1510:. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.
638:
space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See
1494:
1645:
1259:. Knowledge (XXG) articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at
220:
1015:, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the
928:, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.
618:, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "
54:
1380:" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.
875:
might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.
110:
1553:. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Knowledge (XXG) as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be
1038:
based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source
553:
details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
1157:. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of
874:
When considering "due impartiality"... careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance", meaning that viewers
1219:
In the case of beliefs and practices, Knowledge (XXG) content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Knowledge (XXG) articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as
1659:
Common objections or concerns raised to
Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Knowledge (XXG)'s approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution
418:
A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards
954:
When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some
1037:
A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed
809:
An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports
637:
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and
552:
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. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where
1367:
In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in
English) and is therefore likely to be well
649:
Knowledge (XXG) should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant
1236:
contradiction. NPOV policy means
Knowledge (XXG) editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves
556:
Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related
1235:
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no
1455:
presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and
500:
solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the
1394:
Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and
1072:
Knowledge (XXG) deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of
Knowledge (XXG), but it is often needed most in these.
265:". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Knowledge (XXG) articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.
1572:
the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.
1410:
a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
346:
to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due
1459:
The tone of
Knowledge (XXG) 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, formal tone.
1709:
I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must
1306:
is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on
Knowledge (XXG).
754:
are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
1240:—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."
408:. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of
2276:
Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and 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 guidance on
505:. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
2709:
962:
It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some
899:
needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the
2956:
2549:
2871:
2562:
1939:
2025:
2065:
681:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on
Knowledge (XXG), regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
2035:
3203:
2385:
2702:
334:
and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Knowledge (XXG) aims to
3129:
1694:
A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." What does this mean?
1673:
425:
Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of
391:
If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
1955:
2542:
2010:
1388:
2428:
1601:
There are no forbidden words or expressions on
Knowledge (XXG), but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word
1383:
This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the
1451:
in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries
1138:, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not
2070:
2015:
3162:
1906:
31:
206:
2886:
2535:
1330:. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.
2356:
1741:
I agree with the nonbias 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?
1722:
What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as
Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about
3362:
654:
on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.
3428:
1884:
1596:
1260:
488:
3157:
2896:
2638:
694:
If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in
170:
891:
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Knowledge (XXG) policy does not state or imply that every minority view,
397:
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in
Knowledge (XXG)'s voice, for example
1402:
Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint
549:. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
419:
one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
3177:
2963:
2832:
1924:
1856:
to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a
1820:
1629:, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).
663:
2468:
650:
minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Knowledge (XXG) aims to present competing views
1661:
1314:. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example,
370:
that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. Rather, they should be
3433:
3260:
2315:
2005:
1934:
1919:
1767:
1759:
1744:
1736:
1717:
1704:
1689:
1681:
1638:
643:
321:
39:
445:
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.
3150:
2421:
2050:
1828:
2633:
2378:
1166:
819:
180:
3182:
2559:
1438:
273:
62:
2331:
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Knowledge (XXG) editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.
3172:
3167:
1995:
1323:
959:
would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.
532:
3187:
3124:
2020:
1782:
199:
2901:
2861:
2802:
2719:
2647:
2623:
2045:
1889:
1874:
1833:
699:
607:
262:
155:
669:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
1170:
913:
2797:
2414:
1990:
1196:
1012:
814:
and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for
3392:
3213:
2891:
2866:
2812:
2481:
1970:
1506:
Knowledge (XXG) articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become
2302:
Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a debate and content structured like a resume. See also the
1243:
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g.,
3423:
3255:
3031:
2978:
2951:
2881:
2856:
2286:
2278:
1985:
1980:
750:
to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another
2239:
238:), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant
3377:
2827:
2822:
2792:
2697:
2653:
2581:
1816:
1162:
1032:
1008:
976:
695:
175:
140:
70:
3339:
2251:
1678:
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?
1315:
192:
3145:
3026:
2946:
2729:
2724:
2303:
1879:
1845:
1617:
may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such
1544:
1177:
1150:
1114:
892:
639:
537:
The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like
426:
2233:—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
2210:
1368:
recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "
901:
3208:
3114:
3069:
3021:
3016:
2734:
2692:
2658:
1792:
1558:
1384:
1362:
1310:
All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a
1020:
502:
165:
2352:
1493:
351:. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:
2290:
367:
339:
239:
3102:
2687:
2618:
2055:
2030:
1975:
1894:
1837:
1804:
1686:
The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
1554:
1297:
980:
811:
703:
615:
484:
409:
331:
258:
243:
160:
35:
3097:
2817:
2807:
2574:
2455:
2084:
1929:
1787:"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Knowledge (XXG). Originally appearing within
250:
2190:
2094:
1800:
2968:
1644:
3334:
2060:
3401:
3267:
2906:
2782:
2714:
2682:
2643:
2509:
2437:
2040:
1004:
740:
687:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources,
2749:
2178:
2166:
2154:
1158:
1135:
3272:
2973:
2876:
2787:
2777:
2307:
2282:
2000:
1944:
1225:
815:
277:
2227:
374:, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that
3284:
3279:
2772:
2311:
1519:
1469:
1420:
1396:
1344:
1272:
1229:
1202:
1189:
1082:
1055:
986:
937:
831:
764:
715:
573:
514:
497:
457:
289:
84:
74:
2595:
2130:
1653:
1143:
1131:
3119:
3109:
1626:
1614:
1507:
1311:
1221:
404:
2494:
1373:
917:
254:
2197:
1577:
1550:
371:
2923:
2099:
1610:
1587:
many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)
896:
3344:
2319:
2142:
2089:
1127:
1043:
566:
2527:
1857:
1764:
The English Knowledge (XXG) seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
1498:
436:
412:. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
219:
17:
343:
3324:
1377:
1369:
1016:
905:
1824:
1502:—good painting or bad painting? That's not for us to decide, but we note what others say.
1139:
1126:
theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to
2379:"Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions. 2014"
2353:"BBC Trust—BBC science coverage given "vote of confidence" by independent report. 2011"
1949:
1245:
1815:
has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions:
257:. It is also one of Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies; the other two are "
3417:
2993:
1123:
925:
921:
865:
3301:
674:
439:, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but
2118:
1796:
1618:
440:
434:
402:
375:
43:
3329:
1134:
is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about
739:"WP:BALANCE" redirects here. For balance regarding the "In the news" section, see
227:
1799:
in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Knowledge (XXG)'s
672:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name
398:
382:
3046:
2201:
1812:
1649:
1327:
659:
1807:
with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The
338:
The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own
2085:
Criticism of Knowledge (XXG) § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
967:
page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.
909:
630:
concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give
627:
1180:
to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.
2124:—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
1319:
1251:
881:
622:" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the
1840:(V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with
383:
genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil
272:, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other
1637:
For answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section, see
1580:, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player."
1165:
to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that
376:
2406:
2172:—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
1788:
1456:
proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
357:
1749:
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
1439:
Knowledge (XXG):Writing better articles § Information style and tone
691:
its prevalence among Knowledge (XXG) editors or the general public.
1576:
Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with
2184:—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
1643:
1492:
623:
366:
Usually, articles will contain information about the significant
1033:
Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources
565:"Knowledge (XXG):UNDUE" redirects here. Not to be confused with
361:
127:
69:
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
2531:
2410:
1224:
and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as
104:
48:
1363:
Knowledge (XXG):Article titles § Neutrality in article titles
1188:"WP:RNPOV" redirects here. For neutrality of redirects, see
326:
Achieving what the Knowledge (XXG) community understands as
218:
3232:
652:
in proportion to their representation in reliable sources
2148:—message when the article's introduction is questionable
1549:
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with
977:
Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources § Some types of sources
1853:
1849:
1808:
1534:
1527:
1484:
1477:
1428:
1352:
1287:
1280:
1210:
1104:
1097:
1090:
1063:
994:
945:
853:
846:
839:
800:
793:
786:
779:
772:
730:
723:
595:
588:
581:
522:
498:
do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia
472:
465:
311:
304:
297:
130:. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
92:
2257:—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only
389:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
330:
means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of
2872:
Do not disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to illustrate a point
2136:—message that tags only a single section as disputed
1772:
I have some other objection—where should I complain?
3309:
3297:
3240:
3230:
3196:
3138:
3078:
3054:
3044:
3001:
2991:
2931:
2921:
2841:
2757:
2747:
2667:
2603:
2593:
614:significant viewpoints that have been published by
423:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
1190:Knowledge (XXG):Redirect § Neutrality of redirects
826:Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
2066:Knowledge (XXG) only reports what the sources say
1809:original NPOV policy statement on Knowledge (XXG)
626:does not directly mention modern support for the
433:to a particular view. For example, to state that
2710:Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
2196:—message when a sentence may or may not require
1664:. Before asking, please review the links below.
664:September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list
2160:—message when only one sentence is questionable
2026:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
1625:he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate
1545:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style § Point of view
1153:or pseudoscientific views should not give them
1142:the description of the mainstream views of the
872:
61:This page documents an English Knowledge (XXG)
30:For raising issues with specific articles, see
1860:by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.
1597:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Words to watch
1261:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Words to watch
2543:
2514:Other essays on Knowledge (XXG)'s principles
2422:
1464:Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations
1042:be used; it may well serve an article better
1019:of the article you are working on, or ask at
200:
8:
3298:
2036:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
1854:verifiability policy was established in 2003
1852:to address problematic uses of sources. The
1514:Attributing and specifying biased statements
372:attributed in the text to particular sources
38:. For frequent critiques and responses, see
3204:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
3306:
3237:
3090:
3051:
2998:
2928:
2754:
2600:
2550:
2536:
2528:
2446:
2429:
2415:
2407:
1811:was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001.
336:describe disputes, but not engage in them.
207:
193:
135:
73:follow. Changes made to it should reflect
34:. For advice on applying this policy, see
2216:—when in-text attribution should be added
1841:
1682:Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
1660:to make to the debate, you could try the
1639:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/FAQ
1154:
1118:
747:
698:, it may be appropriately included. See "
545:
430:
348:
322:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/FAQ
2245:—same as above but to tag a section only
539:
251:fundamental principle of Knowledge (XXG)
126:the sides, fairly and without editorial
2344:
2269:
1690:A simple formulation—what does it mean?
138:
1714:to represent the view I disagree with?
1674:"There's no such thing as objectivity"
533:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of Style/Layout
3429:Knowledge (XXG) neutral point of view
2359:from the original on 21 December 2012
1783:Knowledge (XXG):Core content policies
1003:In principle, all articles should be
7:
1633:Common objections and clarifications
1387:(and relevant guidelines such as on
610:articles and pages fairly represent
3363:List of all policies and guidelines
2071:Ye shall know them by their sources
1197:Knowledge (XXG):Myth versus fiction
1171:the Apollo Moon landings were faked
884:'s policy on science reporting 2011
3402:Summaries of values and principles
3243:
3081:
2844:
2670:
2016:Let the facts speak for themselves
1850:NOR policy was established in 2003
1255:, and (as in the prior paragraph)
1176:See Knowledge (XXG)'s established
1130:. Conversely, by its very nature,
1044:to exclude the material altogether
25:
1609:he paid for the sandwich", could
1077:Fringe theories and pseudoscience
3434:Knowledge (XXG) content policies
3312:
3057:
3004:
2934:
2887:Please do not bite the newcomers
2760:
2606:
2391:from the original on 7 July 2014
1737:Dealing with biased contributors
1128:scientific standards and methods
914:Apollo Moon landings were a hoax
395:Avoid stating facts as opinions.
108:
52:
1115:Knowledge (XXG):Fringe theories
1324:Creation–evolution controversy
810:related to one subject may be
416:Prefer nonjudgmental language.
1:
2897:Responding to threats of harm
2639:Biographies of living persons
2011:Don't "teach the controversy"
1298:Knowledge (XXG):Content forks
981:Knowledge (XXG):Academic bias
886:See updated report from 2014.
244:published by reliable sources
171:Biographies of living persons
2964:Criteria for speedy deletion
2833:Paid-contribution disclosure
2486:Synopsis of our conventions
2460:Statement of our principles
1925:List of controversial issues
1316:Evolution as fact and theory
1167:Pope John PaulI was murdered
932:Making necessary assumptions
226:All encyclopedic content on
18:Knowledge (XXG):ATTRIBUTEPOV
2634:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
2320:unbalanced-opinion template
1648:Knowledge (XXG) co-founder
1611:imply a lack of credibility
452:What to include and exclude
181:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
3450:
2438:Knowledge (XXG) principles
1780:
1745:Avoiding constant disputes
1636:
1594:
1542:
1517:
1467:
1436:
1418:
1360:
1342:
1295:
1270:
1238:Ultimate Frisbeetarianists
1200:
1194:
1187:
1112:
1080:
1053:
1030:
984:
974:
935:
829:
762:
738:
713:
571:
564:
530:
512:
455:
319:
287:
82:
29:
3357:
3093:
2569:
2444:
2006:Describing points of view
1920:Describing points of view
1699:Balancing different views
696:sources that are reliable
640:fringe theories guideline
606:Neutrality requires that
3424:Knowledge (XXG) policies
2221:Undue-weight templates:
2112:General NPOV templates:
2095:Journalistic objectivity
2051:Scientific point of view
1958:(historical Meta policy)
1952:(historical Meta policy)
1705:Writing for the opponent
1399:created as appropriate.
1178:pseudoscience guidelines
255:other Wikimedia projects
116:This page in a nutshell:
42:. For the template, see
3340:Licensing and copyright
2560:policies and guidelines
2308:formatting of criticism
1869:Policies and guidelines
1718:Morally offensive views
1564:Another approach is to
1447:disputes, but does not
1161:that are considered by
1136:pseudoscientific topics
230:must be written from a
2499:Common to all projects
1996:Controversial articles
1656:
1627:flattering expressions
1613:. Using this or other
1503:
1385:article titling policy
1334:How to write neutrally
1159:historical negationism
1119:§ Due and undue weight
1050:Controversial subjects
877:
503:normal editing process
443:disputes this analysis
274:policies or guidelines
223:
27:Knowledge (XXG) policy
3335:Friendly space policy
3125:Broad-concept article
2629:Neutral point of view
2021:Let the reader decide
1795:", it was drafted by
1647:
1543:Further information:
1496:
1195:Further information:
1163:more reliable sources
1113:Further information:
975:Further information:
561:Due and undue weight
531:Further information:
232:neutral point of view
222:
151:Neutral point of view
2902:Talk page guidelines
2862:Conflict of interest
2803:Ownership of content
2648:Copyright violations
2624:No original research
2558:Knowledge (XXG) key
2495:Wikimedia principles
2473:Historic principles
2240:Undue weight section
2046:Scientific consensus
1890:No original research
1875:Conflict of interest
1834:No original research
1760:Anglo-American focus
1654:WikiConference India
1652:talks about NPOV at
1621:; for example, "Jim
1615:expressions of doubt
1326:is a sub-article of
1318:is a sub-article of
1144:scientific community
1132:scientific consensus
916:, and similar ones.
700:No original research
567:Knowledge (XXG):UNDO
263:No original research
156:No original research
32:the NPOV noticeboard
2798:No personal attacks
2720:Don't create hoaxes
2252:Undue weight inline
2198:in-text attribution
1991:Conflicting sources
1801:"rules to consider"
1551:in-text attribution
1374:Teapot Dome scandal
1312:spinoff sub-article
1267:Point-of-view forks
926:speculative history
918:Conspiracy theories
897:extraordinary claim
818:that may be in the
746:Neutrality assigns
381:but may state that
342:, should strive in
3393:List of guidelines
3214:Template namespace
2892:Courtesy vanishing
2867:Disruptive editing
2813:Dispute resolution
2482:Simplified ruleset
2291:criticism template
2211:Attribution needed
2100:One-sided argument
2001:Criticism sections
1971:Be neutral in form
1657:
1557:and appropriately
1504:
1389:geographical names
1021:the reference desk
224:
122:sides, but should
118:Articles must not
3411:
3410:
3353:
3352:
3293:
3292:
3256:Project namespace
3226:
3225:
3222:
3221:
3163:Dates and numbers
3130:Understandability
3040:
3039:
2987:
2986:
2979:Revision deletion
2952:Proposed deletion
2917:
2916:
2882:Gaming the system
2857:Assume good faith
2743:
2742:
2525:
2524:
2520:
2519:
2469:Jimbo's statement
2316:cleanup templates
2287:pro-and-con lists
2090:Consensus reality
1986:Coatrack articles
1981:Civil POV pushing
1913:Information pages
1858:mailing-list post
1768:Not answered here
1149:Any inclusion of
1105:WP:FRINGESUBJECTS
971:Selecting sources
955:assumptions that
759:Balancing aspects
658:Paraphrased from
509:Article structure
379:is an evil action
217:
216:
134:
133:
103:
102:
36:the NPOV tutorial
16:(Redirected from
3441:
3388:
3387:
3378:List of policies
3373:
3372:
3330:List of policies
3317:
3316:
3315:
3307:
3303:
3300:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3238:
3234:
3231:Project content
3091:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3062:
3061:
3060:
3052:
3048:
3009:
3008:
3007:
2999:
2995:
2939:
2938:
2937:
2929:
2925:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2828:Child protection
2823:No legal threats
2793:Ignore all rules
2765:
2764:
2763:
2755:
2751:
2698:Reliable sources
2675:
2674:
2673:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2601:
2597:
2582:Ignore all rules
2564:
2552:
2545:
2538:
2529:
2447:
2431:
2424:
2417:
2408:
2401:
2400:
2398:
2396:
2390:
2383:
2375:
2369:
2368:
2366:
2364:
2355:. 20 July 2011.
2349:
2332:
2329:
2323:
2300:
2294:
2274:
2256:
2250:
2244:
2238:
2232:
2226:
2215:
2209:
2195:
2189:
2183:
2177:
2171:
2165:
2159:
2153:
2147:
2141:
2135:
2129:
2123:
2117:
1907:NPOV noticeboard
1754:Other objections
1662:policy talk page
1537:
1530:
1499:The Starry Night
1487:
1480:
1443:Knowledge (XXG)
1431:
1355:
1290:
1283:
1213:
1124:Pseudoscientific
1107:
1100:
1098:WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
1093:
1066:
997:
948:
887:
856:
849:
842:
803:
796:
789:
782:
775:
733:
726:
616:reliable sources
598:
591:
584:
525:
475:
468:
444:
437:Simon Wiesenthal
407:
400:
384:
380:
332:reliable sources
314:
307:
300:
278:editor consensus
209:
202:
195:
176:Image use policy
143:
141:Content policies
136:
112:
111:
105:
95:
56:
55:
49:
21:
3449:
3448:
3444:
3443:
3442:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3407:
3385:
3384:
3370:
3369:
3349:
3313:
3311:
3289:
3244:
3242:
3218:
3192:
3146:Manual of Style
3134:
3082:
3080:
3074:
3058:
3056:
3036:
3032:Page protection
3005:
3003:
2983:
2947:Deletion policy
2935:
2933:
2913:
2845:
2843:
2837:
2761:
2759:
2739:
2730:Patent nonsense
2725:Fringe theories
2671:
2669:
2663:
2607:
2605:
2589:
2565:
2556:
2526:
2521:
2516:
2503:
2501:(in Meta-Wiki)
2488:
2475:
2462:
2440:
2435:
2405:
2404:
2394:
2392:
2388:
2381:
2377:
2376:
2372:
2362:
2360:
2351:
2350:
2346:
2341:
2336:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2304:guide to layout
2301:
2297:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2254:
2248:
2242:
2236:
2230:
2224:
2213:
2207:
2193:
2191:Fact or opinion
2187:
2181:
2175:
2169:
2163:
2157:
2151:
2145:
2139:
2133:
2127:
2121:
2115:
2109:
2104:
2080:
2075:
1966:
1961:
1956:Understand bias
1915:
1903:
1880:Fringe theories
1871:
1866:
1846:fringe theories
1793:Non-bias policy
1785:
1779:
1756:
1733:
1731:Editor disputes
1701:
1670:
1642:
1635:
1599:
1593:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1535:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
1533:
1528:WP:SUBSTANTIATE
1526:
1522:
1516:
1491:
1490:
1483:
1476:
1472:
1466:
1441:
1435:
1434:
1427:
1423:
1417:
1378:Jack the Ripper
1370:Boston Massacre
1365:
1359:
1358:
1351:
1347:
1341:
1336:
1300:
1294:
1293:
1286:
1279:
1275:
1269:
1222:primary sources
1217:
1216:
1209:
1205:
1199:
1193:
1186:
1121:
1111:
1110:
1103:
1096:
1089:
1085:
1079:
1070:
1069:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1035:
1029:
1027:Bias in sources
1001:
1000:
993:
989:
983:
973:
952:
951:
944:
940:
934:
906:Knights Templar
889:
879:
860:
859:
854:WP:FALSEBALANCE
852:
845:
838:
834:
828:
807:
806:
799:
792:
785:
778:
771:
767:
761:
744:
737:
736:
729:
722:
718:
712:
602:
601:
594:
587:
580:
576:
570:
563:
535:
529:
528:
521:
517:
511:
479:
478:
473:WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
471:
464:
460:
454:
405:the sky is blue
399:the sky is blue
324:
318:
317:
310:
303:
296:
292:
286:
268:This policy is
242:that have been
228:Knowledge (XXG)
213:
139:
109:
99:
98:
91:
87:
79:
78:
53:
47:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
3447:
3445:
3437:
3436:
3431:
3426:
3416:
3415:
3409:
3408:
3406:
3405:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3381:
3358:
3355:
3354:
3351:
3350:
3348:
3347:
3345:Privacy policy
3342:
3337:
3332:
3327:
3321:
3319:
3304:
3295:
3294:
3291:
3290:
3288:
3287:
3282:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3252:
3250:
3235:
3228:
3227:
3224:
3223:
3220:
3219:
3217:
3216:
3211:
3209:Categorization
3206:
3200:
3198:
3197:Classification
3194:
3193:
3191:
3190:
3185:
3180:
3175:
3170:
3165:
3160:
3155:
3154:
3153:
3142:
3140:
3136:
3135:
3133:
3132:
3127:
3122:
3117:
3115:Disambiguation
3112:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3094:
3088:
3076:
3075:
3073:
3072:
3070:Editing policy
3066:
3064:
3049:
3042:
3041:
3038:
3037:
3035:
3034:
3029:
3024:
3019:
3017:Administrators
3013:
3011:
2996:
2989:
2988:
2985:
2984:
2982:
2981:
2976:
2971:
2966:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2949:
2943:
2941:
2926:
2919:
2918:
2915:
2914:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2909:
2899:
2894:
2889:
2884:
2879:
2874:
2869:
2864:
2859:
2853:
2851:
2839:
2838:
2836:
2835:
2830:
2825:
2820:
2815:
2810:
2805:
2800:
2795:
2790:
2785:
2780:
2775:
2769:
2767:
2752:
2745:
2744:
2741:
2740:
2738:
2737:
2735:External links
2732:
2727:
2722:
2717:
2712:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2695:
2693:Citing sources
2690:
2685:
2679:
2677:
2665:
2664:
2662:
2661:
2659:Article titles
2656:
2651:
2641:
2636:
2631:
2626:
2621:
2615:
2613:
2598:
2591:
2590:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2570:
2567:
2566:
2557:
2555:
2554:
2547:
2540:
2532:
2523:
2522:
2518:
2517:
2513:
2506:
2504:
2500:
2498:
2491:
2489:
2485:
2478:
2476:
2472:
2465:
2463:
2459:
2452:
2450:
2445:
2442:
2441:
2436:
2434:
2433:
2426:
2419:
2411:
2403:
2402:
2370:
2343:
2342:
2340:
2337:
2334:
2333:
2324:
2295:
2268:
2267:
2265:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2246:
2234:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2205:
2185:
2173:
2161:
2149:
2137:
2125:
2108:
2105:
2103:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2081:
2079:
2076:
2074:
2073:
2068:
2063:
2058:
2053:
2048:
2043:
2038:
2033:
2028:
2023:
2018:
2013:
2008:
2003:
1998:
1993:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1973:
1967:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1959:
1953:
1947:
1942:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1916:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1902:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1892:
1887:
1885:Words to watch
1882:
1877:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1817:2001 statement
1778:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1765:
1762:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1742:
1739:
1732:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1725:
1720:
1715:
1713:
1707:
1700:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1692:
1687:
1684:
1679:
1676:
1669:
1666:
1634:
1631:
1592:
1591:Words to watch
1589:
1539:
1538:
1531:
1523:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1489:
1488:
1481:
1473:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1433:
1432:
1424:
1419:
1416:
1415:Impartial tone
1413:
1357:
1356:
1348:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1335:
1332:
1292:
1291:
1284:
1276:
1271:
1268:
1265:
1246:fundamentalism
1215:
1214:
1206:
1201:
1185:
1182:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1094:
1086:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1068:
1067:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1028:
1025:
999:
998:
995:WP:BESTSOURCES
990:
985:
972:
969:
950:
949:
941:
936:
933:
930:
908:possessed the
885:
871:
870:
869:
858:
857:
850:
843:
835:
830:
827:
824:
805:
804:
801:WP:MAJORASPECT
797:
794:WP:MINORASPECT
790:
783:
776:
768:
763:
760:
757:
735:
734:
727:
719:
714:
711:
708:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
670:
600:
599:
592:
585:
577:
572:
562:
559:
527:
526:
518:
513:
510:
507:
494:
493:
477:
476:
469:
461:
456:
453:
450:
447:
446:
420:
413:
392:
386:
356:Avoid stating
340:points of view
316:
315:
308:
301:
293:
288:
285:
282:
270:non-negotiable
215:
214:
212:
211:
204:
197:
189:
186:
185:
184:
183:
178:
173:
168:
166:Article titles
163:
158:
153:
145:
144:
132:
131:
113:
101:
100:
97:
96:
88:
83:
80:
68:
67:
59:
57:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3446:
3435:
3432:
3430:
3427:
3425:
3422:
3421:
3419:
3404:
3403:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3389:
3382:
3380:
3379:
3374:
3367:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3360:
3359:
3356:
3346:
3343:
3341:
3338:
3336:
3333:
3331:
3328:
3326:
3323:
3322:
3320:
3318:
3308:
3305:
3296:
3286:
3283:
3281:
3278:
3274:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3266:
3262:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3254:
3253:
3251:
3249:
3239:
3236:
3229:
3215:
3212:
3210:
3207:
3205:
3202:
3201:
3199:
3195:
3189:
3186:
3184:
3181:
3179:
3176:
3174:
3171:
3169:
3166:
3164:
3161:
3159:
3158:Accessibility
3156:
3152:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3144:
3143:
3141:
3137:
3131:
3128:
3126:
3123:
3121:
3118:
3116:
3113:
3111:
3108:
3104:
3103:Summary style
3101:
3100:
3099:
3096:
3095:
3092:
3089:
3087:
3077:
3071:
3068:
3067:
3065:
3063:
3053:
3050:
3043:
3033:
3030:
3028:
3025:
3023:
3020:
3018:
3015:
3014:
3012:
3010:
3000:
2997:
2990:
2980:
2977:
2975:
2972:
2970:
2967:
2965:
2962:
2958:
2955:
2954:
2953:
2950:
2948:
2945:
2944:
2942:
2940:
2930:
2927:
2920:
2908:
2905:
2904:
2903:
2900:
2898:
2895:
2893:
2890:
2888:
2885:
2883:
2880:
2878:
2875:
2873:
2870:
2868:
2865:
2863:
2860:
2858:
2855:
2854:
2852:
2850:
2840:
2834:
2831:
2829:
2826:
2824:
2821:
2819:
2816:
2814:
2811:
2809:
2806:
2804:
2801:
2799:
2796:
2794:
2791:
2789:
2786:
2784:
2781:
2779:
2776:
2774:
2771:
2770:
2768:
2766:
2756:
2753:
2746:
2736:
2733:
2731:
2728:
2726:
2723:
2721:
2718:
2716:
2713:
2711:
2708:
2704:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2696:
2694:
2691:
2689:
2688:Autobiography
2686:
2684:
2681:
2680:
2678:
2676:
2666:
2660:
2657:
2655:
2652:
2649:
2645:
2642:
2640:
2637:
2635:
2632:
2630:
2627:
2625:
2622:
2620:
2619:Verifiability
2617:
2616:
2614:
2612:
2602:
2599:
2592:
2584:
2583:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2572:
2571:
2568:
2561:
2553:
2548:
2546:
2541:
2539:
2534:
2533:
2530:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2505:
2502:
2497:
2496:
2490:
2487:
2484:
2483:
2477:
2474:
2471:
2470:
2464:
2461:
2458:
2457:
2451:
2449:
2448:
2443:
2439:
2432:
2427:
2425:
2420:
2418:
2413:
2412:
2409:
2387:
2384:. July 2014.
2380:
2374:
2371:
2358:
2354:
2348:
2345:
2338:
2328:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2305:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2273:
2270:
2263:
2253:
2247:
2241:
2235:
2229:
2223:
2222:
2220:
2212:
2206:
2203:
2199:
2192:
2186:
2180:
2179:Political POV
2174:
2168:
2167:NPOV language
2162:
2156:
2155:POV statement
2150:
2144:
2138:
2132:
2126:
2120:
2114:
2113:
2111:
2110:
2106:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2086:
2083:
2082:
2077:
2072:
2069:
2067:
2064:
2062:
2059:
2057:
2056:Systemic bias
2054:
2052:
2049:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2039:
2037:
2034:
2032:
2031:NPOV tutorial
2029:
2027:
2024:
2022:
2019:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1989:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1976:Cherrypicking
1974:
1972:
1969:
1968:
1963:
1957:
1954:
1951:
1950:Positive tone
1948:
1946:
1943:
1941:
1938:
1936:
1933:
1931:
1928:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1918:
1917:
1912:
1908:
1905:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:Verifiability
1893:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1881:
1878:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1861:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1838:verifiability
1835:
1831:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1821:November 2003
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1784:
1776:
1771:
1769:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1757:
1753:
1748:
1746:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1723:
1721:
1719:
1716:
1711:
1708:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1691:
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1668:Being neutral
1667:
1665:
1663:
1655:
1651:
1646:
1640:
1632:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1605:, as in "Jim
1604:
1598:
1590:
1588:
1586:
1583:
1582:Which people?
1579:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1546:
1536:
1532:
1529:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1513:
1511:
1509:
1501:
1500:
1495:
1486:
1485:WP:SUBJECTIVE
1482:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1471:
1463:
1461:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1440:
1430:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1398:
1392:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1364:
1354:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1338:
1333:
1331:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1305:
1299:
1289:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1266:
1264:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1241:
1239:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1198:
1191:
1183:
1181:
1179:
1174:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1076:
1074:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1057:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1034:
1026:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
996:
992:
991:
988:
982:
978:
970:
968:
966:
960:
958:
947:
943:
942:
939:
931:
929:
927:
923:
922:pseudoscience
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:Earth is flat
898:
894:
893:fringe theory
888:
883:
876:
868:
867:
866:False balance
862:
861:
855:
851:
848:
844:
841:
837:
836:
833:
825:
823:
821:
817:
816:recent events
813:
802:
798:
795:
791:
788:
784:
781:
777:
774:
773:WP:PROPORTION
770:
769:
766:
758:
756:
753:
749:
742:
741:WP:ITNBALANCE
732:
728:
725:
721:
720:
717:
709:
707:
705:
704:Verifiability
701:
697:
692:
690:
680:
677:
676:
671:
668:
667:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
653:
647:
645:
641:
635:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
604:
597:
593:
590:
586:
583:
579:
578:
575:
568:
560:
558:
554:
550:
548:
547:
542:
541:
534:
524:
520:
519:
516:
508:
506:
504:
499:
492:
490:
489:NPOV examples
486:
485:NPOV tutorial
481:
480:
474:
470:
467:
463:
462:
459:
451:
449:
442:
438:
435:According to
432:
428:
424:
421:
417:
414:
411:
410:verifiability
406:
396:
393:
390:
387:
378:
373:
369:
365:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
350:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
323:
313:
309:
306:
302:
299:
295:
294:
291:
283:
281:
279:
275:
271:
266:
264:
260:
259:Verifiability
256:
252:
247:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
221:
210:
205:
203:
198:
196:
191:
190:
188:
187:
182:
179:
177:
174:
172:
169:
167:
164:
162:
161:Verifiability
159:
157:
154:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
142:
137:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
107:
106:
94:
90:
89:
86:
81:
76:
72:
66:
64:
58:
51:
50:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
3400:
3391:
3383:
3376:
3368:
3361:
3325:Terms of Use
3310:
3261:WikiProjects
3241:
3178:Lead section
3098:Article size
3079:
3055:
3002:
2992:Enforcement
2932:
2842:
2818:Sockpuppetry
2808:Edit warring
2758:
2668:
2628:
2604:
2580:
2575:Five pillars
2573:
2508:
2507:
2493:
2492:
2480:
2479:
2467:
2466:
2456:Five pillars
2454:
2453:
2393:. Retrieved
2373:
2361:. Retrieved
2347:
2327:
2312:edit warring
2298:
2272:
2228:Undue weight
1930:NPOV dispute
1901:Noticeboards
1842:undue weight
1832:
1805:was codified
1797:Larry Sanger
1786:
1658:
1622:
1619:loaded words
1606:
1602:
1600:
1584:
1581:
1578:weasel words
1575:
1570:substantiate
1569:
1565:
1563:
1548:
1505:
1497:
1478:WP:AESTHETIC
1458:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1442:
1429:WP:IMPARTIAL
1407:
1403:
1401:
1393:
1382:
1366:
1353:WP:POVNAMING
1309:
1303:
1301:
1256:
1250:
1244:
1242:
1237:
1234:
1218:
1175:
1155:undue weight
1148:
1122:
1071:
1039:
1036:
1002:
964:
961:
956:
953:
890:
878:
873:
863:
808:
751:
745:
693:
688:
686:
673:
651:
648:
636:
632:undue weight
631:
619:
611:
605:
603:
557:viewpoints.
555:
551:
546:undue weight
544:
538:
536:
523:WP:STRUCTURE
495:
482:
448:
441:David Irving
431:undue weight
422:
415:
394:
388:
355:
335:
327:
325:
305:WP:WIKIVOICE
269:
267:
248:
246:on a topic.
235:
231:
225:
150:
123:
119:
115:
60:
44:Template:POV
40:the NPOV FAQ
2969:Attack page
2957:Biographies
2279:thread mode
2202:Jimmy Wales
2131:POV section
1813:Jimmy Wales
1781:Main page:
1650:Jimmy Wales
1595:Main page:
1328:Creationism
1288:WP:NPOVVIEW
1281:WP:NPOVFACT
1013:independent
912:, that the
904:, that the
731:WP:BALANCED
660:Jimbo Wales
540:POV forking
496:Generally,
284:Explanation
3418:Categories
3273:User boxes
3268:User pages
2907:Signatures
2783:Harassment
2715:Plagiarism
2683:Notability
2510:Principles
2339:References
2318:, and the
2289:, and the
2041:Presentism
1836:(NOR) and
1829:March 2008
1825:April 2006
1555:verifiable
1453:even while
1437:See also:
1361:See also:
1296:See also:
1169:, or that
1031:See also:
910:Holy Grail
812:verifiable
724:WP:BALANCE
678:adherents;
628:flat Earth
466:WP:NPOVHOW
429:, or give
344:good faith
328:neutrality
320:See also:
249:NPOV is a
3280:Shortcuts
2974:Oversight
2922:Deletion
2877:Etiquette
2788:Vandalism
2778:Consensus
2654:Image use
2644:Copyright
2363:14 August
2283:criticism
2107:Templates
2061:Why NPOV?
1945:Recentism
1940:NPOV quiz
1520:Shortcuts
1470:Shortcuts
1445:describes
1397:redirects
1320:Evolution
1273:Shortcuts
1252:mythology
1232:sources.
1226:secondary
1140:obfuscate
1083:Shortcuts
1017:talk page
882:BBC Trust
832:Shortcuts
787:WP:ASPECT
780:WP:BALASP
765:Shortcuts
716:Shortcuts
675:prominent
608:mainspace
582:WP:WEIGHT
574:Shortcuts
458:Shortcuts
403:believes
298:WP:YESPOV
290:Shortcuts
276:, nor by
75:consensus
3285:Subpages
3151:Contents
3120:Hatnotes
3045:Editing
3027:Blocking
2773:Civility
2748:Conduct
2703:Medicine
2594:Content
2386:Archived
2357:Archived
2200:(e.g., "
2143:POV lead
2078:Articles
1935:NPOV FAQ
1864:See also
1791:titled "
1508:effusive
1421:Shortcut
1376:", and "
1345:Shortcut
1304:POV fork
1257:critical
1230:tertiary
1211:WP:RNPOV
1203:Shortcut
1184:Religion
1064:WP:SNPOV
1056:Shortcut
1009:reliable
987:Shortcut
938:Shortcut
847:WP:VALID
840:WP:GEVAL
644:NPOV FAQ
642:and the
620:see also
596:WP:UNDUE
515:Shortcut
483:See the
377:genocide
368:opinions
358:opinions
312:WP:VOICE
85:Shortcut
71:normally
3183:Linking
3110:Be bold
3022:Banning
1803:. This
1789:Nupedia
1777:History
1607:claimed
1566:specify
1408:against
1091:WP:PSCI
957:someone
710:Balance
702:" and "
634:to it.
261:" and "
253:and of
124:explain
93:WP:NPOV
3173:Layout
3168:Images
2395:7 July
2204:says")
1964:Essays
1848:. The
1449:engage
1339:Naming
1322:, and
1151:fringe
979:, and
946:WP:MNA
748:weight
589:WP:DUE
427:parity
349:weight
63:policy
3188:Lists
3139:Style
2389:(PDF)
2382:(PDF)
2264:Notes
1603:claim
1559:cited
1005:based
965:other
895:, or
864:See:
624:Earth
362:facts
240:views
2397:2014
2365:2011
1844:and
1724:them
1623:said
1391:).
1372:", "
1228:and
1117:and
1040:must
820:news
543:and
487:and
401:not
236:NPOV
128:bias
120:take
3302:(?)
3299:WMF
3233:(?)
3047:(?)
2994:(?)
2924:(?)
2750:(?)
2596:(?)
2563:(?)
2119:POV
1712:lie
1585:How
1568:or
1406:or
1404:for
1007:on
752:and
706:".
689:not
612:all
360:as
3420::
3390::
3375::
2314:,
2310:,
2306:,
2285:,
2281:,
2255:}}
2249:{{
2243:}}
2237:{{
2231:}}
2225:{{
2214:}}
2208:{{
2194:}}
2188:{{
2182:}}
2176:{{
2170:}}
2164:{{
2158:}}
2152:{{
2146:}}
2140:{{
2134:}}
2128:{{
2122:}}
2116:{{
1827:,
1823:,
1819:,
1561:.
1302:A
1263:.
1249:,
1173:.
1146:.
1046:.
1023:.
1011:,
924:,
920:,
822:.
666::
662:'
646:.
280:.
3386:G
3371:P
3314:P
3245:G
3083:G
3059:P
3006:P
2936:P
2846:G
2762:P
2672:G
2650:)
2646:(
2608:P
2551:e
2544:t
2537:v
2430:e
2423:t
2416:v
2399:.
2367:.
2322:.
2293:.
1726:?
1641:.
1192:.
880:—
743:.
569:.
491:.
385:.
364:.
234:(
208:e
201:t
194:v
77:.
65:.
46:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
