Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Ọdịiche dị n'etiti nyochagharị

Browse history interactively
Orü nke ichieOrü nke ohúrù →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m {{translation}}
shortening, the Igbo Wikipedia editors may write their own version of this
Ahiri 1:
{{translation}}
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''neutral point of view''' ('''NPOV'''), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that are [[Wikipedia:Attribution|attributable to reliable published source(s)]]. 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 a [[meta:Foundation_issues|fundamental Wikipedia principle]]. According to Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]], '''NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."'''<ref>"A few things are absolute and non-negotiable, though. NPOV for example." in [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003]absolute and, [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikiennon-l/2006-April/044379.html in this threadnegotiable] reconfirmed by [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-April/044388.html Jimbo Wales in April 2006] in the context of lawsuits.</ref>"
 
This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's two main policies (rules). The other is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]].
This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main [[Wikipedia:Namespace|namespace]]. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with both. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles.
 
==Explanation of the neutral point of view==
=== The neutral point of view ===
'''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views'''. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, 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. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view ''is'' a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral &ndash; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
 
===Bias===
'''NPOV requires views to be represented without bias'''. All editors and all sources have biases. A [[bias]] is a [[prejudice]] in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular [[Perspective (cognitive)|point of view]] or [[ideology]]. One is said to be biased if one is ''influenced'' by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not accept the [[truth]] of a [[claim]], not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived [[idea]]s.
Types of bias include:
; [[Social class|Class]]: bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions;
;[[Corporatism|Commercial]]: [[advertising]], coverage of political campaigns favoring corporate interests, or reporting favoring media owner interests;
; [[Ethnicity|Ethnic]] or [[racism|racial]]: [[racism]], [[nationalism]], [[regionalism]] and [[tribalism]];
; [[WP:CSB|Geographical]]: describing a dispute as it is conducted in one country, when the dispute is framed differently elsewhere;
; [[Nationalism|Nationalistic]]: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation;
 
; [[Gender]]: including [[sexism]] and [[heteronormativity]];
; [[Political]]: bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate;
; [[Religion|Religious]]: bias against or for religion, faith or beliefs;
; [[Sensationalism|Sensationalist]]: favoring the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes emphasizing, distorting, or fabricating exceptional news to boost commercial ratings;
 
; [[Scientific]]: favoring a scientist, inventor, or theory for a non-scientific reason.
 
=== A simple formulation ===
Alternatively: '''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 can feel free to ''assert'' as many of them as we can.
By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be [[meta:borderline case|borderline cases]] where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but 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 a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.
Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by ''attributing'' the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the [[Billboard Hot 100]]," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires '''an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population''' or, better still, '''a name''' (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).
In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation.
But it is not ''enough,'' to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact ''about an opinion,'' it is important ''also'' to assert facts ''about competing opinions,'' and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite]] a prominent representative of the view.
 
==Situations and handling==
=== POV forks ===
A ''POV fork'' is an attempt to evade NPOV 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.
 
=== Undue weight ===
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiable source]], and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. '''Now an important qualification:''' Articles that compare views need not give minority views ''as much'' or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the [[Earth]] only very briefly refers to the [[Flat Earth]] theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and 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 among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, 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.
 
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not paper]]. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as ''the truth''.
 
: From [[Jimbo Wales]], paraphrased from [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html this post from September 2003 on the 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 ''[[w:wiktionary:prominent|prominent]]'' adherents;
:* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 
Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.
 
If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]
 
=== A vital component: good research ===
Disagreements over whether something is approached the ''Neutral Point Of View'' (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the ''[[#A simple formulation|A simple formulation]]'' section above) are not ''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to Wikipedia, and then [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite that source]]. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|best and most reputable sources]] you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.
 
The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict one another. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for ''balance'', that is: divide ''space'' describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
 
=== Fairness of tone ===
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary ''even while'' presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
 
We should write articles with the tone that ''all'' positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
 
=== Characterizing opinions of people's work ===
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 may be important to describe 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 [http://absoluteshakespeare.com/william_shakespeare.htm widely acknowledged] as one of the greatest playwrights of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. However, in the interests of neutrality, one should also learn that a number of reputable scholars argue that there are strong cases being made that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was one of his contemporaries, such as the [http://www.shakespearefellowship.org Earl of Oxford] or [http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/pamphlet/pamphlet.htm Christopher Marlowe]. Notice that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research — but once determined, a clear statement of that reception (unlike an idiosyncratic opinion by a Wikipedia article writer) is an opinion that really matters.
 
=== Let the facts speak for themselves ===
[[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 [[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]].
 
Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.
 
=== Attributing and substantiating biased statements ===
Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV 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 [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|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.
 
==History and rationale==
===History of NPOV===
 
NPOV 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 "policies to consider" [http://web.archive.org/web/20010416035716/www.wikipedia.com/wiki/RulesToConsider] 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 this page on 25 February 2002 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=34843], 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]
* Jimbo Wales introduced an important qualification of NPOV on 29 Sept 2003, when he noted that those viewpoints held by an extremely small minority do not belong in Wikipedia, except in ancillary articles: see [http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-September/006715.html his e-mail of 29 Sept 2003].
 
=== Reasoning behind NPOV ===
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; 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 sympathetically, 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 sympathetically.
 
== 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 by newcomers 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|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?
 
Because 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==
<references />
 
== Other resources ==
* [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]
* [[:Category:Articles which may be biased]]
* [[/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.27s_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]]
* {{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|noncompliant}} - When the article as a whole fails to abide by the content policies of Wikipedia
* [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias|WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias]]
* [[One-sided argument]]
* [[Wikipedia:Neutrality Project|Wikipedia Neutrality Project]]
* [[:Category:NPOV_disputes | NPOV Disputes]]
 
== 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]]
* [http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp Blinded By Science: How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality] - Chris Mooney, Columbia Journalism Review. A valuable warning to Wikipedians about how some methods used to balance coverage can lead to biased, inaccurate and misleading reporting.
* Multiple points of view: see [[WikiCities:c:religion-wiki:Religion-wiki:Multiple points of view|religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]]
 
[[Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view| ]]
[[Category:Wikipedia official policy|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 
Ewepụtara na https://ig.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view