Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

To raise issues with specific articles, see the NPOV noticeboard. For advice on applying this policy, see the NPOV tutorial. For frequent critiques and responses, see the NPOV FAQ.

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv

Video explaining the concepts of "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" (2 minutes 10 seconds, 11 MB).

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 The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.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

Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality.

The neutral point of view is a way of dealing with conflicting perspectives. It requires that all majority and significant-minority views as found in reliable sources be presented in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. 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 as 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, and that the source directly support the material in question. Where a statement is controversial or subjective, use in-text attribution—"John Smith writes that"— rather than publishing the material in Wikipedia's voice.

Appropriate weight must be given to each view, so that the article reflects the relative level of support among reliable sources for the majority and significant-minority views. If the topic has attracted fringe or tiny-minority views, consider writing about those views in articles devoted to them, so long as there are reliable secondary sources to support inclusion.

Achieving neutrality

Article titles and structure

Main page: Wikipedia:Article titles

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. The policy against content forking applies to article titles too.

Exercise caution in how you structure the text, and what titles you use for section headers. Sections devoted to criticism, and "pro and con" sections, can be problematic: there are differing views as to whether such structures are appropriate. 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

Further information: WP:Fringe theories

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. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public.

In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to these minority views. Such articles must be based on reliable third party sources that describe those views. For example, the article Earth should not mention modern support for the flat earth theory, but a separate article, Flat Earth, can be created if reliable secondary sources can be found for it. In articles about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: for instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the Neutral point of view FAQ provide additional advice on these points.

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.

Giving "equal validity"

The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.

Words to watch

Further information: Wikipedia: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.

Neutrality disputes

Attribution

Main pages: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability

All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is original research. But not all material must actually be attributed. Some statements—such as "Paris is the capital of France"—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

Further information: Wikipedia:Content forking and Wikipedia:Summary style

Content forks are multiple articles about the same subject. A point-of-view fork (POV fork) is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight 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

Further information: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ

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.

Being neutral

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

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

Balancing different views

• Writing for the "opponent"
  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?

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

Editorship disputes

• Dealing with biased contributors
  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?

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

Other

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

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

See also

Content policies

• No original research
• Verifiability

Guidelines

• Article size
• Conflict of interest
• Controversial articles
• Fringe theories
• Words to avoid

Essays

• Coatrack
• Describing points of view
• Let the reader decide
• List of controversial issues
• NPOV tutorial
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV Examples
• NPOV Disputes
• Positive tone (meta, historical)
• Scientific consensus
• Systematic bias
• Understand Bias (meta, historical)

Articles

• Objectivity (journalism)
• Consensus reality
• One-sided argument
• Subject-object problem

Templates

• {{POV}} or {{Bias}}—message used to warn of problems
• {{POV-check}}—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality
• {{POV-section}}—tags only a single section as disputed
• {{POV-lead}}—when the article's introduction is questionable
• {{POV-title}}—when the article's title is questionable
• {{POV-statement}}—when only one sentence is questionable
• {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
• {{undue}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
• {{undue-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

Wikiproject

• Wikiproject Neutrality

External links

• NeutralPointOfView on MeatballWiki