Editing Eurovision Wiki:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (section)

== Opinion or fact? ==

As we know from [[WP:NPOV]], we should avoid stating opinions as facts, and we should attribute opinions. However, if we can construct a factual wrapper sentence for an opinion, is it okay to assert that as a fact?

For example, can this sentence stand alone in an article with no inline attribution:
: {{tq|Fred Bloggs has been described by media outlets and journalists as both an accomplished Wikipedian[1][2][3][4] and an incompetent one[5][6][7][8]}}.

It is an assertion of fact about the two opinions held, and each of the cited sources mentions a different holder of the respective view. -- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 23:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

:I would consider that attributed, though in the least precise sense (as it's not saying which 'media outlets' are saying which thing). I would generally consider something like this based on other aspects of NPOV, like [[WP:DUE]]. [[User:MjolnirPants|<span style="color:#004400;">'''ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User_talk:MjolnirPants|''Tell me all about it.'']]</small></small> 00:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:I think attribution helps. Using a "factual wrapper" might lead to [[WP:SYNTH]] - combining different sources into one sentence might suggest something that the sources don't actually support. Also see [[WP:SUBSTANTIATE]]. [[User:Asteramellus|Asteramellus]] ([[User talk:Asteramellus|talk]]) 02:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
:Any more views on this? Does it conflict with [[WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]] or [[MOS:WEASEL]]? -- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 23:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
::It's fine in the lead or the intro to a section, if it's summarizing views we go into in more depth further down. Beyond that it also depends on what those citations are to - if we're combining a bunch of individual people saying these things, we do need some ''caution'' to avoid eg. synthing up a statement or implication that ''everyone'' thinks this. But it's still necessary to use constructions like this sometimes in leads to summarize widely disparate views that wouldn't be appropriate (or possible) to stuff into the lead individually. Another situation to consider, of course, is that we might have a source that ''itself'' says eg. "we surveyed a bunch of political science professors and they all say this guy is [great/horrid]", in which case we can just report that as fact. But even without that sort of secondary sourcing, as [[WP:WEASEL]] itself notes, we do have to sometimes summarize a bunch of disparate views in the lead; doing so isn't a problem as long as it's an accurate, even-handed summary of something that we cover in the body (and as long as the stuff in the ''body'' is appropriately [[WP:DUE]] and reflects the sort of balance required by [[WP:BALASP]] - which can sometimes be hard to establish when people are cramming a bunch of opinion-pieces into an article, and which is often a reason to ''prefer'' secondary sources summarizing opinions when available. But the problem there isn't really the summary per se, it's the inherent problem that stems from stuffing a bunch of primary opinions into an article.) --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 20:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:yes. at risk of invoking an [[Reductio ad Hitlerum]], an example {{tq|The historian and biographer Ian Kershaw described Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil".[3]}} from the [[Adolf Hitler|adolf hitler]] article.{{pb}}[[WP:DUE]] applies, but if some majority of well educated academics and researchers opine it, we can and must do [[WP:ATTRIBUTE]] of the opinion, and include it, without necessarily having to balance it with another opinion. [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 21:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:it would also help to know context btw, all of this is dependent on the article, opinion, etc. [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 21:18, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] (and @[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]]), thanks for your views on this. The trigger for raising it here was the [[Restore Britain]] article in the [[Restore Britain#Platform|Platform]] section, which starts:
::: {{tq|Restore Britain has been described by media outlets and journalists as both a far-right[2][33][16][34][35] and right-wing party[36][37][38][39]...}}
::-- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::i assumed it was something like this. i have no sympathy for whitewashing, but there is a valid debate underlying this to be had here about when far-right descriptors are appropriate. [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 21:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
::::It's not so much the particular opinions that are the problem, it is whether they are adequately described, contextualised and attributed. -- [[User:DeFacto|<span style="color:#3366CC;">DeFacto</span>]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Its easy enough to blanket criticize any statement as lacking context. Better to show your point with a proposal text replacement showing what the context that is missing [[User:Bluethricecreamman]] <span style="font-size: 85%;">([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|Talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Bluethricecreamman|Contribs]])</span> 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)