User:GoodDamon/NPOV

Some Wikipedia editors have a deep, almost religious understanding of WP:NPOV. To these editors, all biographical articles must contain precisely equal measures of positive and negative content. If enough negative content is not available from reliable sources, unreliable ones will do, just so long as Wikipedia does not portray someone whose politics, religion, or philosophy they disagree with flawed individuals in too positive a light.

Makes sense, doesn't it. I mean, who can argue against balance? Well, guess it's time to start adding positive details to Pol Pot's biography, or maybe find some journals from Native Americans who enjoyed the Trail of Tears. Hmmm...

To these brave, stalwart editors, no fact is irrelevant, no association inapplicable, and no content off-limits, so long as it brings much-needed "balance" to the article. Such a tragedy, then, that they're so very, very wrong.

People are not identical
Wouldn't it be easy if it were so? If everyone notable enough for a Wikipedia biography had an equal amount of scandal and good behavior in their backgrounds, there would never be an argument over which material to include again.

But real people aren't like that.

True neutrality
A neutral POV means just that: We present the facts as reported in reliable sources, without bias. If the facts are overwhelmingly positive, this will result in an article that reads fairly positively. If the facts are overwhelmingly negative, this will result in a similarly negative article. That is normal. This is not to say that the tone the article is presented in should be positive or negative, simply that the facts the article presents will lean one way or the other.