598:
508:
21:
568:
to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution. If you believe that material or a particular
232:
By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register their concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war. Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute. This might be a good thing,
356:
Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POVs can be shared and ultimately the disputed fact or point can be fixed if it is incorrect or, when dealing with a controversial issue, various legitimate sources can be cited
255:
over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is an NPOV dispute or not. The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern. The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors
478:
The term "POV-pushing" is primarily used in regard to the presentation of a particular point of view in an article, including on talk page discussions. Editing a POV in an article that corresponds with one's own personal beliefs is not necessarily POV-pushing. If you suspect that POV-pushing is
215:
Most probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one
247:
mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because they feel the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved.
563:
Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which there is no relevant discussion underway, you need
208:
neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something
360:
Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on
Knowledge can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions.
178:, where there is often an abundance of viewpoints and criticisms of the subject. In a neutral representation, the differing points of view are presented as differing points of view, not as widely accepted facts.
220:
had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect
344:
policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section titled "NPOV dispute ". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly
573:, reliable sources that contain this missing material or point of view. In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time.
268:
The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is
694:
295:
disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
348:
which part of the article does not seem to have an NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.
197:" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.
240:
is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.
120:. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. Also avoid
644:
Use this when the bulk of an article is okay, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what is wrong with the section on the talk page.
182:
325:
A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
724:
260:. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.
94:
699:
284:
policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.
309:
While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
665:
400:
29:
744:
117:
704:
686:
175:
749:
739:
413:
162:
by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by
87:; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to
714:
158:
NPOV stands for
Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Knowledge's
174:
all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of
631:
550:
41:
719:
313:
287:
Neutrality here at
Knowledge is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter
256:
whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate
653:
607:
517:
341:
312:
Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see
281:
280:
a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the
153:
105:
88:
33:
40:
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of
113:
570:
45:
709:
681:
676:
659:
291:
how convinced we are that our "facts" are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties
263:
455:
351:
335:
671:
163:
100:
479:
happening (it is not always obvious), follow the steps listed in the above section (NPOV resolution).
406:
97:
is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to
128:
394:
109:
467:
presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the
252:
298:
There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
319:
The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
121:
340:
If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with
Knowledge's
582:
441:
622:
532:
188:
8:
63:
451:
433:
382:
55:
618:
528:
482:
472:
138:
468:
194:
378:
364:
Additionally, there are several steps one can take to resolve an NPOV dispute:
159:
733:
388:
374:
369:
303:
217:
492:
420:
257:
569:
viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published,
322:
The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
200:
Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page
302:
The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see
167:
147:
487:
To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert
79:
Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an
427:
419:
Other options available to resolve such situations explained at
647:
409:(if the article features information about living people)
377:
point out the perceived problem either on the article's
236:
Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an
695:
How to put up a straight pole by pushing it at an angle
331:
Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.
183:
Category:All
Knowledge neutral point of view disputes
589:at the top of a section in the article to display:
416:(if the article covers or features fringe theories)
328:
The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
233:though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.
725:Category:Knowledge neutral point of view disputes
690:(the phrase doesn't mean what you think it means)
731:
76:Explanatory essay about WP:Neutral point of view
99:specific issues that are actionable within the
211:that other people would want to disagree with.
463:is a term used on Knowledge to describe the
185:for a list of articles in an NPOV dispute.
124:– using multiple redundant templates (e.g.
621:. Please do not remove this message until
531:. Please do not remove this message until
632:Learn how and when to remove this message
551:Learn how and when to remove this message
407:Biographies of Living persons noticeboard
314:Knowledge:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance
617:Relevant discussion may be found on the
527:Relevant discussion may be found on the
276:The other party either denies that "X"
118:Knowledge:Biographies of living persons
732:
499:at the top of the article to display:
591:
501:
15:
700:Ye shall know them by their sources
13:
46:thoroughly vetted by the community
42:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
761:
666:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
596:
506:
264:How can one disagree about NPOV?
204:in an NPOV dispute, it probably
19:
745:Knowledge neutral point of view
352:How can neutrality be achieved?
336:How to initiate an NPOV debate?
154:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
106:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
89:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
114:Knowledge:No original research
1:
750:Knowledge dispute resolution
740:Knowledge supplemental pages
705:List of controversial issues
160:neutral point of view policy
7:
687:Don't teach the controversy
623:conditions to do so are met
533:conditions to do so are met
414:fringe theories noticeboard
10:
766:
715:Tagging pages for problems
668:(dispute-resolution venue)
449:
431:
151:
144:) – for the same problem.
53:
471:presentation of minor or
272:the article is therefore
243:An NPOV dispute tag does
193:Often, authors can view "
189:What is an NPOV dispute?
34:WP:Neutral point of view
110:Knowledge:Verifiability
720:WikiProject Neutrality
483:Adding a tag to a page
251:Sometimes people have
654:Neutral point of view
282:Neutral Point of View
85:neutral point of view
456:WP:Civil POV pushing
176:controversial issues
610:of this section is
520:of this article is
389:request for comment
368:Please remember to
44:as it has not been
710:Resolving disputes
682:Disputed statement
677:Be neutral in form
660:Disruptive editing
452:Knowledge:Advocacy
421:dispute resolution
387:Consider filing a
258:dispute resolution
691:
642:
641:
634:
561:
560:
553:
412:File a report at
405:File a report at
399:File a report at
370:assume good faith
83:(NPOV stands for
74:
73:
30:explanatory essay
757:
689:
672:Accuracy dispute
637:
630:
626:
600:
599:
592:
587:
581:
556:
549:
545:
542:
536:
510:
509:
502:
497:
491:
444:
401:NPOV noticeboard
383:user's talk page
357:in the article.
164:reliable sources
143:
137:
133:
127:
101:content policies
95:Drive-by tagging
66:
23:
22:
16:
765:
764:
760:
759:
758:
756:
755:
754:
730:
729:
650:
638:
627:
616:
601:
597:
585:
579:
557:
546:
540:
537:
526:
511:
507:
495:
489:
485:
458:
448:
447:
440:
436:
430:
354:
338:
266:
191:
156:
150:
141:
135:
131:
129:Citation needed
125:
77:
70:
69:
62:
58:
50:
49:
20:
12:
11:
5:
763:
753:
752:
747:
742:
728:
727:
722:
717:
712:
707:
702:
697:
692:
684:
679:
674:
669:
663:
657:
649:
646:
640:
639:
604:
602:
595:
575:
559:
558:
541:September 2022
514:
512:
505:
484:
481:
446:
445:
437:
432:
429:
426:
425:
424:
417:
410:
403:
397:
391:
385:
372:
353:
350:
337:
334:
333:
332:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
310:
307:
265:
262:
190:
187:
149:
146:
75:
72:
71:
68:
67:
59:
54:
51:
39:
38:
26:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
762:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
737:
735:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
698:
696:
693:
688:
685:
683:
680:
678:
675:
673:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
651:
645:
636:
633:
624:
620:
614:
613:
609:
603:
594:
593:
590:
588:
584:
574:
572:
567:
555:
552:
544:
534:
530:
524:
523:
519:
513:
504:
503:
500:
498:
494:
480:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
443:
439:
438:
435:
422:
418:
415:
411:
408:
404:
402:
398:
396:
395:third opinion
392:
390:
386:
384:
380:
376:
373:
371:
367:
366:
365:
362:
358:
349:
347:
343:
330:
327:
324:
321:
318:
315:
311:
308:
305:
304:Knowledge:POV
301:
300:
299:
296:
294:
290:
285:
283:
279:
275:
271:
261:
259:
254:
249:
246:
241:
239:
234:
230:
228:
224:
219:
213:
212:
207:
203:
198:
196:
186:
184:
179:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
155:
148:What is NPOV?
145:
140:
130:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
102:
96:
92:
90:
86:
82:
65:
61:
60:
57:
52:
47:
43:
36:
35:
31:
25:
18:
17:
643:
628:
611:
606:
578:
576:
565:
562:
547:
538:
521:
516:
488:
486:
477:
473:fringe ideas
464:
460:
459:
363:
359:
355:
345:
339:
297:
292:
288:
286:
277:
273:
269:
267:
250:
244:
242:
238:NPOV dispute
237:
235:
231:
226:
222:
214:
210:
205:
201:
199:
192:
180:
171:
157:
122:over-tagging
98:
93:
84:
81:NPOV dispute
80:
78:
27:
662:(guideline)
583:POV-section
571:independent
461:POV-pushing
428:POV pushing
152:Main page:
28:This is an
734:Categories
608:neutrality
518:neutrality
465:aggressive
450:See also:
442:WP:POVPUSH
619:talk page
529:talk page
379:talk page
293:really do
253:edit wars
223:their own
104:, namely
656:(policy)
648:See also
612:disputed
577:Or, add
566:at least
522:disputed
434:Shortcut
375:Politely
274:neutral.
270:factual,
64:WP:NPOVD
56:Shortcut
381:or the
346:explain
139:Dubious
393:Get a
289:at all
227:enough
206:is not
32:about
469:undue
225:bias
195:their
605:The
515:The
454:and
342:NPOV
181:See
168:N.B.
134:and
116:and
493:POV
245:not
229:.
218:POV
172:not
170::
91:.
736::
586:}}
580:{{
496:}}
490:{{
475:.
316:).
278:is
202:is
142:}}
136:{{
132:}}
126:{{
112:,
108:,
37:.
635:)
629:(
625:.
615:.
554:)
548:(
543:)
539:(
535:.
525:.
423:.
306:)
166:(
48:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.