Jump to content

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Cleggy7 to last revision by JAnDbot (HG)
Nelior70 (talk | contribs)
121 edits
←Blanked the page
Line 1: Line 1:
{{policy|WP:NPOV|WP:NEU}}
{{nutshell|Each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a ''neutral point of view'', by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias.}}

{{dablink|For article specific questions or discussions, please go to the [[WP:NPOVN|NPOV noticeboard]].}}

'''Neutral point of view''' is a [[meta:Foundation issues|fundamental Wikimedia principle]] and a [[WP:5P|cornerstone of Wikipedia]]. All [[Wikipedia]] articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''', representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all '''significant''' views that have been [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ]].

"'''Neutral point of view'''" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "'''[[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]]'''" and "'''[[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]]'''". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should 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 The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

{{Policylist}}

==Explanation of the neutral point of view==
===Neutral point of view===
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting [[WP:V|verifiable]] perspectives on a topic as evidenced by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only [[pejoratively]]. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

{{Policy shortcut|WP:YESPOV}}
The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides.

===Bias===
Neutrality requires views to be represented without [[bias]]. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.<ref name="see_also_uw">For more details, see the ''Undue Weight'' section in this policy.</ref>

===A simple formulation===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:ASF}}
'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves'''. By "[[fact]]" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a [[planet]] called [[Mars]] is a fact. That [[Plato]] was a [[philosopher]] is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we ''assert'' as many of them as possible.

By [[Value (personal and cultural)|value]] or [[opinion]],<ref>Opinions involve both matters of fact and value; see [[fact-value distinction]]</ref> on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That [[stealing]] is wrong is a value or opinion. That [[The Beatles]] were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a [[nuclear weapon]] during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over [[Hiroshima]] and [[Nagasaki, Nagasaki|Nagasaki]] is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be [[meta:borderline case|borderline cases]] where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.<ref name="see_also_uw" />

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as ''Rolling Stone'' magazine and say: "''Rolling Stone'' said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the [[UK Singles Chart]]" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of [[WP:PARITY|parity]]. For example, to state that "according to [[Simon Wiesenthal]], the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but [[David Irving]] disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".<ref name="avoid weasels">See also: [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words]], [[Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms]].</ref> A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite]] a prominent representative of the view.

See also [[#Let the facts speak for themselves]] below and [[Wikipedia:Describing points of view]], an essay on the topic.

==Achieving neutrality==
:''See [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial]] and [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples]]
===Article naming===
:''Main policy page: [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]]''

[[image:Wikipedia scale of justice.png|thumb|right|200px|The Wikipedia is governed by the [[impartiality]].]]

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name.<ref>Note, however, that [[WP:Redirect|redirects]] may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.</ref> The general restriction against ''POV forks'' applies to article names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article names, in the form of: ''Flat Earth/Round Earth''; or ''Flat Earth (Round Earth).''<ref>See also: [[Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names|Choosing among controversial names]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)|Choosing geographic names]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict]], [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]].</ref> Even if a synthesis is made, like ''Shape of the Earth'', or ''Earth (debated shapes)'', it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper [[contextualization|context]]. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming ''"Criticisms of drugs"'' to ''"Societal views on drugs"''). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Where [[proper nouns]] such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the [[WP:NC#Use the most easily recognized name|common English language name]] as found in [[WP:SOURCES|verifiable reliable sources]]. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See [[Wikipedia:Naming conflict]] for further guidance.

===Article structure===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:STRUCTURE}}
Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and avoid problems like ''POV forks'' and ''undue weight''. Although specific article structures are not as a rule prohibited, in some cases the article structure itself may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

"Segregation" of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents".<ref>Article sections devoted solely to criticism and or "pro and con" sections within articles are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see [[Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode]], [[Wikipedia:Criticism]], [[Wikipedia:Pro and con lists]], and [[Template:Criticism-section]].</ref> It may also create a hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage are "true" and "undisputed", whereas other material is "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may be inappropriate. A more neutral approach may result by folding debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them into separate sections that ignore each other.

Be alert to arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue, and to structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.<ref>Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate" and content structured like a "resume". See also: [[Wikipedia:Guide to layout]], [[Wikipedia:Criticism#Formatting criticism|Formatting criticism]], [[Wikipedia:Edit war]], [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Contradiction and confusion|WP cleanup templates]], and [[Template:Lopsided]].</ref>

:''See the guideline [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]] for clarification on the issues raised in this section.''

===<span id="DUE" /><span id="UNDUE" /><span id="WEIGHT" />Undue weight===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:DUE|WP:UNDUE|WP:Undue weight|WP:WEIGHT|WP:UNDUEWEIGHT}}
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable source]], and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. '''Now an important qualification:''' In general, articles should not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the [[Earth]] does not mention modern support for the [[Flat Earth]] concept, a view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view 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 the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be 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 then 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 not to mislead the reader. [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]] and [[WP:NPOV/FAQ|the NPOV F.A.Q.]] provide additional advice on these points.

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

: From [[Jimbo Wales]], paraphrased from [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list]:
:* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
:* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name ''[[wikt:prominent|prominent]]'' adherents;
:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, ''not'' its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: [[Wikipedia:No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]].

===A vital component: good research===
Good and unbiased research, based upon the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|best and most reputable authoritative sources]] available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.

===Balance===
Neutrality [[WP:WEIGHT|weights]] viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and ''are'' relatively equal in prominence, the core of the neutral point of view policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

===Impartial tone===
Wikipedia ''describes'' disputes. Wikipedia does not ''engage'' in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries ''even while'' presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

===Characterizing opinions of people's work===
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual Wikipedia contributors, however, do not.

==Neutrality disputes and handling==
===Neutrality and verifiability===
<!-- Subsection link: referenced from [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system]]-->
A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both [[WP:V|verifiable]] and [[WP:CITE|cited]], and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] might nonetheless be proposed to [[WP:POINT|make a point]] or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

[[WP:V|Verifiability]] is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and ''both'' must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

===POV forks===
A ''POV fork'' is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article.

:''See the guideline [[Wikipedia:Content forking]] for clarification on the issues raised in this section.''

===Let the facts speak for themselves===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:MORALIZE|WP:LTRD}}
[[User:Karada|Karada]] offered the following advice in the context of the [[Saddam Hussein]] article:
: You won't even ''need'' to say he was evil. That is why the article on [[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the [[Holocaust]] dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite your sources]].

Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize&mdash;readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.

===Attributing and substantiating biased statements===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:SUBSTANTIATE}}
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutral statement by ''attributing'' or ''substantiating'' it.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be [[WP:V|verified]]. The goal here is to ''attribute'' the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to ''substantiate'' the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with [[weasel words]]: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By ''attributing'' the claim to a known authority, or ''substantiating'' the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.<ref name="avoid weasels" />

==History and rationale==
===History of NPOV===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:NPOVHISTORY}}
The neutral point of view policy is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia.
* [[Nupedia]]'s "[http://nupedia.8media.org/policy.shtml#nonbias Non-bias policy]" was drafted by [[Larry Sanger]] in spring or summer of 2000.
* "Avoid bias" was one of the first of Wikipedia's [http://web.archive.org/web/20010416035716/www.wikipedia.com/wiki/RulesToConsider "policies to consider"] proposed by Sanger.
* [[Jimbo Wales]] elaborated the "avoid bias" rule with a statement about "neutral point of view" in the early months of Wikipedia: see [http://web.archive.org/web/20010416035757/http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/NeutralPointOfView copy in web archive] (note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001) &ndash; in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
* A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by [[Larry Sanger]], at [[Meta-Wiki]] in December 2001: see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=729 "Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001].
* After several transformations (see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&limit=100&action=history edit history of "draft" at Meta]) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=34843 this page] on 25 February 2002, and was further edited (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&limit=500&action=history edit history of this page]), resulting in the current version.
* Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta, 17 March 2003: see [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=31163 Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003]
* Development of the [[WP:UNDUE|Undue weight]] section started in 2003, for which a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales on [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html 29 September 2003] was instrumental.
* Jimbo Wales describes neutrality as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html November 2003], [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044386.html April 2006], [http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/123928#123928 March 2008] (compare also [[User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles]] #1).

:''Further historical notes at [[Wikipedia:NPOV, V and OR]].''

===Reasoning behind neutrality===
{{Policy shortcut|WP:NPOVREASON}}
Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human [[knowledge]] at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are ''false'' and therefore not ''knowledge''. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "[[Wikipedia:Edit war|edit war]]s" in which one person asserts that ''p'', whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts ''not-p''?

A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes ''all different'' '''significant''' theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in ''that'' sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called [[Quotation mark#Irony|scare quotes]]. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases <ref>Manchester, William ''A World Lit Only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance – Portrait of an Age'' Little, Brown and Company. 1992 pp. 60 – 62 ISBN 0-316-54556-2 (pb)</ref><ref>Roberts, J.M. ''A History of Europe'' Penguin Group. 1996 pp. 139 – 140 ISBN 0-7139-9204-2</ref>; we now "know" otherwise.

We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do ''that'', it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to ''attribute'' the views to their adherents. Disputes are '''characterized''' in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.

To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human [[knowledge]]. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them—with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.

There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging ''intellectual independence''. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the [[Wikipedia:editing|editors]] of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

===Example: Abortion===
It might help to consider an example of how Wikipedians have improved a biased text.

On the [[abortion]] page, early in 2001, some advocates had used the page to exchange barbs, being unable to agree about what arguments should be on the page and how the competing positions should be represented. What was needed—and what was added—was an in-depth discussion of the different positions about the moral and legal aspects of abortion at different times. This discussion of the positions was carefully crafted so as not to favor any one of the positions outlined. This made it easier to organize and understand the arguments surrounding the topic of abortion, which were then presented impartially, each with its strengths and weaknesses.

There are numerous other success stories of articles that began life as virtual partisan screeds but were nicely cleaned up by people who concerned themselves with representing all views clearly and impartially.


==Pseudoscience and related fringe theories==
{{Shortcut|WP:PSCI|WP:Psci}}
In [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topics]], the task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute ''fairly''.

In an [[WP:ARB|Arbitration Committee case]], which may be read in full [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience|here]], the committee created distinctions among the following:

*'''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious_pseudoscience|Obvious pseudoscience]]''': "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as [[Time Cube]], may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."

*'''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience|Generally considered pseudoscience]]''': "Theories which have a following, such as [[astrology]], but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

*'''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science|Questionable science]]''': "Theories which have a substantial following, such as [[psychoanalysis]], but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

*'''[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative_theoretical_formulations|Alternative theoretical formulations]]''': "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

==Common objections and clarifications==
:''See [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ]] for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section.''
Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.

;[[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 />Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?

* ''[[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 used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Making necessary assumptions|Making necessary assumptions]]''<br />What about the case where, in order to write any of a long series of articles on some general subject, we must make some controversial assumptions? That's the case, e.g., in writing about evolution. Surely we won't have to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every such page?

;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Balancing different views|Balancing different views]]:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Giving "equal validity"|Giving "equal validity"]]''<br />I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy"|Writing for the "enemy"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion|Religion]]''<br />Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a ''human'' invention of some kind is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about ''them''?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Pseudoscience|Pseudoscience]]''<br />How are we to write articles about [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topics]], about which majority scientific opinion is that the [[Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

;[[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 non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

;[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other|Other]]:
* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus and systematic bias|Anglo-American focus]]''<br />Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

* ''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Other objections|Other objections]]''<br />I have some other objection—where should I complain?

Since the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Talk:Neutral point of view]], or bring it up on the [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Wikipedia-l]] mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==Other resources==
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]
* [[/Examples/]]
* [[/Examples Debate/]]
* [[M:Responses to How to Build Wikipedia, Understand Bias|Understand Bias]]
* [[Wikipedia:List of controversial issues | List of controversial issues]]
* [[Wikipedia:Words to avoid | Words to avoid]]
* [[Talk:Creationism]] and [[Talk:Creationism/Archive 1#Larry's Big Reply|Larry's Big Reply]]
* [[Meta:Positive tone]]
* [[Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles|Guidelines for controversial articles]]
* [[Subject-object problem]]
* [[Consensus reality]]
* [[Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words|Avoid weasel words]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ|Neutral point of view FAQ]]
* {{tl|NPOV}} — message used to warn of problems
* {{tl|NPOV-section}} — tags only a single section as disputed
* {{tl|POV check}} — message used to mark articles that may be biased. ({{tl|bias}} may be used for short)
* {{tl|POV-title}} — when the article's title is questionable
* {{tl|POV-statement}} — when only one sentence is questionable
* {{tl|article issues}} — When an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
* [[One-sided argument]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutrality Project|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]
* [[:Category:NPOV disputes|NPOV Disputes]]
* [[Wikipedia:Article size]]
* [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories]]
* [[Wikipedia:Scientific consensus]]

==External links==
{{Spoken Wikipedia-3|2006-05-15|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_1.ogg|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_2.ogg|Neutral_point_of_view_Part_3.ogg}}
* On [[MeatballWiki]]:
** [[MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith|AssumeGoodFaith]]
** [[MeatBall:NeutralPointOfView|NeutralPointOfView]]
* Multiple points of view: see [[http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Religion-wiki:Multiple_points_of_view religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]]

==See also==
{{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}}

[[Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view| ]]
[[Category:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia content policy]]

[[af:Wikipedia:Neutrale standpunt]]
[[ar:ويكيبيديا:وجهة النظر المحايدة]]
[[an:Wikipedia:Neutralidat d'o punto d'embista]]
[[ast:Uiquipedia:Puntu de vista neutral]]
[[bn:উইকিপেডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি টিউটোরিয়াল]]
[[zh-min-nan:Wikipedia:Tiong-li̍p ê koan-tiám]]
[[be:Вікіпедыя:Нейтральны пункт гледжання]]
[[be-x-old:Вікіпэдыя:Нэўтральны пункт гледжаньня]]
[[bs:Wikipedia:Neutralno gledište]]
[[br:Wikipedia:Kumuniezh/Chom neptu]]
[[bg:Уикипедия:Неутрална гледна точка]]
[[ca:Viquipèdia:Punt de vista neutral]]
[[cs:Wikipedie:Nezaujatý úhel pohledu]]
[[co:Wikipedia:Puntu di vista neutru]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Skriv Wikipedia fra et neutralt synspunkt]]
[[de:Wikipedia:Neutraler Standpunkt]]
[[el:Βικιπαίδεια:Ουδετερότητα]]
[[es:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral]]
[[eo:Vikipedio:Neŭtrala vidpunkto]]
[[eu:Wikipedia:Ikuspegi neutrala]]
[[fa:ویکی‌پدیا:دیدگاه بی‌طرف]]
[[fr:Wikipédia:Neutralité de point de vue]]
[[fy:Wikipedy:Objektivens]]
[[gl:Wikipedia:Punto de vista neutral]]
[[ko:위키백과:중립적 시각]]
[[hy:Վիքիփեդիա:Չեզոք տեսակետ]]
[[hr:Wikipedija:Nepristrano gledište]]
[[ig:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
[[id:Wikipedia:Sudut pandang netral]]
[[ia:Wikipedia:Puncto de vista neutral]]
[[is:Wikipedia:Hlutleysisreglan]]
[[it:Wikipedia:Punto di vista neutrale]]
[[he:ויקיפדיה:נקודת מבט נייטרלית]]
[[jv:Wikipedia:Cara ndeleng nétral]]
[[ka:ვიკიპედია:ნეიტრალური თვალსაზრისი]]
[[csb:Wiki:Neùtralny pùnkt zdrzeniégò]]
[[lb:Wikipedia:Neutralitéit]]
[[lt:Vikipedija:Neutralus požiūris]]
[[ln:Wikipedia:Neutralité de point de vue]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Semleges nézőpont]]
[[mk:Википедија:Неутрална гледна точка]]
[[mg:Wikipedia:Fijerena tsy mitongilana]]
[[ml:വിക്കിപീഡിയ:സന്തുലിതമായ കാഴ്ച്ചപ്പാട്]]
[[ms:Wikipedia:Pandangan berkecuali]]
[[mn:Wikipedia:Төвийг сахисан байр суурь]]
[[nl:Wikipedia:Neutraal standpunt]]
[[ja:Wikipedia:中立的な観点]]
[[no:Wikipedia:Objektivitet]]
[[nn:Wikipedia:Objektivitet]]
[[uz:Vikipediya:Betaraf nuqtai nazar]]
[[pl:Wikipedia:Neutralny punkt widzenia]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Princípio da imparcialidade]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Punct de vedere neutru]]
[[rmy:Vikipidiya:Birigyardo jalipen]]
[[qu:Wikipidiya:Mana hukllap qhawariyninlla]]
[[ru:Википедия:Нейтральная точка зрения]]
[[sco:Wikipedia:Whit NPOV is]]
[[sq:Wikipedia:Pikëpamje neutrale]]
[[scn:Wikipedia:Puntu di vista niutrali]]
[[simple:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]
[[sk:Wikipédia:Nestranný uhol pohľadu]]
[[sl:Wikipedija:Nepristranskost]]
[[sr:Википедија:Неутрална тачка гледишта]]
[[sh:Wikipedia:Neutralan stav]]
[[fi:Wikipedia:Neutraali näkökulma]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Skriv från en neutral utgångspunkt]]
[[tl:Wikipedia:Walang pinapanigang pananaw]]
[[ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:நடுநிலை நோக்கு]]
[[te:వికీపీడియా:తటస్థ దృక్కోణం]]
[[th:วิกิพีเดีย:มุมมองที่เป็นกลาง]]
[[tg:Википедиа:Бетарафӣ]]
[[tr:Vikipedi:Tarafsız bakış açısı]]
[[uk:Вікіпедія:Нейтральна точка зору]]
[[ur:متعادل نقطۂ نظر]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Thái độ trung lập]]
[[fiu-vro:Wikipedia:Eräpoolõlda saisukotus]]
[[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:נייטראל]]
[[zh-yue:Wikipedia:中立嘅觀點]]
[[zh:Wikipedia:中立的观点]]

Revision as of 23:06, 9 April 2009

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=282868153"