User:RicoCorinth/sandbox/advocate

Discussion
That's all good and well, but now comes the question of whether or not this content reflected a neutral point of view or not. Both of you seem to be at a disagreement at that. Material needs to be sourced, yes (what I was saying earlier is while it should be sourced, it is not going to be in every article, and this one may not be an exception to that), but I think you ought to look more at whether or not the contributions you all made to this article reflected WP:NPOV. Read up on that and tell me what you think. —Pilotguy (go around) 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Resposta

 * All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.


 * "Because the [ Neutral point of view and Attribution ] policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another ."


 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views . The policy requires that, where there are conflicting views, these should be presented fairly.


 * "all significant published points of view are to be presented" It should also not be asserted that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
 * Chip chip.


 * As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.


 * "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate."


 * "NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. "
 * Argyriou writes that I have a point of view.


 * "Alternatively:  assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By 'fact' we mean 'a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute.' For example, that" renters can't vote. " No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. "


 * "Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. " " we 'convert' that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. " " The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority). "

Undue weight

 * "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all"


 * " To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, "