Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions
→A simple formulation: reverting ASF section to version by QuackGuru at 01:05, 20 April 2010 . I actually like a lot of the newer changes, but QuackGuru is right that consensus should be sought. |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) m tweak |
||
(40 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 2:
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{policy|WP:NPOV|WP:NPV|WP:NEU}}
{{nutshell|
{{Content policy list}}
[[File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-600px-en.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=63|thumb|Video explaining the concepts of "Neutral point of view" and "Verifiability" (2 minutes 10 seconds, 11 MB).]]
'''Neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV''') is
==
[[image:Wikipedia scale of justice.png|thumb|right|200px|Wikipedia is governed by the principle of [[impartiality]].]]
{{Policy shortcut|WP:YESPOV|WP:ASF}}
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 [[WP:PRESERVE|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.
[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] require that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a [[WP:SOURCE|reliable source]] in the form of an
[[Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations|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. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see [[Wikipedia:Words to watch|Words to watch]].
Articles should contain balanced coverage of all majority and significant-minority views, but make sure they [[WP:UNDUE|roughly reflect]] the relative levels of support among reliable sources for the position in question. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." 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. If the topic has attracted [[WP:FRINGE|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===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:STRUCTURE}}
Titles should follow the [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Article titles]] policy and be neutral wherever possible. [[WP:Redirect|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 [[WP:Content forking#What forking is|content forking]] applies to article titles too.
===<span id="DUE" /><span id="UNDUE" /><span id="WEIGHT" />Undue weight===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DUE|WP:UNDUE|WP:Undue weight|WP:WEIGHT|WP:UNDUEWEIGHT|WP:PROMINENCE}}
{{see|WP:FRINGE}}
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.
The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, so long as reliable secondary sources exist 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 sources can be found for it. In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it.
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.
===Words to
{{See
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.''
==Neutrality disputes
===Attribution===
{{main|Wikipedia:No original research|Wikipedia:Verifiability}}
{{Policy shortcut|WP:SUBSTANTIATE|WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV}}
All material added to an article must be attributable, which means that a reliable published source must exist for it—otherwise it is [[WP:NOR|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 no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. 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, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a [[WP:SOURCES|reliable source]] in the form of an
[[Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations|inline citation]], and that the source directly support the material in question.
=== Point-of-view and content forks ===
{{see|Wikipedia:Content forking|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. [[WP:Summary style|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==
{{see|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 [[WP:NPOV#See also|below]].
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Being neutral|Being neutral]]:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity|There's no such thing as objectivity]]''<br />
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete|Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete]]''<br />The neutrality policy is
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views|Balancing different views]]:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "opponent"|Writing for the "opponent"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views
;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Editorship disputes|Editorship disputes]]:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Dealing with biased contributors|Dealing with biased contributors]]''<br />I agree with the
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
Line 145 ⟶ 81:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other objections|Other objections]]''<br />I have some other objection—where should I complain?
==See also==
{{refbegin|2}}
;Content policies
*[[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]
*[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]
;Guidelines
* [[Wikipedia:Article size|Article size]]
* [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|Conflict of interest]]
* [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles|Controversial articles]]
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories|Fringe theories]]
* [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid|Words to avoid]]
;Essays
* [[Wikipedia:Coatrack|Coatrack]]
* [[Wikipedia:Describing points of view|Describing points of view]]
* [[Wikipedia:Let the reader decide|Let the reader decide]]
* [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues|List of controversial issues]]
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ|NPOV FAQ]]
* [[/Examples/|NPOV Examples]]
* [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV Disputes]]
* [[Meta:Positive tone|Positive tone]] (meta, historical)
* [[Wikipedia:Scientific consensus|Scientific consensus]]
* [[Wikipedia:Systemic bias|Systematic bias]]
* [[Meta:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]] (meta, historical)
;Articles
* [[Objectivity (journalism)]]
* [[Consensus reality]]
Line 164 ⟶ 114:
* [[Subject-object problem]]
;Templates
*{{tl|POV}} or {{tl|Bias}}—message used to warn of problems
*{{tl|POV-check}}—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality
*{{tl|POV-section}}—tags only a single section as disputed
*{{tl|POV-lead}}—when the article's introduction is questionable
*{{tl|POV-title}}—when the article's title is questionable
*{{tl|POV-statement}}—when only one sentence is questionable
*{{tl|NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
*{{tl|undue}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
*{{tl|undue-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only
;Wikiproject
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality|Wikiproject Neutrality]]
{{refend}}
==Notes==
|
Revision as of 16:34, 23 April 2010
This page in a nutshell: Articles must represent all majority- and significant-minority views fairly, proportionately, and in a disinterested tone. |
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 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. Avoid mass attribution such as "some people believe": see Words to watch.
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. Do not write: "Charles Darwin argued that humankind evolved from apes, but Keith's mum thinks we came from another planet." 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. 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
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.[1] 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.[2]
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. In determining appropriate weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence within reliable published sources, not among Wikipedians or the general public.
The views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except in articles devoted to them, so long as reliable secondary sources exist 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 sources can be found for it. In articles about a minority viewpoint, the majority view should also be explained, so long as the distinction is discussed by reliable sources, so that the reader understands how the minority view differs from it.
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.
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
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 no one expects attribution. But they remain attributable, and if there is the slightest controversy, they are easy to find sources for. 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) 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
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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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
- Guidelines
- 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
- 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
Notes
- ^ See Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode, Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Pro and con lists, and Template:Criticism-section.
- ^ Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also: Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Formatting criticism, Wikipedia:Edit war, WP cleanup templates, and Template:Lopsided.
External links
- NeutralPointOfView on MeatballWiki