Wikipedia:NPOV (Comparison of views in science)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is intended to give guidelines for how the NPOV policy should be interpreted for pages comparing different scientific viewpoints (or pseudoscience viewpoints). This page refers only to pages created especially for the purpose of comparing different scientific viewpoints.

  • Each side should be represented on each subtopic of the debate.
  • If one side of the debate has a significantly greater ratio of facts about viewpoints to facts about evidence then they should not also have a significantly greater number of points or amount of space. This should apply to sections and the page as a whole.
  • The number of facts presented should be limited only by issues of style.
  • When editing contentious topics, facts should be added gradually to give the other side a chance to contest them. You should not flood the page with facts.
  • When a statement is challenged a source should be provided (the onus is not on the challenger) and if the statement is a deduction from experimental data/primary sources the experimental data/primary sources should be given and the deduction steps given or a link given (if they are too complex) to where they may be found.
  • If no source can be given for the fact after a reasonable amount of time the statement should be removed or modified in such a way that it can be sourced.
  • A statement should only be stated as fact if it is viewed as fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Deductions should only be stated factually if they are regarded as factual by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
  • A statement may support a majority position and yet not be regarded as factual by a majority.
  • It is preferable to have facts about evidence rather than facts about viewpoints.
  • Hyperbole should be used sparingly if at all.