Wikipedia:Neutrality does not mean relativism

In debates on Wikipedia, certain users, especially newcomers, frequently raise the claim that the project's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy entails that all possible viewpoints on a given subject must be presented on Wikipedia, or that the policy somehow is an across-the-board entitlement for them to have their favored viewpoint included in an article if they request it.

This claim is patently false. No such requirement or entitlement of any kind exists or is implied by the NPOV policy. In fact, a number of policies and guidelines, including the NPOV policy itself, directly refute it.

Index
The index contained in the box below enumerates each of the highlighted points in the quotations listed in the sections above:


 * Neutral point of view
 * Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
 * : Wikipedia policy does not imply that every view should be presented.
 * : Dubious views should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted scholarship.
 * : Merely omit dubious views where including them would unduly legitimize them.
 * Due and undue weight
 * : Don't give minority views as detailed a description as majority views.
 * : Generally, views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
 * : Pages about minority views should still cover the majority view appropriately.
 * : Text describing a minority view should be clearly marked as such.
 * : Majority views should be explained in enough detail for the reader to understand how a minority view differs from them.
 * : Disputes should not be presented as if small minority views deserves as much attention as majority views.
 * : Tiny-minority views should not be represented.
 * : Proper weight is determined by its prevalence in reliable sources, not among editors or the public.
 * : Wikipedia is not the place to present a proof of a theory that few or none currently believe.
 * Fringe theories and pseudoscience
 * : Pseudoscientific views should not be described as being equal to mainstream views.
 * : Description of pseudoscientific views should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views.
 * : Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight.
 * : Pseudoscientific views should be clearly described as such.
 * : Description of pseudoscientific views should be accompanied by prominent explanation of its reception by scientists.
 * Verifiability
 * Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
 * : Wikipedia policy does not say that all verifiable information must be included.
 * : Consensus may determine that certain information should be omitted.
 * : The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
 * Neutrality
 * : Even information cited to reliable sources must be presented with a neutral point of view.
 * : Tiny-minority views need not be included.
 * Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
 * : Exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.
 * No original research
 * Using sources
 * : If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.
 * : If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce it.
 * Verifiability
 * : Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
 * Neutral point of view
 * : The inclusion of a view held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research.
 * Fringe theories
 * : Fringe theories should not be presented as more notable or more widely accepted than they are.
 * : A theory not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight.

What neutrality does mean
The actual meaning of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is carefully described in Neutral point of view, and that is always the page you should refer to over your own conceptions of what you would like neutrality to mean. But, in short, the policy can be summarized as:
 * Views must only be described to the extent, to the degree, and in the sense they are covered in reliable sources, and only in a neutral and impartial tone.

If an article only describes one or some of the pertinent views described in relevant reliable sources, consensus should be reached to include appropriate descriptions of the remaining views.