the thrust of a guideline, when you know in advance there is currently no consensus for these changes. That's your track record on this issue, and you just made it longer. --Francis Schonken 18:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing and neutrality

Sometimes, in an attempt to preserve bias in an article, some Wikipedians will band together to "vote" that a spin-off is a Wikipedia:POV fork, even when it's not.

Proof that this often happens can be easily found by checking the number of AFD votes which were resolved purely by counting votes rather than by examining the reasons given.

Saying things like "Another POV fork by this user" is not a reason, but an attempt to avoid assuming good faith and avoid giving reasons. I propose the following standard, and I'd like to see a vote made on it (if not here, then in the appropropriate place). --Uncle Ed 21:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote on policy:

  • Winning an AFD vote is not proof that a particular article is a "POV fork".
  • Discussions about this should show how the new article is violates NPOV, and should not be resolved merely by counting votes.
  • Discussion should also show in what way the multiple articles advocate different stances.
  • Deleting a "POV fork" is not automatically the best way to resolve an NPOV dispute.
  • Retooling the articles so that they each are neutral is preferred.

Support:

  1. Uncle Ed: This will encourage contributors to work together to make articles neutral.

Oppose:

  1. Antaeus Feldspar: I have never seen the particular bad-faith conspiracies that Ed alleges sometimes happen, where "in an attempt to preserve bias in an article, some Wikipedians will band together to "vote" that a spin-off is a Wikipedia:POV fork, even when it's not." I have, however, seen Ed refuse to admit that an article he created is a POV fork, no matter how blatantly obvious it is to everyone else that it is. I also like the fact that he's citing as "proof" of these conspiracies the fact that not everyone is going into a long involved spiel explaining exactly why One individual survey in the evolution-creationism controversy is a POV fork; perhaps after participating in eight essentially similar AfDs, they are disinclined to explain yet again to the same user why merely finding a previously unclaimed article title is not permission to sprout a new front in his POV battle? Finally, the last proposed point might as well have a neon sign on it reading "LOOPHOLE FOR POV WARRIORS HERE". It basically asserts that editors have no obligation to proactively avoid making POV forks, only to reactively fix whatever POV problems the creator may have introduced -- even if the creator will then go on to introduce the same POV problem in six more unneeded articles. (Gee, did I explain my reasoning in enough detail to avoid being labelled part of those famous conspiracies to preserve bias?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. FeloniousMonk 01:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC): Considering Ed's own issues promoting bias detailed at his soon to close arbitration, I'd like to see him put his own house in order before trying to correct others. Also for Ed to consider:
    • If the majority of the community voting in AFD says that an article is a "POV fork", it likely is one.
    • AFD discussions usually show how the new article violates NPOV as fork, but that's unlikely to make much of an impression on POV fork creators.
    • The way the multiple articles advocate different stances is usually readily apparent to everyone other than the creator of the POV fork; therein lies the rub.
    • Creating a "POV fork" is not a way recommended to resolve an NPOV dispute, but a splendid way to start one.
    • Retooling the articles so that they each are neutral clearly would be preferred by the creator of the POV fork, but when that EDitor is an established edit warrior, retooling the POV fork becomes a matter of indulging in disruption, and in the end what you end up with is two articles that present the same topic, neither very well. And a headache.
  3. It isn't clear to me why we are voting on this right now when these changes were just proposed(doesn't some discussion occur generally?) However, given that we are I'd have to oppose mainly per FM and Feldspar above. I would however agree with Ed's statements that deleting a "POV fork" is not automatically the best way to resolve an NPOV dispute. In fact, some of Ed's own forks would be good examples of this such as Benny Peiser which was started as highly POV and rather than be deleted was cleaned up and improved to a decent NPOV article about someone who definitely met WP:BIO. However, this may be matter more of common sense rather than something that needs to have a policy about it. JoshuaZ 03:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Odd, I never thought of AFD as winning or losing, nor do I think Ed's point that "to preserve bias in an article, some Wikipedians will band together to "vote" that a spin-off is a Wikipedia:POV fork"", makes any sense. If this group that banded together wanted to preserve bias in a particular article, why not just let the POV fork be? That way, the primary article could maintain its bias, and the POV fork could have its own. Since we can't use wiki for our references, would it matter from the perspective Ed is trying to spin if there was a POV fork? And that's where's Ed's logic breaks down -- the actions he ascribes to this "band" of presumed POV pushers is illogical. The reality is, that POV forks are forbidden, and will be nommed for deletion for that reason alone. •Jim62sch• 09:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Should style templates be forked over disagreements?

Does this also apply to templates? Should a style template be forked if editors can't agree on the visual style it should have? See Template talk:Cquote#Please restore template. — Omegatron 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Religion

I appreciate NPOV. However, in one article (likely a lot more than one!  :), a religious figure has been accused of everything under the sun by somebody: wife beating (he doesn't even have a wife!), anti-Semitism, anti-American, nepotism, neotony, you name it. An objective reader would have to decide if he really spent any time on religious activities or most of his time conscientiously violating every principal he believed in!

Since the man is dead, pro-editors have to strain a bit to meet the attacks of the media which tend to be so numerous, that they are overwhelming. BTW, that was the general idea of the attacks in the first place. To discredit the founder. So most of the article, rather than accomplishments, is spent explaining the position of the critics which are not terrifically clear, e.g. "This guy beat his wife (which he didn't have) on Sunday, but he never drew blood - except on Wednesday." This is really hard to research for an answer. We can't ask the guy. He's dead! We understandably don't believe the critics. Not all of them seem sincere.

So we have an article where the guy says the rosary ten thousand times (inflated to a couple of paragraphs!) and the rest of the article is devoting to trying to meet "attacks" which don't seem compatible with what supporters know of his life.

He exerted a lot of influence which the media would naturally like to diminish. When one media channel picked up a report, it was repeated in dozens of channels. All the same (often outlandish) report. No new news. No follow-up.

The critics cannot run out of criticsm as fast as supporters can run out of answers! They have the advantage of being able to make theirs up or interviewing people with little standing, or emotional problems. We have scruples and can't do that in rebuttal!

I like NPOV but reporting and answering each and every attack on a religious figure in this day and age really gets out of proportion sometimes.Student7 04:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Cunado's recent changes

I reverted Cunado's recent changes, the "edit summary" box was a bit short to explain why in detail:

  1. The issue is not so easy, best to use talk page of this guideline for proposed rephrasings
  2. Not all spinoffs are "hierarchical" (this impression could be given by overuse of the word "subarticle")
  3. If the content of the spinoff article refers to several section of the original article,

Well I'm certainly editing in good faith. I thought I was improving the article. I think we're both editing with completely different examples in mind. I'm in the middle of debating how and where to include an obvious sub-article of a main article, which is a completely different subject, and someone keeps using this guideline, which doesn't seem to be written with that in mind, to support an argument. Here's what I did:

  • Change the section title, just cause I hate long section titles.
  • Format links to WP pages, this was just a style issue, because it makes the page easier to read.
  • Change new article to sub article, this reflects what I mentioned above. There needs to be some kind of distinction, because an article about Shia Islam will have hundreds of sub-articles that don't all need to be summarized in the main article with their own section.
  • change "must be" to "should be", see last comment.

Thanks. Cuñado - Talk 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt the good faith,
  • Again, this guideline is a delicate balance, I really don't see how to change that balance without prior agreement, at least here on talk.
  • Re. "I'm in the middle of debating how and where to include an obvious sub-article of a main article, which is a completely different subject, and someone keeps using this guideline, which doesn't seem to be written with that in mind, to support an argument." - sorry, when you're in an argument, going to change the guidelines to support your side of an argument is usually not such a good idea. I don't think we should allow that here.
  • Re. Change the section title, please don't: this section title is linked to a few times from other guidelines, so don't change it without changing those links. Please don't forget, whether Cunado likes the section title or doesn't like it is about as irrelevant as whether Jimbo Wales likes it or not, that is, the opinion of a single wikipedian taken separately doesn't mean anything in itself. So, find consensus for such proposed change here on talk, before proceeding. See also #Asking for clarification above, documenting the last time I know someone tried to change that section title. I'm not saying it was in bad faith then, but it was doubtlessly in order to further a POV in the middle of an ongoing dispute. I couldn't say whether this can be compared with what you try to do, I only want to draw your attention to the unavoidable complications of guideline rewriting by one of the parties of an ongoing dispute.
  • Re. Format links to WP pages: of course this is a style issue, and your changes were a deterioration of style, per WP:WOTTA.
  • Re. Change new article to sub article: see comments above. Further, in the case you describe it might (for instance, I'm not that experienced) rather be indicated to get rid of the hierarchy between the original article and its spinout. I mean, for instance, when an aspect of Islam is shared by Sunni and Shia, it's not such a good idea to make the article on that aspect a hierarchic sub-article of Shia Islam: it might indicate that the Shia approach to that aspect is overemphasised (which is not OK NPOV-wise). The Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles approach (that is: a non-hierarchical approach) seems more appropriate in such case. Note also, if you think "hierarchy" is best in the case you describe, that a "top" article of such hierarchy doesn't necessarily need to give a one-section summary of subarticles of subarticles (I mean, the hierarchy might be tree-like), for instance, Eucharist (Catholic Church) is a subarticle of Sacraments of the Catholic Church, which is a subarticle of Roman Catholic Church. Although Eucharist (Catholic Church) is somewhere linked from the Roman Catholic Church article (by a wikilink somewhere in a sentence, and another one somewhere in a list), it is not a "one-section-summary" subarticle of Roman Catholic Church. Eucharist (Catholic Church) is only a subarticle of Roman Catholic Church through the intermediate step of Sacraments of the Catholic Church (said otherwise, Eucharist (Catholic Church) is a sub-subarticle of Roman Catholic Church). Some similar structure might work for the issue you're trying to solve for Islam-related articles. No rearrangement of guidelines is needed for that.
  • Re. change "must be" to "should be": don't know about that one. NPOV issues are very delicate (see also several discussions above). I think "must be" was preferred here because so many people tried to escape it (some of these in good faith! - WP:AGF is not the problem here) --Francis Schonken 10:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Francis is right on all points here, Cunado's recent changes allowed for the creating of POV forks, exactly what this guideline is meant to head off. FeloniousMonk 16:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I really really don't care about this and I won't push any points. I was not advocating allowing POV forks. Also, please don't insinuate that I must consult before every edit. That would create a ridiculous situation. Be bold!
The argument I was involved in is long gone, and I was not changing the policy in the middle of a debate. This guideline is written with a particular example in mind (non-hierarchical), but in articles with some degree of hierarchy, like the Catholic Church example above, this guideline can be misread. I was attempting to improve the policy, and if someone wants to argue, then I'll move on. In my example, someone insisted on adding a new section with a summary and link to an article lower in the hierarchy. The information that the individual wanted to include was already in the main article, but spread throughout. He went on to quote this page and insist that if the sub-article was not included in its own section, then it's a POV fork. The information was already on the page, and it was never forked in the first place. If someone wants to improve the policy, then please do so. I won't be watching this any more. Cuñado - Talk 04:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Spinoff articles: scope of spinnoff article lends itself to information on a particular point of view

From the guideline:

"In line with Wikipedia's semi-policy of assuming good faith, the creator of the new article is probably sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a summary of the "Criticism of ... " article." (emphasis added)

I find this somewhat confusing. This talk page doesn't appear to have archives, so I am not sure how to find information about this lack of consensus. Basically, what I am trying to figure out is the current consensus (or lack thereof) on spinoff articles, where the scope of the spinoff article lends itself to greater coverage of a particular POV.

Above, I saw a discussion of a hypothetical article Foo, which had spinoff articles on Blue Foo, White Foo, and Grey Foo. Suppose the Foo article was balanced, but Blue Foo covered a particular view more thoroughly, while White Foo covered a different view more thoroughly, and Grey Foo was fairly balanced.

Thanks!
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Armed. Um... I find your question itself a little confusing, so I'm not totally sure I'm answering quite the question you have in mind, but I'll try anyhow.
I guess the best way to put it is that the scope of spinoff articles may lend themselves to greater coverage of a particular POV. However, they should not lend themselves to greater coverage of a particular POV in preference to opposing POVs. To illustrate the distinction with Wikipedia's favorite "the moon is made of green cheese" POV, it would be perfectly acceptable to examine the POV that the moon is in fact made of green cheese in an Alternative theories of lunar composition article, or even in its own Lunafromage theory article -- as long as any such article contains appropriate discussion of the POV that the "lunafromage theory" is wrong. (I'm simplifying things, of course, by only talking about the POVs at the two extremes, but I trust you'll understand that's just for purposes of discussion.) What would be unacceptable would be an article titled, say, Evidence supporting the lunafromage theory, since that title attempts to define an article scope which includes the pro-lunafromage POV and excludes the opposing POV. Such an article would be "inherently POV", as the phrasing goes.
This brings us to "Criticism of X" articles. This is where the consensus breaks down. Some editors (I count myself in this camp) feel that a "Criticism of X" article can discuss criticism of X in an NPOV manner, fairly representing both the POV that criticism of X is valid and sound and the POV that such criticism is invalid or unsound. Other editors, however, feel that articles with such titles will be inherently POV -- feel this so strongly, in fact, that Wikipedia:List of POV forks actually includes a specialpage link to find all articles which begin with the words "Criticism of" -- on the apparent presumption that exceptions to this 'rule' will be rare.
Since I am admittedly in the other camp, I am not an expert on why the people who believe that "Criticism of ..." articles are inherently POV believe that. My best understanding is that of those who believe it, some acknowledge an NPOV article under a "Criticism of ..." title as theoretically possible, but view it as impossible in practice. Others, I think, just get confused between "an article which is inherently about a particular POV" and "an article which inherently handles its subject in a POV fashion." -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
More thoughts on this -- if you're wondering why we have the sentence you emphasized, that "There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork" -- I believe it is because we had some incidents with people who assumed there was such a consensus, and who would participate in deletion discussions under the assumption that the article had already been 'proved' a POV fork under Wikipedia policy, merely by virtue of its title.
As for your usage of the Foo example (which was originally created to address a quite different point, just to clarify -- the possibility that people might try to create a biased summary article after the articles it summarized, and claim that this did not violate the directions not to create biased spinoffs)... well, it's difficult to address that in the abstract. If "Foo" is "Evolution", and "Blue Foo" and "White Foo" were "Lamarckian" and "Darwinian", for example, it would be no wonder for Blue Foo and White Foo to treat their respective subjects quite differently. It gets very tricky, because sometimes "balanced" is NPOV and sometimes it isn't. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for you explanations. The lines between "an article which is inherently about a particular POV" and "an article which inherently handles its subject in a POV fashion", as you put it, do seem rather blurry. A "Criticism of X" article inherently puts the supporters of X on the defensive, even if it does include refutations.
Anyways, when there are multiple spinoffs from an article that seem to lean towards POV1 (good stuff about Foo) or POV2 (bad stuff about Foo), do you think it is a good idea to try to reorganise them in a more balanced way? Do you think it is necessary, even if they do already contain refutations, and the leaning in not necessarily obvious from the title?
Thanks again,
Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I would guess that 10% of Wikipedia articles, at a very conservative estimate, are "inherently about a particular POV". All articles describing religious beliefs are inherently about those POVs, as are all articles describing political beliefs, and all articles describing scientific theories. The difference is that when someone makes the statement "because the title of the article is X, the article should favor the stance that X is good and right," experienced editors correct that person's belief and explain that the favoritism that person advocates is called "sympathetic point of view" and that it has been very firmly decided for a long time now that this is not how Wikipedia articles should be written. When someone makes the statement "because the title of the article is Criticism of X, the article should favor the stance that criticism of X is solid and justified," too many editors fail to identify or deal with the real problem, and instead lay the blame on the article title.
More thoughts on Foo will have to wait, but as I've said before, it's extremely difficult to answer such questions about hypothetical articles. There are numerous factors affecting such a situation which I simply don't think we can "take as read" in any particular fashion. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this policy?

For all intents and purposes, "Do not create content forks" is hard policy - it's a clear rule which must not be violated. Why is it marked as a guideline? Stevage 11:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I suppose because it's relatively unimportant compared to e.g. the editing policy, deletion policy, and blocking policy. I have no particular objection either way, though. >Radiant< 15:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles whose subject is a POV

Added section based on discussion on Talk:NPOV to clarify an additional situation in which there can legitimately be different articles on different POVs. --Shirahadasha 22:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of the policy

  • A POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines

This rule has been used to justify biased coverage of Evolution and Global Warming.

Any article created in attempt to clarify the ambiguities exploited by the proponents of theories of evolution or anthropogenic global warming has been branded a POV fork.

  1. It's not a "fork" to create an article about an aspect of a topic.
  2. Many new article sections have started as standalone articles and then been incorporated into a parent article. --Uncle Ed 21:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

We need a Definitions of evolution or Aspects of evolution article which clarifies the sense in which some is using evolution when they say they do or don't believe in it; or they have a theory which explains it; or that "it's a fact, not a theory"; and so forth.

Likewise, we need some clarification about global warming, because every other reference to it - in the press and even some articles here - conflates "any rise in global air temperature" with "anthropogenic global warming theory". And simply redirecting the Anthropogenic global warming page to Global warming doesn't help. The reader gets lost, because the distinctions are buried. --Uncle Ed 21:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the Arbitration Committee have to do with this? [5] — Armed Blowfish (mail) 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

valid fork or not?

I have proposed merging Aldebaran in fiction into Aldebaran (see discussion). One relevant point seems to be whether it is a valid fork or should be avoided. Input welcome. —AldeBaer 17:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Guideline in a nutshell, potential wording to improve meaning

Presently above is the wording, however I am proposing one of the below options to clarify its meaning with either the addition of the word "same" or words "a particular".
Can I get some input to this proposal of wording.


  2. --Doug talk 21:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The wording used in the NPOV policy is a certain subject that is already treated in an article. Thus, how about
-- Jreferee (Talk) 15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If you want to edit it so, you have my approval -or- if you want to get more consenses. I'll wait until you edit it in.--Doug talk 15:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted a Village pump policy request for editors to visit this talk page (see below). I would prefer to let five or so days pass before making the presently proposed edits to the article. That should be enough time for everyone who wants to comment on the pending matters to do so. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I oppose solely. A fork created to enshrine a POV, and which has other purposes, is still undesirable. This might mean deleting such long-established articles as Criticisms of communism, capitalism, and so forth; but would this be a bad thing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Solely has been there for a while, but primarily may be a clearer term (but easier to manipulate). There are two reasons I've seen that people create forks. 1. They want to stick it to the topic - give 'em the business - and there isn't enought room to do it in the main article or separating the POV information from the facts of the main article may give the POV more punch. 2. The second reason is that consensus is going against them on the main article talk page and they want to take the football to another location so they can play with it without interference by others. There may be secondary motivations, but these are the primary ones. Articles whose subject is a POV still would maintain Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., no matter how the summary is worded. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ownership forking revision proposal

I revised the guideline into an Content forking/ownership fork proposal since the content fork guideline seems to try to fit all examples of avoiding consensus through forking as POV forking. If there is discussion agreement that something is WP:original research and should not go into an article, it would seem to be ownership forking to run off with the disputed content and use it to create a new article. In this situation, the primary purpose is not to evade the WP:NPOV policy, rather it is to evade the results of the WP:consensus policy. Also, not all POV forking are to evade the WP:consensus policy. Some contributors create a POV fork so they have plenty of room to include each and every complaint or condemnation about a topic and to overemphasize those complaint/condemnation by not treating all facts and major Points of View on a certain topic in one article. Thus, I think the guideline should clarify these events through POV forking and ownership forking. You can see my proposed changes through this dif. Please review Content forking/ownership fork proposal and comment here. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note - A request for comment has been posted at the Village pump policy. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's too verbose, and I fail to see a meaningful difference between an ownership fork and a POV fork. >Radiant< 07:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's nice someone cares! To answer your question, if a person moves material out of an article into an article of its own to escape growing talk page consensus about that material, it creates unproductive arguments at AfD for people to call it a POV fork in those instances where the content fork material is NPOV. Look how the guideline tries to contort consensus dodging as being POV action. For example, the guideline states "someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork". POV does not stand for PersOnal Views. If someone consensus dodges with their NPOV original research material, I don't think it turns that material into POV material. And to try to claim it does at AfD leads to unnecessary debate. By providing the term "ownership fork", it will be easier to get to the heart of the matter in some situations. -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
An important part of resolving issues of any type of "Content forking" is consenses through polite discussion and negotiation. In this case of a further detailed definition of "Ownership forking" it is showing for further understanding that this type of "content forking" is related to where a person creates another article based on the same (or very similar) subject or "theme" (i.e. an article on Ascent of Mont Ventoux where the "theme" of the article is that Petrarch is sometimes referred to as "the first modern alpinist"). However, say this article soon after is up for an Article For Deletion and then the originator of that article starts another article during this debating (since the consenses is not favoring him) and calls it First modern mountaineers (with basically the same "theme" being that one of the first modern mountaineers is Petrarch). This is "Ownership forking" because it is basically the same "theme" and the person did not resolve the issue through the normal channels of polite discussion and negotiation - but just evaded the debate and started another article on essentially the same subject (or something very similar). However, contrary to this "ownership forking" is not where during this same time that the originator of the article Ascent of Mont Ventoux starts another article on Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro, the recipient (an Augustinian monk) of a letter that Petrarch writes to about his ascent of Mont Ventoux on April 26, 1336. This is entirely a different subject altogether because Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro has nothing to do with mountaineering - he is a monk, not an alpinist. However there may be some common references and content material in common with each other (i.e. "Petrarch", "mountaineering", "Mont Ventoux") - but they are two distinct subjects:
  1. Mountaineering
  2. Augustinian monk
This does not make either of these two articles a content fork of any type - its just that they happen to have common content material. "Ownership forking" is where it is obvious that the two subjects are essentially the same; where in the above example I just gave is that they both pertain to "mountaineering" (and in particular the first alpinists). I think Jreferee further definition makes it quite clear and will prevent many additional disputes in AFD since the exact detailed definition is spelled out for others to see what this type of "content forking" is all about. In my example the content "mountaineering" is being forked into another article with essentially the same "theme." The same premise also applies where an individual's original research concept is being "forked" into another article, which is essentially the same subject (or a very similar "theme").--Doug talk 21:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to make things a bit clearer, Doug is referring somewhat obliquely to a recent incident, when an article that he created, Francesco Dionigi, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi. During that AfD, he created Birthday of alpinism, whose earliest version was a light reworking of material copied from Francesco Dionigi. That, I would say, is an example of forking to evade the AfD process. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the point this further definition of "ownership forking" is showing and trying make perfectly clear to everyone. It is not content forking when another article that is distinct and unique in-and-of-itself just happens to have content material in common with the first article. The article Birthday of alpinism is about a calendar date of April 26, 1336. It goes on to talk about Petrarch ascending Mont Ventoux. It goes on to talk about Petrarch being a "modern alpinist". It continues then about a letter Petrarch wrote to Francesco Dionigi (better known as Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro) and is referred to as Petrarch's Familiares 4.1 ("Ascent of Mont Ventoux"). Francesco Dionigi is an Augustinian monk - two entirely different and distinct subjects. The monk (recipient of this letter) and the ascent of Mont Ventoux (date of April 26, 1336) are definitely two distinct subjects. I fully explained this in detail in the Talk page of Birthday of alpinism before it was nominated for deletion on 20 June, the same day the article was started. To this day the article starts with "The birthday of alpinism is a phrase used to refer to the date of April 26, 1336..." Originally the article started with "Birthday of Alpinism is designated as April 26, 1336. A letter was written on this date by the famous Italian poet Francesco Petrarch to Francesco Dionigi of Borgo San Sepolcro..." This is not forking to evade Afd as these are two distinct subjects in-and-of-themselves. In Wikipedia:Content forking under the section Related articles it gives another example where "topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another", however is not content forking. Francesco Dionigi was ultimately deleted because it was determined that there was not material enough to show that he was notable for an encyclopedic article. Birthday of alpinism has been kept and actually proposed to be another more amplified article called Ascent of Mont Ventoux. The subject of the first pertains to a monk, the subject of the second is about "mountaineering." I believe that is why this expanded explanation of exactly what "ownership forking" is then has been provided, so that disputes like this will not happen in the future.--Doug talk 12:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Doug, I know that you think the subjects of these articles were different. I think, however, that you created Birthday of alpinism because Francesco Dionigi was going to be deleted, and you wanted to preserve some of the material that you wrote. If you want to call it an "ownership fork", I don't really care. It's still unacceptable behavior. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the new wording for the proposed change to the "Guideline in a nutshell" also clarifies this to help future disputes.--Doug talk 17:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree, considering how it will be used--especially given the primary example.
As a preliminary, I think it usually unfortunate when a major policy proposal is based upon the experiences with a particular article--it tends to produce overkill.
In this case, the example itself demonstrates the deleterious nature of the proposal: the present state of Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro is a magnificent example of how a good article can be produced through diligent and expert work in finding conventional sources--and from what once did look like a content fork.
The problems of evading deletion by unjustified forks does exist, and in obvious cases AfD can handle this. But the problem of articles ownership will be increased by this proposal. Many WP articles, either individually or in walled gardens are in practice owned by a small group--I am reluctant to give examples for fear of re-awakening controversy over them. The only practical way to deal with this is to find another direction for approaching the subject. We have no really practical way for breaking such groups, and this article will make it even more difficult. Ironically, it's itself an ownership fork--an attempt to evade the plain letter of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, and to evade the clear change of consensus at AfD in response to an improved article. DGG (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
DGG, could you clarify those last two sentences? I can't quite figure out which article you meant was an "ownership fork". --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I may have been using it in an expanded way--I meant that the proposal we are discussing will have the effect of modifying basic policy about NPOV, by saying in effect that we support NPOV only if it can be fitted into an existing article--if the article resists change, and the policy " that content disagreements are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation" fails, then alternate approaches will be considered unacceptable. -- and that it does so here because a change on the main policy page is much less likely to be accepted by the larger number of people there. I might be willing to accept this proposal if mediation were made mandatory, but I think that this is not likely to be supported either.DGG (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made a proposed change in the policy in the paragraph beginning "The most blatant ownership forks" which encapsulates my objectionsDGG (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've given the matter some more thought. I still think my ownership fork idea is sound. It's purpose is not to create anything new, but to make available more exact language so that people can better characterize a situation for AfD or other discussion purpose. However, as DGG points out, there could be a problem of talk page consensus ownership (which is similar to article ownership). An article talk page in practice can be maintained by a small group who can form a consensus over all likely comers. Those in the talk page consensus ownership can all join together through consensus discussion to keep the article POV or OR, but call it NPOV or NOR. (On a side note, I've often thought about what might happen if some religious group had all of its members participate in Wikipedia so that they could dominate consensus for their own purposes.) Anyway, if that talk page consensus does not implement policy, what can you do? Do you evade the improper consensus by creating a justifiable fork? I think the answer is to follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. However, perhaps Wikipedia:Content forking and/or WP:OWN can address talk page consensus ownership. -- Jreferee (Talk) 23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This is simply a weakness in our procedure--the mechanisms do not work, and the more you look around the more you will see it. The only actual way such disputes get resolved is when one side forces the other into some outrageous violation of WP rules--or their own hot-headedness propels them into such violations and then arb com steps in. Until we have some way of resolving these disputes -- probably by another form of compulsory arbitration -- we shouldn't reinforce the positions of the maintainers of walled gardens, and that will be the effect. There would, incidentally, be probable strong opposition from various s sides to such compulsory process, because of the interest of so many different small groups in maintaining their preserves. DGG (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase on spinouts

The material I edited seemed to be written like a "HOWTO: Spot bad faith editors" which is kind of beside the point, and I think that generally we should not be prescribing that A+B+C = bad faith; this is just inviting editors in disputes to say "AHA! I have PROVEN your bad faith per WP:SPINOUT, you fiend!" which is counterproductive. In any case, I believe that the phrasing "If a statement is inadmissible as unattributed POV at an article [[XYZ]], then it is also inadmissible at a spinout [[Criticism of XYZ]]" encapsulated the issue more effectively. Eleland 15:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing sentence which pre-dictates fate of a duplicate article

I strongly suggest removing the last sentence from the section WP:CFORK#Accidental duplicate articles. This sentence reads:

Regardless of whether he or she deliberately created the fork, the result is the same: the content should be merged back into the main article.

Sometimes the appropriate fate for a duplicate article, especially if the duplication was inadvertant, is for it to be merged back into the main article. Sometimes, however, the content should not be merged back into the main article, especially if the duplication was deliberate. This sentence, in its current form, gives a POV pusher ammunition to say "Oh, what's that? You mean there was already an article on this subject? Before I created my own article heavily slanted towards the 'correct' POV on the subject? Oh my my my. Well, I guess our only choice is to merge my heavily slanted article into your existing balanced article. That's what WP:CFORK says you have to do." -- 192.250.34.161 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies." That sentence from the summary/lead seems somewhat at odds with WP:LENGTH which reads: "If possible, split the content into logically separate articles." MrZaiustalk 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the content and forking the content are two different things. Suppose that we had one single article, Abbott and Costello, which was our sole article on that famous comedy team, containing all the accumulated information about their work together and about their individual lives and careers. That article gets a little too big, so we create new individual articles for Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Anything which is only about Abbott, or only about Costello, goes into that individual's article, and the main article Abbott and Costello keeps the information about what the two did together as a team (with some overlap between the articles sheerly because what happened to the team affected the individuals and vice-versa.) That's splitting the content into logically separate articles.
Now suppose that we already have an article about William "Bud" Abbott under the title Bud Abbott. However, I don't think to look under the title Bud Abbott; when I look under the title William "Bud" Abbott and I don't see any article there then I assume Wikipedia has no article about Bud Abbott, so I start one under William "Bud" Abbott. That's forking the content; while it was an accident, I've created an article on a subject that already had its own article. I've created a content fork.
Now suppose that we already have an article about Lou Costello under the title Lou Costello. I don't like that article, however, because I think it's slanted (I'm referring to a theoretical me, not the real me.) Maybe I'm right and the article is slanted in favor of Costello; maybe the article is fine and I don't see that because I want it to be slanted against Costello. No matter which of these is the truth, what I do next is try to solve the problem the wrong way: I create a new article under the title Louis Francis Cristillo which covers Lou Costello the way I think he should be covered. This is also forking the content; this time, it's a POV fork that I've created, because I created the new article in opposition to the POV of the existing article. Note that this is wrong even if my version is more NPOV than the existing article; the correct way to deal with an article that isn't NPOV is to work with other editors to bring it to an NPOV state, not to create a new article. -- 192.250.34.161 14:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Denial

WP has articles which give only one side of a controversial issue. There are corresponding articles which mention opposing views, but these are presented as "denialism". These are clearly POV forks. If we're going to allow these we should list them as exceptions in WP:POVFORK. Fourtildas (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A good example is 9/11 : if you look at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks you will see that anything that disagrees with the official Bush Administration version of events gets dumped into 9/11 conspiracy theories. If the "conspiracy theories" page did not exist the bushies would have a more difficult time suppressing opposing views.

I notice that recently the Wikicracy has imposed Draconian censorship on any discussion of 9/11: "In a 2008 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks." Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories.

(Actually this probably won't make much difference since administrators routinely abuse their powers with compete impunity - has any admin even been slapped on the wrist? ) Fourtildas (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler Warnings

Well, here I am. Over at Wikipedia_Talk:Spoilers there has been a...prolonged...discussion of the practice of using tags to precautioning users about the possibility that they will encounter plot information that might detract from their later enjoyment of a text. One of the proposals that has emerged in this discussion is the idea of creating a 'hide-n-show' system that would allow users to filter specific categories of wikipedia content.

As proposed, the HNS system would only apply to tags, but it is already acknowledged, both by its proponents and its detractors, that such a system could also apply directly to content. For example, users might be given the option of electing to see "spoiler content" or "non-spoiler content", and thus would view a given wikipedia page differently.

This raises issues that are clearly germane to the discussion of content forking, especially around ideological POVs. It is (clearly) technically possible to create a wikipedia that would provide different articles for people with different ideological demands--what I term a "subjective text." This is pretty certaintly a violation of our content-forking policy, but it is not neccesarily obvious that it's a bad idea.

I want to submit this issue to discussion on this page, because there is a general sense that the issues raised are beyond the scope of the spoiler discussion. Thank you. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In other words, as applied to problems here, the idea is to show people what they already have a prejudice towards accepting, rather than neutral information? I cant think of a worse denial of our basic principles. DGG (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for expansion

I think this guideline would benefit from a section like "Dealing with POV forks", especially if written by editors who have had to repeatedly deal with this situation in the past. I'm currently dealing with an editor who is creating multiple forks, and though I can definitely "make it up as I go along" in terms of how I deal with them (working through WP:DR and nominating articles for merge/deletion, etc.), it would be helpful to have advice from others who have gone through the same process already. --Elonka 20:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know if there is a typology of POV forkers. Higher on this page Uncle Ed was in various discussions, but don't know whether that's your typical POV forker. Him and the one you name are the only ones I know that ended up in cyclical content forking issues over a longer period of time. Most is, I think, rather accidental: trying it out as a solution, but after having been directed to this page understanding that no solution is available in that direction.
But like Elonka I'm eager to hear if there are other experiences. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Introductory articles example

Articles such as Introduction to special relativity and Introduction to evolution do by their nature duplicate some of the subject matter of the more specialised articles. It has been argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) that this guideline necessitates the deletion of such introductory articles, but this did not meet with general agreement. However, it was clear that some people saw a conflict between Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and this guideline. Would there be any objection to me adding such articles as one of the examples in the section "What content/POV forking is not"? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be too easy, wouldn't it?
Generally we don't serve guideline changes to those wanting a certain outcome for a content disagreement. Neither should we do here.
I don't think Introduction to special relativity and Introduction to evolution compare very well (in their current state) exactly because the latter has more content fork issues.
To make a long story short, Wikipedia:Summary style (see Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles) should do the trick if you want to avoid the Afd to be successful. I mean, that guidance applied in its current state, improving the Introduction to evolution article till it comes up to such standards. Otherwise, indeed it is probably rather at the "bad" side of content forking. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it will certainly be necessary to wait until the AfD discussion has closed, and I was posting here to raise awareness, rather than making an attempt to change a guideline to fit an argument. However, the point raised by the discussion is a valid one. As you note, some "Introduction to..." articles have been accepted and as long as they are one accepted exception, this guideline might be better recognizing them. Anyway, let's see what people think about this idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On my user talk you spoke about wanting to raise awareness of a conflict between two guidelines. Which is the other one?
Anyway, no I don't think an addition to Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles is needed, while, as explained, that explains the current difference between Introduction to special relativity and Introduction to evolution from a POV-forking perspective, as I explained above. We don't need special ruling to protect "Introduction to..." articles. The first of these two examples is more or less fine currently with Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles (so for that article we don't need to change the content forking guideline), the other article *is* in its current form a content fork problem, precisely because it has a problem with the Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles section. So for that article we also do not need to change the guideline. Either it improves in the content forking department, either it should probably better be let to sleep in. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Good point, added another link above. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists

Should we add "List of (topic)" articles to "What content/POV forking is not"? Torc2 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding confusion

How about using subpage to mean a page that is created with article/subpage such as talk:article/archive and using subarticle to refer to a page that is broken off from a larger article in order to reduce the size of the main article, such as Barack Obama, Early life and career of Barack Obama? Someone wanted to use spinout, but that is a very bad name, a word that is normally only used if you are driving on a slippery road and would introduce confusion. SayCheeeeeese (talk) 13:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Level Forking

Would I be right in saying that Project level forking allows individual projects to create their own Wiki with its own policies and guidelines which may be different from Wikipedia's (For example, having an MOS that makes a set layout mandatory, or an NPOV policy that requires each page to contain two sections of opposing POV, rather than one NPOV section) so long as they comply with Open source regs, but that you would need to host it on your own server, rather than simply using Projectname/pagename on this server?

perfectblue (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone at all can do that, individually or in groups, but the groups should organize under some other banner than wikipedia. Personally like the idea of what you may have in mind, but tit should apply either to all of WP by consensus, which does not seem all that likely, or be done separately. If a group of people associated with one of the projects want to continue on their own somewhere else, and have a section where , say, all of the Eastern Europe articles were divided according to the nationality of those writing them, they can't use the WP trademark. DGG (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Content forks, POV or otherwise, preferably should be (re)merged and redirected by default, and not deleted

Returning to this issue of preferentially (re)merging all forks, as opposed to deletion [6] ...

I occasionally see “POV-fork” used as a sufficient criterion for deletion at AfD. I believe that this is bad practice, and that his guideline should be modified so that it does not imply that deletion is, by default, an appropriate remedy.

One reason that it is bad is because “POV-fork” is a very easy allegation to make, can be made from a POV position, and thus a POV battle over content becomes a AfD debate. This guideline therefore legitimises AfD as a POV battle weapon.

Another reason it is bad is that very easily, a POV-fork is also a content-fork. There is sourced material in the forked article that belongs in the other article. Deletion of the fork leads to deleted material (re)appearing in the other article. Whether this is done by direct copying, indirect copying via a contributor’s records, or recreation based on a contributors memory of what was in the now deleted article, GFDL is now violated.

In every non-keep instance I have seen, a merge and redirect has been appropriate. I acknowledge that there may be cases where deletion is appropriate, and so the language used here should be in terms of “preferences” or “by default”.

A case that stirred my interest in this issue is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Big Brother 2007 racism controversy (UK). Note the closing admin’s disregard for GFDL in his suggestion that deleted material may be harvested for continued use.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This change proposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, depends on case, not on "severity"; when deliberately created to avoid WP:CONSENSUS, AfD proceedings may be followed, and indeed "delete" is not a certain outcome in such case. POV warriors might feel too protected by the "preference" to re-insert their POV content in the original article... that's not the way we want this to be working. The rest (i.e. the merging option) is explained in Wikipedia:Content forking#Accidental duplicate articles --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don’t feel that you’ve addressed my rationale for the change, and it looks you believe that AfD is an appropriate forum for dealing with a behavioural issue.
My sense is that “POV warriors” will have little success in arguing that this page, which is fairly clear in impressing that article forking is not acceptable, says that due to their creation of a fork, that their material now needs a place in the main article. My sense is that POV warriors create forks only after other editors have already stood up to them. In any case, if you feel that this pages needs a stronger anti-POV warrior stance, then we can do that without reference to AfD.
The reference to merging that you mention, under “Accidental duplicate articles” is unsatisfactory due to its limited applicability. In today’s version, the word “merge” occurs no where but under that section heading. This can easily be read to imply that merging is only appropriate where in cases of accidental merging, and I see this happening not infrequently. The latest example that bother me is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant-runoff voting controversies (2nd nomination), a case labelled as a POV fork, but was clearly a partial content fork, created in no way “accidentally”, where AfD was always inappropriate because deletion would violate the GFDL, if not for other reasons as well. The AfD was a waste of time and space, and has done little to advance a real solution (see the results at Instant-runoff voting).
I suggested statements in the lead relating to what one can do in the case of discovering a fork, and it is unclear why you entirely reverted that.
With regard to the sentence under “What forking is” that you restored:

“As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be nominated for deletion.”

it is a particularly sloppy sentence. The reference to what “wikipedia views” is a barely concealed self-reference, an unecessary bluff attempt of an appeal to authority. It is this page that espouses that view, and so this page should make the statement in simple terms. If there were another place, then that place should be referenced.
The statement “such forks may be nominated for deletion” has no worthwhile value. Those of us familiar with AfD know that any page can be nominated without reference to this guideline, and others (ie those coming to pages like this for guidance), can easily misread it. The sentence implies that the sentence itself empowers a particular solution, and in combination with the apparent limitation of that sentence under “Accidental duplicate articles”, and can, and is, read as meaning that listing at AfD is the one appropriate path to take.
In short, your response misses the point, and that if you think POV warriors might feel protected, then we can address POV warriors explicitly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

rewording

I have reverted an undiscussed change which I see as discouraging the use of summary style articles, by expading the meaning of what will be considered content forks. If that was not the intent, i welcome discussion of the proper wording. DGG (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Judith Butler reception: Summary style or POV fork?

See Talk:Judith Butler and Talk:Influence of Judith Butler's concepts. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

self-contradiction

Please edit this page to remove this contradiction:

  • A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject.
  • What content/POV forking is not ... Accidental duplicate articles

As far as I can tell, "unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." and "Accidental duplicate articles" are the same thing. So I am confused at the contradiction when this page tells me that one is a content fork, and the other is not a content fork. How can one thing be both A and also not-A ? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Think it comes from a confusion of terms. To some people "content fork" and "POV fork" are the exact same thing. To others "content fork" is when it happens by accident and "POV fork" is when it's done deliberately. Seems like someone who assumed they were the same thing set out to "merge" the "inconsistent" terminology. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Does content forking also apply to Essays / Project space?

Hello, those who contribute to Content forking! I have a question about applying this guideline. I am in process of writing/editing some material in my User space that are counterpoints to an Essay in the project space. (This writing is not yet ready for other editors to be invited in to work on, yet.) But in what I've worked on so far, I discovered that it really may be a "counter-essay", if you will.

My material so far might be workable into the essay I'm writing about. However, I have a strong suspicion it would be reverted on sight. (Since the material seems to contradict the essay itself.) Now, this guide for the most part talks about articles in article-space. Yet the first sentence of What Forking Is currently reads, "POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page." (Emphasis mine.)

I'm hoping to see what, if any, consensus there is on how Content Forking applies to Essays on Wikipedia. I did search what's currently on this page, and didn't seem to come up with anything. Would anyone share their thoughts, and/or point me to links that illustrate prior consensus or discussion? Thanks! LaughingVulcan 14:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts...
  • You should be pretty free in your user space. Preferably, you will link to similar essays, especially projectspace essays, and will seek to be linked from those same essays.
  • You should be encourged to move essays, if&when they start looking good, into project space, and if there arre similar essays, merging should be considered.
  • Essays and counter-essays should be merged to provide a better, more encompassing, better balanced essay.
  • Non essays in project space (policies, guidelines, supplements, non-tagged stuff) should not be forked and should be (re)merged on sight. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! (I gave a little extra time for others to weigh in. Of course, other opinions are still welcome.) Your outline helpfully goes beyond the question I asked, and helped to broaden my understanding of content forks in general. It also pretty much covers what I had intended to do. Again, thanks for the help. LaughingVulcan 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, apologies for my first sentence.... Obviously, the people who contribute to the Content Forking Guideline generally wouldn't be those who, "contribute to Content forking."  ;) Any perceived humor was unintentional - though I laughed when I re-read and saw how it could be interpreted. LaughingVulcan 12:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism(s) of ..."

It's worth noting that Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism all sport neutrality disputes, all because either the scope of the article implies that the only discussion of the subject that exists is negative or the scope of the article inherently advocates the negative point of view. Contrast Criticism of Objectivism, which has not been allowed to fork from Objectivist philosophy, which in turn attempts to include all discussion of the (specific area of the) subject, both positive and negative, and is not sporting a neutrality dispute. Uncle G 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of ___

Technically, criticism-articles like Criticism of George W. Bush or Criticism of Wikipedia fall under this policy as well, don't they? Salaskan 20:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be best to more fully read both the article and the talk page before posing such a question. -- 192.250.34.161 16:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

New subsection for "Criticism of ..." articles

There are many "Criticism of ..." articles in Wikipedia, and they seem to have uneven treatment. I was looking for some guidance on them, and this page gave a bit, but not much. So I consolidated the guidance into a new subsection, and added a couple of notes that seem sensible to me. I hope these consolidated guidelines are useful, and get improved over time. My intention was not to introduce any new rules, but simply consolidate existing rules (and common sense) into one place. Apologies in advance if my "be bold"-ness was ill-advised :-) Noleander 08:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay .. I just added one more guideline regarding "Criticism of ... " articles, that may be a bit debateable. The guideline is:
Criticisms in a "Criticism of ..." article must be made by notable or otherwise significant critics (and the editor is not a significant critic). Criticisms should not simply be a list of facts/events/policies, even if true and verifiable. Example of a proper criticism: "Critic C claims the MainArticleSubject established racist policy D in year YYYY in country C [cite critic's book here]". Example of an improper criticism: "MainArticleSubject established racist policy D in year YYYY in country C [cite the policy document]. This rule is a consequence of the WP:OR and WP:NPOV policies.
This guideline did not come out of thin air: it is based on actual experience in the Criticism of Mormonism article, and the guideline is based on "lessons learned" from that article. But, perhaps that article is not representative of most "Criticism of .." articles? Or maybe this guideline is already mentioned in another policy/project page? I've put this new guideline on this Project Page, but again, if anyone feels it is incorrect, please correct me/it. Noleander 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism --Francis Schonken 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ill add my suggested guidelines over in that essay. Noleander 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section or not?

In the section Articles whose subject is a POV, it is suggested that "Criticism of.." articles start as a section in the titular article and be spun off by editor consensus. However, such sections themselves are discouraged. What would be a reasonable thing to improve this? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism alternatives

What are the alternative to critism articles which often are coatracks for attacks on a subject? --neon white talk 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.108.183.49 (talk • contribs)
Coatracks is nothing more than a essay. Merge is an option, or writing an alternative counter argument in the page. travb (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to criticism of section

There was a change to the criticism articles, in a passage that was added 2 years ago[7]:

Original

There is no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. At least the "Criticism of ... " article should contain rebuttals if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the "Criticism of ... " article.

New

There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of .... " article is always a POV fork. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article should include both positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the spunout article.

What is troubling is this change, from:

should contain rebuttals if available

to:

include both positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals

...creates a higher bar for criticism articles. Gone is the "if available" modifier.

Background

The editor who made these changes had nominated 3 Criticism articles for deletion, those three were closed the same day Speedy Keep, WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, another was closed "Snowball Keep, Everyone voted to keep" (Scientology controversies), 4 days after this editor was arguing on ANI about the existence of controversy articles.

Consenus

As the editor mentioned themselves in the ANI, two controversy articles have gone on to become featured articles: Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and 1996 United States campaign finance controversy.

The overwhelming majority of the 15 "criticism" AfDs were closed keep (12), and 1/3 (5) where closed speedy keep, all 15 still have articles now. The criticm articles are actually gaining more accpetance not less. travb (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is unacceptable for an article to deal with one opinion. End of. NPOV is absolute. Even if people at AFDs don't think so (oh, and the two controversy FAs detail actual controversies, not silly crap on the level of Manuelgate). Sceptre (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
What I find ironic is that editors seem to think criticism sections are okay, but not criticism articles. In other words, it is okay to have the same text in an article, as long as it is not its own article.
"no criticism articles" is currently in the minority, and has not gained consensus. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Vladimir_Putin just today was closed keep, because the majority of editors felt that the article should be kept. These same AfD editors are the same wikipedia editors who make and shape policy.
How about a compromise, I add back the word "if available", and keep the rest of your edits intact? travb (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections aren't okay either; that's another fallacy. NPOV dictates that opinions are discussed in tandem, not in isolation from each other. If it was a "Public image" or "Media reception" article, it would be fine, just like those sections are fine in an article. Elementarily, Public image and reception of Sarah Palin is the right way; Criticism of George W. Bush is the wrong way. Sceptre (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Travesty of NPOV policy

This edit is about as faulty as it can get as a summary of NPOV (misguided, misleading, name it...). This has been pointed out before to the editor making that edit (e.g. [8], above,...). WP:Criticism is at least a decent summary of the NPOV stance on the issue, whether it is an essay or whatever (there are several reasons why project pages aren't always guideline or policy: not necessarily because they wouldn't be a decent summary of policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

it just shows a complete failure to understand "npov", and the difference between producing criticism and reporting criticism. The correct way to put it is that "criticism of" articles are always WP:SS sub-articles, created as it was realized there is enough notable criticism to report to justify a standalone article. "international reaction to $EVENT" articles are similar: there will never be an "international reaction to the Siegenthaler incident" article, while an international reaction to 9/11 is perfectly in order. --dab (𒁳) 22:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism articles nearly always cherry pick the negative sources, and very very very rarely constitute a properly-weighted article. A good example of this is Criticism of Vladimir Putin. Russavia pointed out in its recent AFD: why isn't there a "praise" aritcle? He does have approval ratings higher than Obama. Then explain to me how Criticism of Vladimir Putin constitutes a neutral view of the Russian head of government. Answer: it doesn't. The word "criticism" inherently makes NPOV compliance difficult. "Reaction" articles, however, are fine, because they allow all opinions to be considered. Sceptre (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sceptre is right. WP:NPOV says that we don't give undue weight to any set of theories. Dividing them into praise and criticism does exactly that, and makes the praise or criticism seem bigger than it actually is. By combining them together in "reception", you get something closer to the proportion of how they are actually received by the public. Randomran (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Where it makes sense to create "Reaction to" articles in the place of "Criticism of" articles, let us do so. But you go look at Criticism of Microsoft and then tell me how it makes sense to try and turn that into a "Reaction to" article. That is a large amount of well-sourced information about the various controversies that have arisen from Microsoft's behavior, and if you try to claim that it's a violation of WP:WEIGHT for it to be placed in its own article, I will have to chuckle at you; it was placed in its own article because people complained that having it all in the main article was a violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Proper WP:WEIGHT should be given by conterbalancing each criticism item with Microsoft's reply to that issue; the article may still be called "Criticism of Microsoft"—the title alone doesn't violate any policy. Xasodfuih (talk) 11:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Or better still, put the criticism in the articles about what is being criticised. Windows criticism in the Windows article, Anti-trust stuff in Microsoft and United States v. Microsoft, etc. Sceptre (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Sceptre. The changes read to me as pointers on what to avoid, not "you must not ever ever do this stuff ever or the universe will implode". I think when criticism articles are done right, they're cool and groovy. When they're done wrong, they're a dis-service to us. Now if this change is used to hammer cool and groovy, I'll jump up and down like anyone, but I don;t think that's going to happen, because I have faith. Probably misguided, but who know... Hiding T 14:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
    "Controversy" and "criticism" articles tend to be very similar: the terms have two definitions: a neutral and syntactically correct definition, and a negative definition which has entered the vernacular. Obviously, Wikipedia articles tend towards the more common usage. I tend to let new "controversy" articles slide because people don't know any better, but... well, when Roger Ebert gives a positive review, does he stop being a film critic? It is an uphill battle, though, trying to change the current practice to be more critical of such articles; these days, people just say "keep, it has sources". Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

See also this diff by Mike Godwin. If anyone knows what NPOV is about, it's him (seeing as he's employed to protect our asses). Sceptre (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice appeal to authority there. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Which isn't always a logical fallacy. Wikimedia employ this guy (he might even get paid, I'm not sure) to protect Wikipedia from culpability. I'd trust him over an anonymous troll. Sceptre (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It isn't always a logical fallacy, but it is the way you're using it here. And of course it goes without saying that your ad hominem attack against me is completely fallacious. A wrong argument does not become right if presented by Mike Godwin, and a right argument does not become wrong if presented by an anonymous editor, even if you add the insult "troll". Trying to present these factors as if they were proofs of where right and wrong are to be found is fallacious. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone support merging NON-USEFUL CONTENT? HELLO? PLEASE EXPLAIN PLEASE

Part of the reason I have been reverting Sceptre's changes is that he either: a) has been very careless, such that he destroyed improvements that had been made to the page just because they were in his way; or b) has some great objection to the idea that useful content from a duplicate page should be merged and doesn't see fit to confide in the rest of us what that objection is before forcing it on the rest of us; and quite frankly whichever it is, it does not inspire confidence in his judgment.

[9] is the edit in question. It is not hard to understand; it is always dangerous to put on a policy or guideline page that a particular situation may be resolved only by one particular process, because then someone who feels they stand to benefit from that process immediately starts trying to engineer that situation. It is particularly dangerous that the page as it stands claims that this particular process must be followed even when the situation has been created in deliberate bad faith. It should not be hard, therefore, to see the merit of changing "the content" to "any useful content", so that the page no longer appears to dictate that any schmuck who deliberately creates a POV fork and stuffs it full of one-sided material can then smugly insist that "the content should be merged back into the main article because WP:POVFORK says you do that no matter what."

Would someone please explain to me why in God's name the people who have consistently, without fail included the change from "any useful content" back to "the content" every time they revert have done so? Is it sheer carelessness? I sure hope it's not an active desire to put loopholes on the page for dishonest editors to use, but the funny thing is, it's hard not to think of such explanations when we get no others. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone without particularly strong views on this dispute who stumbled upon it because of another discussion... you might be able to achieve a consensus if you focused on key wording differences (such as "useful content" vs "the content", or "must" versus "should"). Right now, it looks like entire sections of text are being removed, which is just going to provoke a revert. If a guideline is being abused and taken too far, you're more likely to gain a consensus to reign it back in rather than gutting it completely. Randomran (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
To the degree that your response actually has relevance to my question, it utterly fails to answer my question. The question is "why are people reverting that edit without providing any rationale for why it should be reverted?" As far as I can see, changing that "the content" to "any useful content" is a positive change for the better, and I will remind you that no one has said one word to the contrary. Suppose I had fixed a typo and your friend Sceptre had decided to restore that typo back into the article because, you know, he couldn't be bothered to make sure that he fixed the typo in his preferred version of the article. Are you saying that's defensible behavior? Are you saying that as long as he has strong views that some aspect of the article should be changed to suit his views, he's entitled to run roughshod over everything else? I mean, that's about as reasonable as "let's revert to the version before this edit war started, by which I mean let's revert to the version of the primary edit warrior". -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, I think people are taking issue with more than a few words. It's going to be hard to work out a consensus if you can't even figure out what it is that you disagree over, whether it's an entire paragraph or a few words. That's why discussion is important. I'd suggest that you try to explain your motives (e.g.: stopping people from using this guideline in a really strict or weird way), while still trying to understand the motives of people who have been reverting your changes. A lot of the time, it's better to discuss a big change before you make it, rather than putting the onus on people reverting it to explain why they're reverting it. Randomran (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me try - one - more - time.
There are some large sections of text on this page that are being argued over. People have put forth arguments why one large section of text is good. Other people have put forth arguments why the same large section of text is bad.
There is also a small change, namely changing the unilateral and broad descriptor "the content" to a more qualified "any useful content". Arguments have been put forth why this change is good. No one has said a single word to explain why this change would be bad. Not even in edit summaries. Yet people are reverting that small change over and over and over again.
When I ask why this small change keeps getting reverted, you keep talking about big changes. Tell me, is it your understanding of Wikipedian practice that if you choose to start an edit war because you know you know better than anyone else possibly could exactly how WP:NPOV applies in any given situation -- this appears to be User:Sceptre's position -- you are automatically entitled to totally ignore anything that might be destroyed by a careless revert? Again, tell me -- if I found the typo "kontent" in the page, and I corrected it to "content", is it your position that Sceptre is entitled to restore that typo "kontent" again, and again, and again, if he feels just too damn lazy to actually incorporate that typo fix into what he thinks is the better version of the page? Is it your position that the "onus" is not already upon Sceptre to explain why he wants the page to say "kontent" instead of the correct spelling?
Now you may say "oh, this isn't a clear-cut matter of spelling; this is a content question; maybe Sceptre actually has some objection to the 'any useful content' phrasing and maybe his objection is in fact correct." Why yes! Maybe that is the case! In that case, when can all of us lesser mortals be allowed to know what that objection is??? Is it actually your position that an editor can force a change on everyone else, refuse to even explain why, and that this constitutes acceptable behavior? If your response is going to start with "I think people are taking issue with more than a few words" then don't even bother answering; just put a nice big banner on the page announcing that you and Sceptre now jointly OWN the article and be done with it. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Take a deep breath and count to ten. There is no ownership. There is only the bold, revert, discuss process. You boldly made changes and they were immediately reverted. Rather than trying to push them through, you'd be well advised to discuss them. Not in a way where you're trying to win a debate, but in a way where you're trying to establish a mutual understanding. Randomran (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank God! You've actually made one small breakthrough on the road to understanding! Now try the second: the person who opposes a change strongly enough to REVERT it has an obligation to DISCUSS it. Do you understand that? Are you able to make enough sporadic content with reality to comprehend that I have already explained this change at length on this page and Sceptre the would-be owner of WP:CFORK has not said a single word against the change. Do you comprehend that the one violating the "bold, revert, discuss" process is Sceptre? Or are you simply stuck in the mindset that Sceptre and anything he does must be right and anyone he runs rough-shod over must be wrong? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Listen I don't care enough about the issue here. I really was just trying to avert an edit war. But you might want to avoid the sarcasm and hostility in the future. I'm a forgiving person, but other Wikipedians are not. Policies on WP:CIVILITY and WP:ASSUME GOOD FAITH are central to Wikipedia, and arguably more important than any content guidelines. Randomran (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[10] --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What do we do with "Criticism of..." articles?

OK, I know of a "Criticism of..." article, what do I do with it? If there's a {{criticism-section}} tag for criticism sections in articles, why can't there be a template that you can use to tag a "Criticism of..." article (AKA POV fork)????? If "Criticism of..." articles are against Wikipedia policy then where is the POV tag to put on them? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

this is best discussed in terms of which particular article you have in mind. There are two major justifications for separate articles: where the amount of material is so large as to be unmanageable, or where the nature of the specific subject renders it particularly helpful to keep the more controversial aspectsseparate from the more straight-forward ones. They are both matters of convenience in editing, but in some cases necessary. DGG (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Criticism of..." article I was referring to is Criticism of Java. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a problem. "Criticisms of $X" articles aren't actual criticisms any more than "Terrorism attack on $X" are actual terrorist attacks. I really don't see why this is so difficult to grasp. All our articles are encyclopedic articles about notable topics. These topics may include criticism. The criticism is always that found in our sources, not ours. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Short version: The problem is that many of them are not about criticism and are criticism in and of themselves. They have massive problems with WP:WEIGHT because they invite soapboxing. Long version: User:Somedumbyankee/Criticismofcriticism. SDY (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior history

This has been tried before, unsuccessfully: Wikipedia:List of POV forks used to be the main tool to enforce it. The page was deleted by what seems like unanimity, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of POV forks.

Would someone support taking Wikipedia:List of POV forks to WP:DRV? If not, there's clearly no consensus to do away with all Criticism of ... articles as suggested currently, and not in sync with policy, at WP:CFORK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That was deleted two years ago. You can't use that as an indicator of a lack of consensus. Besides, seeing as the Bush and Obama criticism articles have been done away (via talk page consensus) with with people agreeing that they have inherent POV problems, you could argue that consensus is trending the other way. Sceptre (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd gladly take this to WP:DRV per Wikipedia:Consensus can change - Would you (and others) support? That is the question I'm trying to find an answer for... --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's no point. Undeleting it would give an out of date version. It's better to start anew. Sceptre (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if you're afraid to take the challenge (for fear others might not agree with your position), we'd better keep to the still valid consensus to not do away with all criticism of ... articles.

Of course the old page is old history, but it is prior history to any new attempt to do the same. Why are you afraid? Because the page might contain valid reasoning not to go ahead with this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as the big two criticism articles, the Bush article and the Putin article are getting dismantled and put into other articles, as well as the Obama DRV ending with a good-sized consensus that it would be inherently POV, such a consensus isn't really valid anymore. Sceptre (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is valid, until a new one develops. Jeez you really *do* think there are only three articles in this encyclopedia worth mentioning as an example? All of them accidentally on current top level politicians? There are more Criticism of ... articles than that, some of which were not *challenged* AfD-wise, or are challenged thus periodically and kept. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Criticism of Microsoft (and half a dozen sub-pages) is going anywhere any time soon. So if you want to write guidance on the topic, see it is applicable to all cases the guidance is supposed to be covering. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles don't dictate what policy says; policy dictates what articles should say. We have 300,000 articles with unsourced information, and about 100,000 non-neutral articles. Do we change NPOV or V to suit them? No, we change the articles to suit AfD. There is a shift towards these articles being considered POV forks and being merged in. Besides, AfD is too idealistic that all POV problems can be solved. If "Criticism of Barack Obama" was created as a proper sourced article, it would be harder to delete it than it was. The talk page consensuses at the GWB and Obama articles, as well as a formulating consensus at WT:NPOV, is heading towards them being POV forks. We're here to write a neutral and free encyclopedia. If you can't do that, don't edit. Sceptre (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The guidance should not "dictate" anything in that sense. Your interpretation of WP:NPOV is too biased to begin with. Your "predictions" are useless. Next we'd be writing policy based on Sceptre's intuition, because Sceptre "dictates" that his/her intuition can't be challenged... (that is most literally what you're contending above). The current phrasings regarding Criticism of... articles should be removed from WP:CFORK: the paragraph misses the point: the point being that we do what reliable sources do: if there are enough reliable sources treating criticism as a separate topic regarding whatever subject, Wikipedia can do the same, etc.

If you want to convince me of something else, please do. But not the way you're heading this, it is as unconvincing as I can imagine. In a few lines I'm back at what I thought before this edit-warring was started: a general prohibition against Criticism of... articles is pointless, as it is (at least) original research, dictating that no reliable sources should be published that treat criticism as a separate topic, and if they are, Wikipedia should be allowed to ignore the core WP:NPOV policy by not describing such sources equally... So let's get over with this, remove such phrasing and continue to keep them removed, until consensus really changes (and not Sceptre's POV-pushing posing as such). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend all Involved parties to the Obama articles ArbCom case to stop pushing POVs favouring their stance wrt that case in applicable guidance, and then unprotect the guideline once these edit warriors are gone, awaiting the outcome of that case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But criticism articles don't follow NPOV because such articles inherently prohibit positive opinions in reliable sources. What part of that don't you understand? If we need to give a neutral view of someone, we don't put the criticism in a separate place. We put the criticism and the praise in the same place, along with the thing that is specifically being criticised. Look at Putin. Sky-high approval ratings. How is a "Criticism of Vladimir Putin" article neutral then? We should, by your logic, have a "Praise of Vladimir Putin" article that is three-or-four times longer. Sceptre (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Your ignorance regarding NPOV is touching: there's no such reasoning there, nor can it be deduced from that policy. Please stop using ONLY your pet articles as examples, as I already suggested above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."
Where in criticism articles does that hold true? It doesn't. Sceptre (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Logical fallacy: even if it currently doesn't hold true, not even in a single criticism article, it appears impossible to derive from policy it couldn't. You don't even demonstrate it doesn't hold true in the currently most successful Criticism of... pages. The rest is innuendo, misguided rhetorical questions etc. So please stop it, this POV-pushing to override your opponents in the Obama articles ArbCom case via hammering your POV in guidance until such pages get protected. And leave the floor to others, they might have something sensible to say in this RfC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A POV which is supported by a guy who gets paid to protect our asses. Look, let me explain this in clear language: criticism is, outside the arts and scientific research, nearly always negative. There are no subjects for which every viewpoint is entirely negative. Per WP:NPOV#UNDUE, we shouldn't give undue weight to a specific viewpoint. If we have an article that deals in criticism, but not one that deals in praise, we give undue weight to the negative side. And I'm not a POV pusher, I'm a NPOV pusher. Get it right. Sceptre (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Really Sceptre, your reasonings are bogus - which leads you to push a POV. Pushing a POV is no blockable offense, let me get that straight, but allow me to not be impressed in the least by the whole setting. Including the logical fallacy you're attempting to build on Mike Godwin's opinion. Please leave some room for others, they might have something interesting to say. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming back to my original question: who would support taking Wikipedia:List of POV forks to WP:DRV using Wikipedia:Consensus can change as main rationale? Currently, nobody it seems. Thus far we had only one editor giving his views in response to this suggestion, views that can be summarized as follows: "why ask others? I know better". So maybe now leave the floor to others, even if you're thoroughly convinced that you don't need others to make decisions in Wikipedia's name. Maybe use the spare time to peruse WP:CONSENSUS, a policy page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

PS, this is more or less what the page looked like (courtesy of the Wayback Machine - sorry about the links looking quirky):

Wikipedia:List of POV forks (version Sep 13, 2006)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

One or more wikipedians have alleged that the following articles are <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_fork>POV fork</a>s.

See <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Special:Prefixindex/Criticism_of>Special:Prefixindex/Criticism_of</a> for an automated list.

== How to deal with POV forks ==

Recommendations on how to deal with POV forks can be found in:

== Alleged POV forks ==

These are articles with "criticism", "criticisms" or "critique" as part of their name, which may suggest that they cover a single side of a debate. Further investigation is required to determine if that is indeed the case.

===Corporations===
===Religion===
===Software===
===Politics===
===People===
===Culture===
===Society===
===Other===
== These are not POV forks ==

Note that some articles titles contain the word "Criticism", "Critique", "Kritik" (etc.) but are not POV forks:

===Names of publications===
== See also ==


<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_neutral_point_of_view>Category:Wikipedia_neutral_point_of_view</a>

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

article splitting

moved from project page by this edit

This guideline has issues: It does not deal with distinctions between this rare concept and the more common concepts of necessary article "splitting," and the development of sub-articles from a main article. It also does not deal with the usage of "fork" as a pejorative (opposing legitimate sub-article creation).

  • It's hardly "rare";
  • The article does deal with the difference between forking and splitting;
  • No Wikipedia guideline can prohibit editors from citing them where they do not apply; this article can only clarify the difference between forking and legitimate sub-article creation, not force people to use those terms correctly. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 00:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"Introduction to XXXX" articles

Further information: Category talk:Introductions

Two articles, Virus and Introduction to viruses seem to be covering identical subject matters, despite the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to viruses and more recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to viruses (2nd nomination). Can the article "Introduction to viruses" be classed as a content fork? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Historically, most "Introduction to XXXX" articles have been kept at AfD. WP:MTAA specifically allows such articles, and it's talk page lists some AfD cases. I don't how know much attention and global consensus that guideline gets though, because WP:MTAA has hardly ever been invoked in those AfDs, which probably indicates that most editors are unware of its allowance for introductory content forks. Since you've reverted my attempt to bring this guidelines in sync with MTAA, perhaps a site-wide RfC is need since the two guidelines contradict each other as they stand. Also, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK should make a reference to the outcome of the RfC, i.e. whether "Introduction to XXXX" articles are acceptable, while deferring details to a guideline, much like WP:INDISCRIMINATE defers to WP:N for details. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
For reference the changes reverted by Gavin were: CFORK, and NOT. The articles in question, some of the FAs, can be found in Category:Introductions. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a noble pursuit, but a bad idea in practice. Just comparing these two articles is evidence of that. What happens when we start getting into "introduction to conservatism" or "introduction to Marxism", and people start arguing about what criticisms are "too advanced" for an introductory article? What happens when people want to write an introduction to their favorite band or favorite video game series? Besides creating a weird content fork, it's also extremely inviting for POV forks. Randomran (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Since the introductory article is so well sourced, I agree that deletion would not have been appropriate, but merger is clearly the right thing to do. Both articles have identical subject matters; it is only the editorial treatment of the subject matter that differences. In my view, WP:MAA#"Introduction to..." articles is contraversial, if not misleading, and it might be worth deleting. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
What I had proposed (before I knew that WP:MTAA allows such articles) was to move the Intro article to wikibooks, where contents can freely adopt a textbook tone and approach. But we do have WP:MTAA as guideline, so we either add an additional exception to WP:CFORK to synchronize it with MTAA or remove the allowance from WP:MTAA. We cannot just let his be since WP:MTAA is read by fewer editors, and AfDs for Intro articles historically are mostly busy work. You know what my preference is. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
These policies really need to be made consistent, and in favor of "Introduction to..." articles. Introductary articles are an extremely important and necessary tool for technical subjects. Many subjects like Evolution are simply too complex for a layman to understand without a less-technical briefing. The main Evolution article is already so long it wasn't possible to include an "Evolution for Dummies" section. Creating Introduction to Evolution was really the only appropriate way to handle the issue. Doc Tropics 17:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Randomran: some intro-type article were judged poorly written and redundant, so they were deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Polymerase_Chain_Reaction_(simplified). Xasodfuih (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Further reply to Randomran: It's important to note that only highly technical and/or complex subjects require low-level introductory articles. Political parties, bands, and video games certainly don't merit them. And regarding POV forks, those are already covered by appropriate policy and don't need to be a concern here. Doc Tropics 17:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is helpful. The bare minimum we should do is clarify that this is only meant for topics about the physical sciences, and not for articles about social sciences, history, humanities, or the arts. Randomran (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that each of these articles needs community consensus in order to exist. Unlike other articles, there is no excuse for keeping "Introductions" around that aren't well developed and useful. I.e. WP:DEMOLISH doesn't apply here. Users willing to write "Introductions" can develop them in their userspace up to the point that they are useful enough to go live. If there are any "Introductions" around that aren't clearly useful, they should be userified with prejudice.

At present, we have ten of these articles. I am not happy with them, but they are acceptable. It must be clear that these are each a special case with its own justification. I am personally unsure why we should need Introduction to the Global Positioning System, or Introduction to viruses. Virus should be our "introductory" article, and in-depth articles should be linked from there. Any future "introduction to Marxism" or "Introduction to linguistics" (both clearly highly technical and/or complex subjects, but also "soft" subjects which may receive vastly different treatment from different authors) must meet a very high threshold not just of quality but also of utility.

My position is that it would be better not to have these (I think this is what wikibooks was intended for), but I can live with them as long as they remain very few in number. --dab (𒁳) 18:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am of the view that for many topics we must have these if we are to be of value to a reasonably broader spectrum of readers. It would, of course, be possible to write multi-level articles so as to make this unnecessary, but for any complicated topic, these are simply beyond the abilities of wp at present to handle. We have all we can do getting a good consistent article at a single level. I agree though that this should not be automatic, but I think it might be fairly widely adopted: I think for example that Introduction to Marxism would be a very good idea. Knowing some virology, I'm not sure it wouldn't make sense there either--one article assuming a knowledge of basic molecular biology, and one that does not. Computer related topics might be good candidates also: the people who want to know something about GPS at a consumer level are a different group from those who want to actually know the full technology. I also think that once the need for a particular one is disputed and accepted by consensus, the decision should stand. They're too much effort to be at the whim of repeated afds. DGG (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that "simplified" articles and "introduction to ..." articles are the same thing. I think that one of these two is completely fine, and the other is simply useless; to explain which is which, and why, I am going to propose that the following is one of the unformulated principles which has undergirded WP:CFORK for at least as long as it has had a "What content/POV forking is not" section:

Duplication is okay as long as the purposes it serves are Wikipedia's.

If we have Marxism and Marxism (simplified) (assuming, as I will from here on, that all articles are well-written towards their mandate) that serves the purposes of Wikipedia, by giving detailed information to those capable of receiving detailed information, and simple information to those for whom the detailed information is too much.

If we have Marxism and Classical Marxism, that serves the purpose of Wikipedia, by giving detailed information about the large topic of Marxism to readers interested in the whole topic and more detailed information on the sub-topic of classical Marxism to readers interested in that particular sub-topic.

By contrast, if we have Marxism and Introduction to Marxism, what purpose does this serve? At all? I suppose it serves the purposes of someone who really wants the subject to be presented in a particular order but I cannot figure out how it serves Wikipedia's purposes. I wager that any defense of "Introduction to ..." articles will hinge on the presumption that they present a simplified view of the subject, which would seem to suggest that they are actually "simplified" articles under a misleading name. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In theory these articles serve a purpose: the creators of the indroductory articles may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. In practise, introductory articles indicate that there is a difference in editorial opinion as to how the primary subject matter should be addressed, and they represent a lack of consensus as to how to construct a single article about a the primary subject matter. The key to identifying content forks is their sourcing - if the sources cited in both articles provide significant coverage of the same topic, then clearly there is content fork. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If we have Marxism and Marxism (simplified) (assuming, as I will from here on, that all articles are well-written towards their mandate) that serves the purposes of Wikipedia -- no. this is a terribly flawed argument. We already have an entire project dedicated to "simplification", at simple:.

We cannot have duplication. We can only have excerpts, i.e. summaries presented within WP:SS with the main article clearly linked. We cannot have two articles with the same scope. Articles entitled "Introduction to $TOPIC" will properly be about notable Introductions to a certain topic, they will not themselves be introduction. The same way Criticism of Islam isn't itself a criticism of Islam, but a discussion of notable criticisms, and the same way Maps of Switzerland isn't itself a map of Switzerland but a discussion of notable maps of Switzerland, and Cigarette isn't an actual cigarette but an article about cigarettes. The only case where articles namespace are in fact what the title says are list articles. "List of" means the article itself is a list, and not an article about notable lists. These are a special case, and would properly need their own namespace (but do not because the dividing line between lists and full articles is often blurred). --dab (𒁳) 19:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what we should be discussing is the existence of introductory articles themselves, not the semantics of page titles. Your second argument hinges on an assertion about page titles in the article namespace, that it must always reflect only the subject matter and never any information about Wikipedia's structuring of its articles about the subject matter. Such an assertion would also dictate that the page Mercury (disambiguation) in the article namespace is not about where on Wikipedia to find information on various usages of the word "Mercury", but is instead specifically about some real-world "Mercury" which is, itself, a disambiguation (whatever that would be.) Obviously such an assertion is absurd. If you don't like the "Introduction to $TOPIC" title pattern then let's agree that "$TOPIC (introductory)" would indicate exactly the same sort of material -- and focus our discussion on the material.
You assert that "we cannot have duplication" and "we cannot have two articles with the same scope" but this is merely assuming the conclusion. It is very obvious that we do have duplication on Wikipedia (Joséphine de Beauharnais and Napoleon I of France, etc.) and the question is: when is duplication good and when is duplication bad? As I said before, I think the key issue to look at in answering that question is: "does it serve the purposes of Wikipedia, or of some other party?" I can at least make an argument that a "simplified" version of an existing article serves the purposes of Wikipedia (which is not to say that I actually support such "simplified" versions; I do not, and perhaps I should have made that clearer.) But for introductory articles, I cannot make such an argument. In fact, the more I consider it, the more I think that an "introductory" is actually a sort of POV fork; the key difference between an introductory and a classic POV fork is that the classic POV fork exists to advocate a different POV on the subject matter, and an introductory exists to advocate a different POV on the manner of presentation of the subject matter. Neither one serves the purposes of Wikipedia. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled, because it seems to me that "Introduction to Marxism" and "Marxism (simplified)" to have exactly the same purpose, and should normally contain the same content. Are you confusing this with "Marxism" in the simple Simple Encyclopedia -- which would basically be the Introduction article, rewritten in simpler language. But otherwise, what the difference? Marxism is a complex historically developed social theoretical system, that developed over time , and had multiple tendencies. An introductory article simplifies the history somewhat, and discusses only the major tendencies. It can be useful even to mature readers, as a basic orientation before a full article. Think of it as the introductory chapter of a textbook.And I thin we need this for all complex topics. Sometimes its easy-- a basic article on the overall History of France can serve as an introduction, which the article of specific aspects serving for the more detailed material. But it is difficult to do this with most non-narrative topics. I see no reason why we should not have duplication,or even things presented rom different aspects of the topic. We're not paper, and can have as many articles on a subject as necessary in order to fulfill our purpose, which is providing information to the user.

More, I think that POV branches are sometimes the fairest way of presenting a topic, it lets each side of a complex argument get presented in full, and avoids the fragmentary effect of a point by point rebuttal. It does not matter to me whether these are in one article, or different articles. DGG (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I did make the assumption that an article titled "$TOPIC (simplified)" would be the same subject matter as "$TOPIC" but only in a simplified style. If that's not correct, I apologize for my error, and anything I say about "(simplified)" articles must be taken in light of that error.
As for the merits of having separate "$TOPIC" and "Introduction to $TOPIC" articles, I'm afraid I just don't see why we would need both. Perhaps you could show me an example of where it is necessary, but to my mind, if the topic is of that level of complexity, the correct approach is to make the "$TOPIC" article as simple as the "Introduction to $TOPIC" article and leave pointers to sub-articles which explain aspects of the subject in greater detail.
As for the subject of "POV branches", I think it deserves discussion, but it seems to be a whole different can of worms from the current discussion of introductories, so it would probably be best to start a new header. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, this is a contraversial area. I disagree with DGG that POV branches are in any way fair or beneficial; just giving an article the title "Introduction to..." is an example of subjective judgement being applied to article inclusion, in the same way articles with the title "Universe of..." used to be the fashion for fictional topics. I have removed the offending section from this policy page[11]. If anyone disagrees, I really think this needs to be the subject of an RFC, becasue once we allow subjective judgement to be used as a basis for article creation, we will witness a ballooning or content forks based on various titles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

From project space

From project space:

The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies a separate article. Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but it is a common fault of many articles. If possible, refrain from using "criticism" and instead use neutral terms such as "perception" or "reception"; if the word "criticism" must be used, make sure that such criticism considers both the merits and faults, and is not entirely negative (consider what would happen is a "Praise of..." article was created instead).

I object to "...There is currently no consensus whether ..., but it is a common fault..." - internally inconsistent --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I can agree that "...There is currently no consensus whether ..., but it is a common fault..." is inconsistent, and "fault in" is not a good choice, "issue with" or "point of contention in" may be a better choice but it does serve to highlight that may be a source argument, I think that "considers both the merits and faults" should be retained in some form, or possibly link neutral to Neutral point of view, with respect to the content of a "Criticism of..." article being balanced
a minor point which is, i think "Please note" is more formal and polite than just "note" and is better for a guideline —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

"Outlines"

Further information: Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge

Just when we thought we had the "Introductions" in check, enter the Outlines". Blatant WP:CFORK on a mind-boggling scale. Apparently, the idea is to reate an "outline" counter-article to every Wikipedia artile ("an all-encompassing outline of the knowledge of humankind (still under development), which also serves as an outline of Wikipedia's contents.") Wth? --dab (𒁳) 09:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

What forking is

"POV forks usually arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies."

This statement serves two purposes. It gives an explanation of what PoV forking can be, and it says that usually, this is because of a certain scenario. The latter function is entirely useless to anyone but vandals who wish to enact this scenario, and blackens the name of those who make articles according to a scenario I shall outline below, the first two parts, and the last part of which I personally have encountered at least twenty times each. Admittedly, I haven't done enough research to have found the entire scenario either (I have never ever seen anyone say, "I am taking this material to another article, then", and then create a new article), but it is at least plausible that this has happened, or might happen in the future:
"This material doesn't belong in this article" (edit war), "This material belongs in another article" (edit war), Creation of new article (edit war, AfD: "This is a PoV fork") Deletion.

I suggest that either the contrasting scenario be introduced into this section, thusly: "Note that this is not the same as an article created after discussion on a previous page that concluded that content from the previous article would be better off in its own article"

Or better yet, the scenario part of it be removed altogether. Anarchangel (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed revision to the lead

Here is the current lead:

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

I found this slightly confusing -- it took me a while to appreciate that POV forks are the intentional subset of content forks. May I propose this revision:

A content fork refers to the treatment of one subject in more than one Wikipedia article. Content forks are undesirable when they interfere with the process of consensus building.
When a content fork is deliberately created to avoid or highlight certain viewpoints, its is referred to as a Point of view (POV) fork. POV forks violate neutral point of view guidelines and are always undesirable.

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that seems clearer. Rd232 talk 06:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I note that it is a significant change, by silently omitting the assessment that even innocent and un-intentional forks impair consensus-building efforts, and hence undesirable. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Au contraire.
Having said that, the whole thing about consensus building is an unnecessary diversion. What does it matter how we end up with two articles? It is as if someone who got forked too many times wrote it as an essay in defense of their position, and no one since has bothered to come up with a good reason that two articles are actually bad.
The reason, it seems to me, is that it is wasteful. Resources are divided between two articles, the amount of work required doubles, and at anything less than twice the work applied to them, both articles are inferior to what a single article would be. This is easy to understand, it is directly relevant to all duplicated articles, and it removes the speculative docu-drama that currently makes the whole thing look iffy. It also removes the Catch-22 of not being able to say PoV fork without the danger of that assessment itself being PoV.
You could not find anyone who would be more convinced that all practical aspects of achieving consensus are addressed shabbily if at all in WP rules (the only two examples I know of, in fact, are: one line hidden away in WP:EQ about responding to questions, and the flow chart on WP:CONSENSUS). However, this follows the same formula as in the rest of CONSENSUS: examples of what not to do, rather than positive advice. It is already in the article, below the lede, and it would go better in the list in WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus as a result of the editing process, under Edit Wars.
"A content fork refers to use of one subject in more than one Wikipedia article. Content forks are a waste of Wikipedia resources; more work, of lower quality. When a content fork is created that avoids or highlights certain viewpoints, its is referred to as a Point of view (POV) fork. POV forks violate neutral point of view guidelines."
This summarizes all of what follows without any of the speculative scenarios. Anarchangel (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd proposal

  • Archangel, tell me if I've understood your view correctly:
Content forks are bad, but not for the reason provided. It's not that they "avoid consensus building". That definition seems to be a veiled effort to equate content forks with POV forks. Rather, they're bad because they constitute redundancy, which interferes with coordination, and gradually leads to inconsistency.
A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article except in the case of a content fork.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such should cover the entire range of notable discussions on a topic. Some topics are so large however that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all in separate articles. This is called a content fork and it helps prevent wasted effort and unnecessary debates: by covering related topics in different articles, we do not have to argue over covering everything in one article.
It is critical to understand the difference between point of view forks and content forks; the former are forbidden, while the latter are often necessary and encouraged.
  • Combining this summary, User talk:Anarchangel's points, and content from the existing article I emerge with the following synthesis:
"Content Forking" refers to the treatment of one topic in more than one article.
It is sometimes good, sometimes bad. It is bad when it is deliberately undertaken to violate neutral point of view guidelines. Articles created for this purpose are given the pejorative label Point of view (POV) forks and are grounds for deletion.
However, when Content Forking is not POV Forking, its merits are harder to assess. By dealing with topics redundantly, content forks may hinder coordination and consensus building, thus gradually lead to inconsistency between articles. However, when an article grows very lengthy, consensus and coordination may be better served by rewriting certain sections in "Summary Style" and moving their content to "Article spinouts".
Difficulty arises when the topic of these "Article spinouts" are a POV (e.g., "Criticism of X"). In these cases, editors must be vigilant to ensure that the content fork is not a POV fork. This can be done by ensuring that the new article discusses the POV in an NPOV fashion.
  • This isn't necessarily the text I propose, but I want to make sure I understand the issues. Do you you folks think I'm missing anything here? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 17:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are missing something. Lists. Especially those referred to as topic lists. Topic lists, such as the entire set of Outlines and alphabetical article indexes share the scope of the articles with the same subject in their titles. See also Lists of topics. Because lists share the same scope as a non-list article, some editors may consider that cfork applies. Redundancy is not a good argument to do away with lists, and this has been discussed endlessly with respect to the co-existance of lists, categories, and navigation templates - which are often highly redundant. The guideline covering that redundancy issue is WP:CLN. The role and purposes of outlines are explained in Wikipedia:Outlines and its expansions. Note that outlines and indexes that cover the same subject also share the same scope and may be considered by some to be content forks of each other.
Since changing cfork could undermine an entire class of article (lists - of which the vast majority are either structured lists (outlines) or alphabetical (indexes)), a much wider venue of discussion would be needed than this backwater talk page.
The set of outlines has about doubled in size over the past year, and a lot of people are working very hard on them. In addition to providing subject coverage by showing the relationship of the subject's topics to each other (thereby presenting the structure of the subject), (due to their links) outlines also serve as navigation aids to both the subject and to Wikipedia's treatment of them.
Some have argued that they should be moved to portal space, but the subpage structure of that namespace renders searches useless (by cluttering search results with nearly unreadable portal subpage titles). That's why portal space is not included in Wikipedia searches by default - it ruins all search results. a proposal was made to move "navigational" lists, but it failed.
The Transhumanist 02:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

3rd proposal

(edit conflict) I have to take a close look at Transhumanist's input, but here's a realistic revisions of the lead text, and I think it's not inconsistent with these new concerns. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"Content Forking" refers to the treatment of one topic in more than one article. Content forks are not necessarily bad, but they should be closely scrutinized, as they can hinder coordination, elude consensus, and lead to inconsistent articles. There should be no more than one article wholly devoted to a given topic; alternate names for the same topic should redirect to a single article. Lengthy sections of lengthy articles may be moved to a standalone article and replaced with a summary. When this is done to violate neutral point of view guidelines and elude the consensus created at another page, the pejorative label Point of view (POV) fork is applied. Spin-off articles may be devoted to discussing a point of view (e.g., "Criticism of X"), but editors must be vigilant that the new article conforms to WP:NPOV guidelines.

Was too small to read comfortably - I've applied blockquote to it. Hope you don't mind. The Transhumanist 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Lists are a type of article, and there are several types of list article, including outline articles, index articles, timeline articles, glossary articles, and a few others. So when you say "article", that includes list articles. The current practice (which has been going on as long as Wikipedia) is that lists can and do cover the same subjects as non-list articles. The Transhumanist 03:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is interesting. I guess you're pointing out a problem with the sentence, "No more than one article should be wholly devoted to a given topic". I was trying to capture (for example) the equality between the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States Supreme Court. I didn't consider that the definition applies to, say, "Supreme Court Justice" and "List of Supreme Court Justices". I will have to think about this for a bit. Taking an 8 hour wikibreak. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 03:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that: 1) "Content forking" is not a pejorative term, it's not necessarily bad. So this definition can persist, as long as the article contains a proper distinction between "good content forking" and "bad content forking". 2) I think Lists can be resolved in the body text of the article. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 04:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Whether a content fork is created deliberately or not, the result is the same. No editor will ever admit to creating a POV fork and they certainly would never admit to creating a POV fork for "bad" reasons. By stating there are "good" and "bad" forks is to provide a get out of jail card for POV pushers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's fine to make a distinction between good and bad content forks, as long as the definition is clear. I'm proposing that a content fork that violates NPOV is always bad. I don't see how a POV pusher can get around that. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is agreement on what content forks are as yet, so I will hazard a more explicit statement as to why it needs to be prohibited. Content forking is bad because it is a deliberate, reckless or unintentional violation of WP:NPOV in the sense that an article topic should be the subject of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources about that topic, and forking is basically evasion of this requirement through a process of sub-dividing these sources into seperate content fork articles. An example would be the Terminator content forks: Terminator (franchise), Terminator (character concept), Terminator (character) are all forks from the film The Terminator in the sense that they all share the same subject matter (played by Arnie). You could easily swap all of the sources in these articles around and it would not make any difference to their content. The reason why it is bad is that the sources have been spread amoungst different articles, so that the reader has to search 3 or 4 articles to obtain all the available encyclopedic coverage about the one topic. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it a violation of WP:NPOV if an article topic is not "the subject of all significant views that have been published by reliable sources about that topic" and someone engages in "sub-dividing these sources into seperate content fork articles"? Your Terminator example doesn't implicate NPOV -- it sounds like there's a legitimate disagreement about the scope of a concept. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not clear what you are getting at. WP:WITHIN would tend to support my arguement. As regards the Terminator articles, the main problem is that none of them cite sources that suggest the topics they address are notable (franchise, character, character concept): all the sources refer to one or more of the films instead. In theory you would think that the Terminator is a notable character in his own right, but none of these articles provide significant coverage from reliable secondary sources other than about the films which the Terminator features. In other words, the sources cited could be moved from one content fork to another - only the article titles are the different. My guess is that they will all be merged into an article entitled Terminator (film series), as that is where all the sources are more or less pointing to.
The point I am trying to make here is that the sources have been subdivided in an artbitrary fashion, without reference to which topic the sources are actually addressing. Content forks are bad in that sources which address the same topic have been seperated by arbitrary sub-division. Sometimes, sources from different articles are duplicated to form articles such as "Universe of.." or "World of..." type articles. In both cases, the focus of the sources is lost - content forking causes is a telescoping of perspective. I guess the situation I am trying to describe would be similar to writing content forks on the subject of Matryoshka dolls: you could write an article about them individually, or as a set, using the same sources. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Dilutes collaborative article building needlessly. It's necessary to address subjects in more than one article, which is different from creating an article that duplicates information of another article. We use summary style, which is distinct from a fork, as a matter of presentation, to fully explore topic aspects without overburdening a longer parent article. –Whitehorse1 12:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

4th proposal: see this thread at the village pump

Almost six months later, I think I've finally figured this thing out. Check out the new thread at the village pump. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question, POVFORK vs. NOTABILITY

Hello, I have a question. Can a subject be considered a POV fork when it clearly shows notability? For example there is the newly created page of History of Falun Gong, now it is argued that the subject of Persecution of Falun Gong who's notability is not disputed, should be part of History of Falun Gong. My opinion, is that this is a move to dilute the subject. Is there a better place to ask this question? Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Falun Gong. Thank you! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion if this where to be true it could give "legal" ground to make lots of "inconvenient" pages to disappear on Wikipedia. But please correct me if I'm wrong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
As a clarification the only person using words like "legal" and "inconvenient" is HappyInGeneral, I don't know why this editor put these words in quotes. Personally I've bene using phrases like "blatant WP:POVFORK" and "attempt to circumvent consensus." Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to CSD-A10!

Finalization of the templates and Twinkle functionality of the A10 CSD criteria is done and online! General explanation is at WP:CSD just like anything else. This most certainly needs a mention in the CFORK section of duplicate articles, being why I'm posting. I tried to add it myself and just could not get the writer perspective done well, nor could I really keep it brief. Basically I'm hoping someone might stop in and note this, though I may try again if I'm feeling a little sharper. So, A10 itself is meant to be used in a very narrow range and shouldn't used at all if even a tiny amount of new and appropriate content could even mistakenly have been deleted by something being A10'd. Merge, in those cases. A10 specifically states it is not to be used for splits and forks, so yes it's rather ironic to post it on this page, but there is a very specific variant of CFORK that sparks from A10. Concept applied here would persons starting new articles of a topic they're convinced should be separate from parent article but didn't remove anything from it because they'd either forgotten or didn't want to look suspicious. Just that there's no actual additions in the copy-split even article version.

These will be very low percentage of edits or new article creations (especially since a lot of the large and notable things with some articles already have a shortcut to somewhere, meaning NPP wouldn't even catch it. I'm starting up things on the talk page of the template as I think there are a few matters of ambiguity yet. If someone could put in the mention at duplication here... yea I'd owe you one. Even if you never do any further reading or don't run into it for a year, the huge point to say on this page the extremely important point to get across being that we're not trying to deleting their work, but showing them where they can use it to improve the encycylpedia. It's pretty much a 99% good faith usage CSD, which is awesome in my view and is in the right direction for the broader current initiative on AGF all around on all levels. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Content forks undesirable?

In the lead is the following.

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies."


Whereas, in WP:NPOV in the section Point of view and content forks is the following.

"It is critical to understand the difference between point of view forks and content forks; the former are forbidden, while the latter are often necessary and encouraged."


Seems like a contradiction. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and would support the removal of this contradictory statement. Content forks are always bad. The issue that this guideline needs to address more clearly is what constitutes and content fork, and what does not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that WP:NPOV be changed to conform to this guideline? I don't know enough to have an opinion on it. Anyhow, I'm just an editor passing through who was only looking for some info here, and I thought I would bring this to the attention of editors who work on this guideline and are familiar with it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a current discussion at the Village Pump: here. Rd232 talk 08:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably not the venue to discuss this, as the primary source of guidance on this issue comes from WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks. I think the discussion at the village pump will prompt a the start of a new thread at WT:NPOV on this issue in due course. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like work on addressing this issue was already in progress before my comment. Good luck to everyone. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
On second look, I didn't see the the Village Pump discuss the issue that WP:NPOV is inconsistent with this guideline, as far as content forks being good or bad, so someone might want to mention it there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Can we include templates as well? I haven't read the article, but the nutshell message says articles. Templates should be included.174.3.98.236 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Content forks vs POV forks

I keep reading this and I just do not get it. What is being described as bad - in the nutshell and elsewhere in the policy - seems to me always to be POV-forking, not content forking. This seems like a confused policy and one we should consider doing away with. I am not saying it has no metrit - but whatever is of merit about what swe shoudn't do seems to be about POV forks, or content forks that are bad because they are also POV forks, either way the problem is POV forks, not content forks.

Wikipedia used to have two policies, one on NPOV forks and one on Content forks. We either need to return to the two distinct policies, or rename this "Forking" and be clear that NPOV forking is discouraged and Content forking is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I realize some kinds of content forks are bad. I have tried to clarify and tighten up the language so this is more consistent with actual practice, now. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It sounds like Slrubenstein is thinking of "article splitting" or "spinouts", not forking. Article splitting and spinning out is good when the page is too large and the material sent to the new page is encyclopedic, and this results in brief summary in the main article and in depth coverage in the new article Such splitting is not forking because it is not symmetric. Content forking is not good as it means the same information needs to be maintained in two places. If it really must be done, use transclusion. I've read the difference between POV-forking and content forking as one motivated by underlying POV agenda that requires active vigilance and action and the other a relatively benign accidental or coincidental duplication of content that editors will naturally correct when the realise it has happened. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have seen other editors use "content forks" to describe proposed article splits. But if you think those are at best a tiny minority i.e. not general usage, we can modify what I did to employ this distinction. Clearly, the guideline already discussed all three (POV fork, content fork, and article splits) but it provides examples of other acceptable creation of new articles besides splits, it seemed to me that we needed to tidy things up and I think the article title is misleading because even if we employ your distinction, the page covers all three. Be that as it may, I do want to be in line with general usage. I DO think I improved the article insofar as tidying it up and making the structure more parallel, but if you think this distinction would further improve it, well, fine by me. But do you see my bigger issue, that the page deals with more than "content forks" and rather a variety of issues involved when there are multiple or similar articles on one or related themes? I am just trying to present all of this more coherently. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
In my view both POV forks and content forks are one and the same thing: content forks. The reason behind my thinking is that we have to assume good faith about editors intentions, and in any case, it is impossible to provide evidence of what intentions any editor has (good or evil). Another good reason to get rid of the distinction of a POV fork is policy should not be used to give support for such terms that can used to insult editors. If roll up the two terms, then it is clear to everyone what a content fork/article fork is. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gavin. A POV fork is a content fork with a bad faith allegation of POV pushing. It happens, but it might be better not to describe it here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
And yet, POV Fork redirects here. So you are suggesting spliting this article! I have no immediate objection, again, I just want to see these guidelines rationalized, with a conistent set of guidelines. As Gavin points out below, we need to work out how we view these different matters systematically to know whether this page should be split, or merge to the SPLIT article! Slrubenstein | Talk 08:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am making no active suggestions here, just commenting from the sides. You seem to be doing OK, and I encourage you to continue. I definitely agree that it is desirable to rationalise the guidance we offer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree but I see your reasoning, so for the sake of argument (but I would like to know if Smokey Joe and others agree with you) let's go with your view. For this guideline to make sense, it seems to me that we need to say then that there are three (or more) types of Content Forks: POV, forks, spin-offs, and ... what do we call the others? I do not think it is useful to use the intentional/unintentional distinction to classify different kinds of content forks (this distinction may be helpful to understanding why they happen, but not to identifying different kinds). I just want this guideline to be organized in a clear fashion. If we can agree on appropriate names for the principal types of content forks, I think we would be making a lot of progress to making this guideline more consistent and clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are trying to say there are lots of ways to split a topic, but several contravene content policy, such as content forks and coatrack articles. Rather than try to identify every single instance of where an article might be split for good reason (as that is aleardy done in WP:SPLIT), I think this guideline need only focus on those instances where such a split contravenes say WP:NPOV, WP:NAME or WP:OR/WP:MADEUP. I think there is a broader issue to be discussed other than just POV. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are broader issues than POV. Perhaps we should merge this article with SPLIT? Or, if this is a "spin-off" from SPLIT, I'd like to know the rationale for covering splits that contravene NPOV, NAME and OR, but not others. Is this guideline meant to cover ALL splits that are forbidden (or discouraged), or just some? I just want to rationalize the organization of these guidelines. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a really good idea, because:
  1. WP:SPLIT does not really serve any useful purpose in my view, as it is not based on any particular principle and the guidance it contains is repeated elsehwere;
  2. Although WP:SUMMARY is a style guideline, it actually contains some important content policies, such as WP:AVOIDSPLIT which should be moved to into a content guideline such as this;
  3. Content forking seems to be related to a variety of content policies, and maybe it might be worth bring them altogether in one place.
I can't quite get my head around it just yet, but I suspect that AVOIDPLIT, POVFORK and COATRACK are all subsets of WP:MADEUP, but how this relates to WP:SPLIT I am not sure. Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Depending on whether or not you believe there is nothing new under the sun, then a made up topic is really just split from another topic that has already been written about. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have identified a "problem." I propose this: let's see if other people who watch this page can review our recent exchange and toss around ideas to develop a real proposal, or two proposals. Then we can go to the talk pages of these other guidelines and present the proposals and get more input. Then, an RfC on whatever proposal seems to have the most support, and then we can do something. SO: other people - please share ideas, proposals... ? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that clarifying (and probably merging) some of the content that is currently covered here, Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Summary style, and Wikipedia:Splitting is a great idea. It should be added to Wikipedia talk:MOS#MoS task-force Audit (part 2). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. My recent editsw to this guideline reflcted a not-fully (but well-intentioned) ttempt to provide a logical structure. I know many editors here have tought lot more about these issues than I have. I'd love to see other editors here develop a concrete proposal or two to present to the community. But first, I wonder if all editors here agreee about which things are subordinate to which things. If all agree we can move forward, otherwise we need more discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Orphans" vs forks

We were forced to fork some material out of an article due to oversizing concerns in the main article. The material forked is referenced only from the original article and one other. So now someone has labeled it an "orphan" article! How do we respond to this? The forking is not controversial, pov or anything else. No one is complaining about the content per se except the "orphan" labeler. Student7 (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Just remove the label as the article is obviously not an orphan. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you identify the article to which you are refering? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Environmental issues in Brevard County. It was 2 incoming links making it not a top priority for orphan fixing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I did not identify the article here. I did call the labeling to the attention of the labeler, who politely and expeditiously rm it. Not everyone is so reasonable. I was looking for a more generic and easier-to-enforce policy. If it is on a "case by case", that is fine, I suppose.
Incidentally, the orphan label mentions not total orphanage but complains that it is linked to be "few or no other" articles. Maybe this is something that should be corrected in the template? Does having "few" linkers qualify an article for an orphanage? I agree that having none, certainly should. In the case above, the linking article had a "main" pointer to this article. That is quite different, for example, than a "see also" link or something less connected. Maybe a clearer definition of "orphan" could be made. Student7 (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Content and titles

There's a discussion going on at an RFC at WP:ARTICLE TITLES that is arguably as much about content as it is about titles, specifically about separating criticism as a content fork. Since changes pondered there may have an impact here, it seems appropriate to explicitly solicit opinions here as well. SDY (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding wikilinking at Village Pump Misc.

I have posted a query at the village pump, on the question of what is the best (long-term) way to handle redundancies among related articles. It relates to content forking, so I thought some of you might have something to say. Cheers! AGradman / underlying article as I saw it / talk 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Method of forking

I have a question about a non-controversial fork of contents. It has to do with style, perhaps, and therefore may not belong here as a question.

We had superarticle A. We decided to fork subtopic B to a new article and summarize B in article A. But, before this all happened, we had forked sub-subtopic C from B! Now we have three articles with "C" in it: the original, summarized in article A, the newest fork, in article B, also summarized, and the original article C. When a change is made to C, we now have to consider the two "summaries" in B and A. This is a pain IMO. Don't know quite how to avoid it.

The "elegant" way, of course, is to fork B and leave no residue of C in article A. This, unfortunately, is not possible. And the same can be said of B with C summary imbedded.

This leads me to think that C should never have been a subsection in A at all. But it is classically considered part of A, unfortunately. I see no elegant way to avoid updating two summaries each time we update article C. Student7 (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing the specific case, I don't know for sure whether the following applies, but it sounds like the kind of case I've seen before. You may have seen me mention around engineering and metalworking articles the emic-vs-etic distinction. It sounds to me like you've hit upon an instance of that difference. I think probably many engineers groan when it is suggested that an insight from social science applies to an engineering topic. But it's not so much about the engineering content in and of itself, but rather about how humans mentally classify the different parts of that content. So it inevitably applies in many systems that involve human cognition. Just to give a straightforward example. Many groups of humans over the centuries classified whales as big fish. Then science comes along and says no, whales are actually not fish, they just look and act a lot like fish (via evolutionary convergence). Now say you go to write encyclopedic coverage of all animals that live in the oceans. No matter which ontology you try to use, someone may have a problem with it, because, say, they insist that whales are fish because their holy book says so. Now, this example is a poor one, because "most humans know that whales aren't really fish," so you're able to have consensus on the encyclopedic ontology. But the problem comes in with other analogous cases that are more obscure and technical, where "most humans" either have no knowledge of the topic, or (possibly worse for fostering better understanding of reality) they think they know the score but have never tried to match etic analysis to emic ontologies on that particular topic. But without giving it any thought, they will angrily tell you, for example, that the motorbike-vs-scooter distinction is laid down by the law of heaven as an absolute mutually exclusive universal distinction. This is a cognitive weak spot with humans generally, and most especially with monolingual humans. They just don't even "get" that ontology and language are a model of reality as opposed to equaling reality. It's an endemic instance of map–territory conflation. The problem with encyclopedias as currently defined is that their ontologies (for article-naming, category trees, and so on) are implicitly required to stick to only emic ones. Mild, well-known, strong-consensus cases of etic revision to emic ontologies (such as the whale-vs-fish example) are handled well in today's encyclopedias simply by gently informing the fish-belief reader that they're incorrect. The reader most often will simply quietly revise their understanding and move on. But when you're dealing with a more obscure topic where topic-familiar people's emic ontologies have served them flawlessly for years (because of limited context—theory never underwent challenge by corner cases), they'll assume that you're smoking crack if you suggest that the emic ontology doesn't entirely equal reality. They'll think you're babbling nonsense. It currently seems to me that in these cases, content forking is inevitable. In order to avoid it, you would have to de-mis-educate the audience in a way that encyclopedias (especially a crowdsourced one) have no epistemological authority to do. I think all we can do is patiently lay out the details and analyses, in both the article and article talk namespaces where appropriate in each case, and allow humans to gradually wake up and smell the coffee on their own. Probably a decades-long process. If the above analysis applies to your A-B-C instance, then I would just reassure you that no ideal answer is practically achievable (such as overnight epiphanies for the uninformed), so even though the forking is annoying and workload-increasing for content maintenance and development reasons, it is "OK" and can be accepted with peace of mind. One thing I'll be interested to find out in coming decades is whether artificial intelligence (maybe something like Watson but more advanced) will basically end up being capable to quickly map out all the tiny details of map-vs-territory discrepancies (emic-vs-etic) and then pedagogically successfully spoon-feed humans about them on an as-asked basis (since humans would be incapable of absorbing it all at once). Hope this is interesting if not helpful! — ¾-10 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. The case was a "Geography" subarticle, forked out to "Geography of X" and a "Climate of X" also forked out from both. Now have to keep up three climate articles/summaries. It's assuming that climate is geography that is the problem. Hard for me to think otherwise but maybe we should reconsider? Student7 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a tough one as far as preventing all forking, because geography and climate can affect each other in various ways. I wonder if the best that can be done is to try to minimize (as opposed to eliminate) forking, and have liberal use of cross-reference links between the articles in support of that goal. Of course I probably didn't say anything there that you wouldn't already deduce yourself (or already have deduced). If the present organization starts to really bug you, just take comfort from the fact that it can always be improved at a later date. For example, the articles handgun and pistol are improperly forked as of this writing (it's not necessarily wrong to have separate pages, but if doing so, then need to revise content on both of them to suit that scheme), but I relax in the knowledge that I'll get around to it eventually, or someone else will beat me to it! Cheers, — ¾-10 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

(NPOV + FORK) > POVFORK

POVFORK is far less than the sum of its parts. Too many essays are also poor, useless, and redundant to the guidelines that are their only rationales. But this is a guideline; we should be expecting far more than this illogical mindreading waste of space. It is unnecessary (easily substituted by WP:NPOV + WP:FORK). Where NPOV+FORK is logically quite sound (some of the material is a fork, the rest is POV), POVFORK is logically flawed (no material that is POV can be FORK unless that material from the original article is also POV). It violates WP:AGF ("deliberately created" assumes bad faith). And in service of this last error, it describes in unnecessary detail someone's bad day on WP, where EVIL people did bad things to them. Aww. Ignore all the people protesting that they were editing in good faith who did things similar to its description; they must be guilty or there would not be a rule prohibiting what they did. Anarchangel (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "POVFORK is logically flawed (no material that is POV can be FORK unless that material from the original article is also POV)" I would note that equally likely is that "(any material that is FORK is POV as the material from the original article is NPOV)." POVFORK is reflective of forking content to push a POV, however, there is no "by definition" of which is the POV, the original article or the fork. It's not like rear-ending someone in a car accident where the party rear-ending the car in front of them is automatically guilty. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
On re-reading several more times, I can't say that both cases aren't already covered in the current wording. We might do better with less verbiage on the example and better enumerate all the combinations of content forking:
  1. POV original gives rise to POV fork (a case of "two wrongs do not make a right")
  2. POV original gives rise to NPOV fork
  3. NPOV original gives rise to POV fork
  4. (and not POV, just poor editing) NPOV original gives rise to NPOV fork
Stated this way I think would take care of implications of who are the "guilty" parties when content is forked. See also my comment below on fork as the plural dissections, e.g.
  1. NPOV original dissected to multiple POV forks, but far more insidious:
  2. NPOV original POV-dissected to multiple NPOV forks
The beauty of this technique is that a POV can be pushed with NPOV content, it is the act of dissection which is the instantiation of POV.
For the sake of completeness, I should mention that I myself have been accused (and consider myself NOT guilty based on the treatment of the topic in question by reputable sources) of POV aggregation:
  • NPOV representations aggregated to an ostensibly NPOV whole where the act of aggregation is the instantiation of POV.
Just to round out the picture as someone is bound to bring it up. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the POV fork would often have a POV name. For example, Viet Cong is forked into "Communist Terrorism (Vietnam)", South Vietnam army is forked into "Running dogs of Yankee imperialism (Vietnam)". In both cases the articles are renamed using POV titles. (That is assuming that anyone today is still using Cold War jargon.) TFD (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Read 2.4 Related articles on this project page. Terrorist actions carried out by the VC does not a content fork make when discussed in the terrorism aspect of their actions. Tentontunic (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary of this article creation by (User:Geary) is a concrete example of one of many possible scenarios as or more plausible than WP:POVFORK's unnecessary framing. In this case, material that the author believes to be PoV is removed from the original article: "I do not endorse the content of this article. I copied this text from the Ruler article as a way to get it out of that article." Not someone pushing PoV. Someone pushing PoV away.
And there are still more possible scenarios. Consider, instead, if meatpuppets were to prevent good material from inclusion in an article, and the person seeking conclusion sees there is enough material to form an article. I imagine there were good articles deleted from WP already, good articles still on WP that were formed this way and more to come; are we to allow them to be jeopardized by a rule that assumes they are POV not only because of the the author's other actions (ad hominem) but because of the actions of other people?
The archives are full of people asking for this rule to be changed. Anarchangel (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Content_forks/Archive_1&oldid=1182106078"