User:Filll/What is NPOV?

The biggest problem on Wikipedia that I see is that the meaning of "WP:NPOV" is vague, or misinterpreted, or confusing. I will confess that it was quite confusing to me at first.

NPOV is closely associated with a number of related policies, like WP:LEAD, and WP:FRINGE, etc. I will describe my understanding of these as a whole.

NPOV does not mean neutral
Although the word neutral is in the phrase represented by the acronym "NPOV" (i.e., Neutral Point Of View), this does not mean there is no negative material in the article.

All relevant views are described, in proportion to their prominence.

FRINGE areas are not described with no criticism
Because of this interpretation of the foundational WP:NPOV principle, WP:FRINGE views are described, but so are the mainstream characterizations of these FRINGE views, sometimes in substantial measure and even if the mainstream view of the FRINGE topic is quite negative.

All negative material is not lumped into one section
This is often frowned upon according to the policies and principles of Wikipedia.

For example, from : ''Examples that may warrant attention include "Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such kinds of article structure are appropriate.'' (See e.g., Words_to_avoid, Template:Criticism-section).

The LEAD must contain all views, including negative views
Because WP:LEAD states that the LEAD of an article must summarize the entire article and represent all content in the article, including all views, and including negative views.

Articles cannot build original arguments for the value of FRINGE views
This violates WP:OR and WP:SYN. If it published first in a reliable source, then it might be possible to include it.

Other relevant Wikipedia polices

 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. from WP:UNDUE.
 * When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner. from WP:UNDUE
 * Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views.
 * Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing. from WP:FRINGE.