WP:Update/1/Content policy changes during July 2009
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- In WP:NPOV#Neutral point of view, changed "It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively." to "An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively." Also, added "Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements ..."
- In WP:NPOV#Article naming, added link: POV forks
- Removed subsection WP:NPOV#Repeated violations, which read: "Users who repeatedly create deliberate violations of this guideline within articles may be subject to editing restrictions."
- Changed WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and related fringe theories substantially from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=298135477#Pseudoscience_and_related_fringe_theories June 30] version
- In WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications, removed "Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?", and also removed "How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?"
- Added to WP:NPOV#Other resources: Wikipedia:Let the reader decide
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- In WP:V#Burden of evidence, changed [Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but] "editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources ..." to "how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them enough time to provide references, especially in an underdeveloped article. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources ..."
- Added to WP:V#Reliable sources: [Reliable sources are needed to substantiate material within articles, and] "citations directing the reader to those sources are needed" [to give credit to authors and publishers ...]. Also added links: university presses, publishing houses.
- Added to WP:V#Questionable sources: [Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking,] "or with no editorial oversight."
- Added to WP:V#See also: Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, Wikipedia:List of sources