Wikipedia:Article point of view vs NPOV

Some articles by definition, express a point of view, in which case I propose that a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning as follows:


 * For a general article: (existing policy) Neutral Point of View means as described in policy, and loosely means to (a) provide a balanced article in (b) a neutral manner.


 * For an article describing an inherent point of view: (proposed amended policy) Neutral Point of View means (a) Primarily describe the subject of the article, acknowledging other points of view (b) in a neutral manner.

The main difference is that a general article is a balance of points of view, but an article about a specific point of view is inherently unbalanced (but still written in a neutral style). Two examples describe what I mean:

Example 1

 * An article on cosmology (study of the Universe) should provide a balance of the different types of cosmology, eg. Big Bang Cosmology, Steady state theory, Plasma cosmology, etc.
 * But an article on, for example, the Big Bang Cosmology should present cosmology from the point of view the Big Bang theory. In which case, a NPOV might mention that there are other cosmologies, but the article would not need to balance each fact with counterpoints on each and every alternative cosmololgy.
 * In other words, an article's inherent point of view, ie. the subject of the article, takes precedence over the neutral point of view of the more general subject.
 * And using this particular example, the same point of view would apply to articles on Steady State theory, and Plasma Cosmology.

Example 2

 * An article on 'Political systems' may include a balance of discussion on (a) totalitarianism (b) democracy.
 * But an article on 'Totalitarianism', should primarily discuss the point of view of totalitarianism in a neutral manner, and acknowledge other points of view, but NOT counterpoint most statements.
 * Likewise an article on 'Democracy', should primarily discuss the point of view of democracy in a neutral manner, and acknowledge other points of view, but NOT counterpoint most statements.

Otherwise, if we counterpoint and balance most statements in each specific article, we end up with a general article, in this case, very similar to that on Political systems.

Background
I was enouraged to submit this policy proposal after receiving some encouraging feedback in this section at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view

Submitted and Proposed by --Iantresman 14:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)