User:SlimVirgin/NPOV

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is one of Wikimedia's founding principles, and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all majority and significant-minority views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and editors.

Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with Verifiability and No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Explaining the neutral point of view


The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority and significant-minority views found in reliable sources&mdash;as defined by Verifiability&mdash;be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Reliably sourced material should not be removed just because it is not neutral, or what Wikipedians call "POV".

The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. Unbiased writing is the disinterested description of all significant sides of a debate found in reliable sources. Articles should describe different points of view without endorsing any of them. It may describe the criticism of particular viewpoints found in reliable sources, but it should not take sides. Good research can prevent NPOV disagreements by using the best sources available and accurately summarizing what they say.

Verifiability and No original research require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or otherwise not broadly accepted, or expresses a particular point of view, use in-text attribution&mdash;"John Smith writes that"&mdash; rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice. When attributing views to individuals, make sure the text does not imply parity between a majority and minority view.

Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they roughly reflect the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that it is clear what status the majority and significant-minority views have among reliable sources.

Article titles and structure
Titles should follow the Article titles policy and be neutral wherever possible. Redirects can be used to address situations where a topic is known by several names. Where the name of a topic is part of the debate, discussion should be included in the article using reliable sources. See the guideline concerning content forking, which also applies to article titles.

Exercise caution in structuring the text and in choosing titles for section headers. Avoid formatting that may favor a particular point of view, or that may make it difficult for the reader to assess the credibility of each position.

Undue weight
Neutral point of view requires that articles fairly represent all majority and significant-minority positions that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each position, rather than their popularity among Wikipedians or the general public. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within the reliable published sources, and the quality of these sources.

Undue weight can occur in several ways, including depth of detail, length of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. The same principle applies to images, wikilinks, external links, and categories.

The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, so long as independent reliable sources are available (see also the guidelines WP:Notability and WP:Fringe theories). Any such articles should make clear that the views are minority ones, and should describe the majority view in sufficient detail as to avoid misleading the reader.

Words to watch
Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Try to present different views without using biased words: for example, John said he had not eaten the pie. Similarly, it is sometimes appropriate to make clear that, for example, Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language, but make sure this really is the view of multiple sources, and not only of Wikipedians.

Attribution
All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it&mdash;otherwise it is original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements&mdash;such as "Paris is the capital of France"&mdash;are so commonly accepted that attribution is unnecessary. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, sources should be found. The more controversial a view, the more important it is that we provide attribution, and in many cases multiple attribution. Controversies on talk pages are indicative of controversies in the real world, so whenever there is a conflict on the talk page it is critical that editors provide attribution from reliable sources.

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question.

Point-of-view and content forks
Content forks are multiple articles about the same subject. A point-of-view fork (POV fork) evades the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, by avoiding or highlighting certain positions. Both are considered unacceptable. Summary style spin-offs are acceptable, and often encouraged, but take care not to split topics up in a way that might compromise neutrality.

Common objections
The NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers, but it is central to Wikipedia's approach, so most issues surrounding it have been covered very extensively. If you have a new contribution to make to the debate, you could try Talk:Neutral point of view. Before doing that, please review the FAQ page, and the policies, guidelines, and essays listed in the See also section below.

Everyone with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
 * Being neutral:
 * There's no such thing as objectivity

The neutrality policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
 * Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete


 * Balancing different views:

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents make claims that I believe are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral, I have to lie?
 * Writing for the "opponent"

What about views most Westerners find morally offensive, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
 * Morally offensive views

I agree with the NPOV policy, but there are some here who seem irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
 * Editorship disputes:
 * Dealing with biased contributors

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
 * Avoiding constant disputes

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
 * Other:
 * Anglo-American focus

I have some other objection—where should I complain?
 * Other objections