610:
additional information that strengthens their previously held beliefs. If you are not an expert in a subject yourself, your intuition that an article is biased may not be reliable. Keep an open mind and ask others about the evidence. Keep in mind that certain ideas, while not able to be proved using our current scientific knowledge may indeed be proven using more advanced techniques available to us in the future. Past scientific advances, such as sailing around the world, developing airplanes, and launching rockets, were often doubted by many people before they occurred and eyewitness accounts were disseminated. Some of these doubters were also experts in the scientific and/or religious community.
719:
terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself. For example, in
Germany the Nazi symbol is banned, people of Hindu religion might find it offensive as it is an important religious symbol for them. It might be explained that the two symbols may look alike but are not symbolizing Hinduism but rather fascism with a different history.
21:
113:
This includes not only evidence for your view but evidence for how many others hold it and who they are. Information like this enables writers and participants in discussion to come to practical decisions. These include whether one view deserves to go first, whether two deserve equal billing, whether views belong in different articles and, if so, what titles the articles should have.
278:. The government of Israel considers it to be that nation's capital, but many other governments do not, and have gone so far as to place their embassies elsewhere. Disagreement about what city is the capital of Israel caused heated arguments on Knowledge. But the facts as stated above were ones that all could agree on. The solution?
718:
Some
Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own
309:
This is a better description of the facts, as simply sharing a bed with a child is not what the words "child abuse" convey to most people, even if they might agree that to do so is improper. But if "child abuse" hits the airwaves and becomes news, it should not be omitted. The solution, as with other
423:
created by (in this context, probably the
Christian) God; "claimed" and "suggested" would strongly imply that it wasn't. In choosing words, imagine how a sentence will sound for someone with an opposing POV. In this particular sentence the religion of the quoted person may be used as a neutral fact.
698:
Realize you may have a bias you're not aware of, that you might have learned something wrong or that you might be misremembering it. Consider that even when an article has struck everyone who has read it so far as neutral, others arriving with a different bias may still have a good reason to change
641:
One common problem with politics is the natural tendency of considering the major political opinions of one's country as "normal", while considering those held in other countries as "abnormal", silly, or misguided. Thus, for instance, an article written from an
American point of view may judge that
313:
In cases where legal proceedings are ongoing, be particularly careful. Reporting on what has been said is acceptable, but inevitably during a court case some strong statements will be made one way or the other, and could be misleading if taken out of context. Try to get a balancing statement, as is
112:
The first element in negotiating issues of bias with others is to recognize you have a point of view, and to pin-point where it comes from. "It's what everybody I know believes," is a start. But in co-writing with someone who believes differently, it's often important to have some evidence at hand.
558:
On many scientific, technical or social problems, different points of view may be held by different experts. Knowledge should report all major points of view; however, it should do so in proportion to the credibility of the experts holding the various theses. One must also consider whether a given
637:
We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be
153:
isn't covered by any senses of the word provided in the dictionary. Neither are the views of the original
Liberals, who opposed the clergy and mercantilism. But in an encyclopedia, ideas that a lot of people believe or once believed deserve not only mention but respectful treatment. Many of these
145:
In fact, many words have multiple meanings, and it's not just that one person sometimes uses "liberal" to refer to a political movement and sometimes to refer to generous use of an ingredient in a recipe. Sometimes it means that different people mean different things when they say the same word.
310:
controversial claims, is to put the accusation in quotes and identify who said it. The wording is particularly sensitive here, so be aware that many accusations are neither wholly true nor entirely baseless. Accusers may have evidence of an offense, but choose hyperbolic words in naming it.
609:
does not determine its importance. Sometimes popular ideas are held by people who have not had the opportunity to fully investigate why they believe as they do. After conducting a more thorough investigation, they might undergo a paradigm shift and change their views, or they might discover
161:
At the same time, the fact that you disagree with the way a word is used or defined does not automatically imply that there is a POV problem. You must also ensure that your assertions about alternative uses are both significant and verifiable, using appropriate attribution and citation.
195:
the sentence attributes to "most
Australians" the claim that the Beatles are the best rock music group ever. But be careful with the exact wording of statistical claims; the Beatles may have topped the survey with less than 50% of the votes, making "most Australians" misleading.
100:? Some have said that this political stance means that the government should actively intervene to ensure fairness, while others have stated the opposite, that being liberal means seeking to maximize individual opportunity and minimize government. Can a sensible article on
368:
To mention the minister's left-handedness in this context is to imply that it is relevant. As a result, this juxtaposition of otherwise neutral statements has the effect of fostering prejudice, in particular the prejudice that all left-handers are wimps (i.e. also
570:
Coverage should also be roughly in proportion to the number of experts holding each view. Views held by a significant minority should be included, but should not be given as extensive coverage as majority views. To do so would overstate the extent of controversy.
328:, it is important to include this challenge alongside the accusation, and to cover all sides of any debate in order to ensure the article remains neutral. The challenge should be attributed to the source. Give the facts to the reader to decide for themselves:
319:"Y stated that he once saw X with his hand resting on the pants of the boy when the two were playing video games... However, the boy denounced the molestation allegations as 'absolutely ridiculous' and said that nothing inappropriate has happened."
889:. When all NPOV-related issues detailed on the talk page have been handled, the template should be removed from the article or category page. In most cases, however, the least cumbersome way of handling NPOV concerns would be to
472:
A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with
428:; there are other places on the Internet to debate a given subject (and it might be appropriate to link to them from the article). Neutral ways of expressing a statement, such as "said," "wrote," "stated," are the safest.
95:
Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held. For example, what does it mean to be
533:
Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in
Knowledge terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).
679:: every main section of the article is reduced in size, keeping to the "space and balance" principle as explained above, and an equal number of sub-pages is created using a technique as explained in
837:- while, however one turns it, this is not one of the 4 or 5 essential characteristics of this person, a "state terrorists" category will not be found at the bottom of the article of this person.
263:
Very few scientists believe Pons' and
Fleischmann's report was accurate, let alone responsible. However, " shocked the world " is probably more dramatic, and less accurate, than " shocked the
650:. Writers should thus combat this natural tendency of considering the point of view of one's groups as the "majority" and "natural" point of view, and giving to it more space and more focus.
710:. Just never forget to give discussion an honest try. Once they are given a little courtesy and respect, you might be surprised how many Wikipedians turn out to be not so biased after all.
218:, because they can make claims look less obscure or less controversial than they are. When a statement requires supporting documentation, be specific in citing the basis for your claim.
808:
more categories to the bottom of the article, and that would also end up making the list of categories at the bottom of an article nearly as long as the body of the article itself. (See
299:
Attribution and citation are especially important for claims against a person. Consider the accusation "X is a child abuser". A good way to handle such a situation might be like this:
419:
All have different connotations, which could introduce bias, depending on context. Here, "noted", "pointed out", and "explained" would be begging the question, saying that the Earth
574:
One measure of a view's importance is the credibility of the experts who hold that view. What makes an expert credible? Factors some people use to define credibility may include:
646:
solutions is misguided, or express this point of view in oblique ways; the same could be true of an article written from a
European point of view on justice and firearms in the
668:), a split is recommended. Such split can be performed in a biased way, for example by putting everything you don't like in a new article and then giving that article an un-
906:
363:
The minister has been accused of lacking backbone and of being unwilling to use the armed forces to defend our rights. He acknowledged last month that he is left-handed.
207:
they can look to verify that the attribution is accurate. The underlined section above represents the citation (which can be, for instance, the name of and/or link to a
136:
was coined by political philosophers. Political philosophers are the experts on liberalism, and none of them alive today believes that liberalism is the same thing as
823:
try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."
284:
When a fact is not common knowledge, or when the information being related is a subjective assessment, like the result of a particular poll, the information should be
706:, not with the people who wrote it. Compromise, don't attack. For users you can't reason with and who seem determined to violate NPOV policy, enlist the help of the
659:
578:
The reputation of the expert, the reputation of the tradition within which they work, the reputation of the group or institution for which the expert works
258:
of the
University of Utah shocked the world by reporting they had discovered a means to tap energy from nuclear fusion at near to room temperatures."
691:
More important than being able to write neutrally without thinking about it is being willing and knowing how to work with others toward that goal.
508:
Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (
618:
On certain topics, there is naturally less "expertise" and scientific thinking, and more "opinion". This is especially the case of topics such as
546:
to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized
453:. Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that they know well. The remedy is to add to the article — not to subtract from it.
29:
876:
789:
766:
669:
530:
Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible.
927:
771:
445:
An article can be written in neutral language and yet omit important points of view. Such an article should be considered an NPOV
334:
While Joe Blow of the Foo Daily News suggested a financial motive for the accusation, the mother's lawyer has denied this claim."
613:
916:
695:
in editing pages that are biased, be bold in asking for help, and do not be alarmed when others edit what you have written.
107:
861:
815:
The key recommendation for addressing such POV/NPOV issues for people (while indeed, people articles appear to be the most
127:
A common basis for prolonged NPOV disputes is the belief that one group "owns" a word and has sole authority to define it:
867:
Other standard templates that may help in addressing NPOV-related issues regarding articles can, for example, be found in
868:
464:. The amount of space they deserve depends on their importance and how many interesting things can be said about them.
150:
376:
922:
41:
707:
536:
Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.
516:
122:
37:
358:
may feel weak, it is a powerful tool and abuse of it is a common way of introducing bias. Consider the example:
581:
The venues in which the expert propounds their views (e.g., peer-reviewed academic journals as compared with
911:
852:
846:
809:
728:
215:
467:
857:
505:
Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views.
325:
208:
942:
761:
676:
460:
to attract and keep the attention of readers. For an entry in an encyclopedia, ideas also need to be
425:
800:
783:
433:
381:
It's possible to introduce your own bias even while attributing. Take this sentence as an example:
225:
155:
680:
496:
Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
474:
230:
665:
373:). Insinuations of this sort are guaranteed to prompt complaints. Do not use or tolerate them.
885:
generally suppose that the suspected NPOV problem is explained on the article's or category's
559:
expert's point of view belongs not in the article at hand, but in a different article (e.g.,
525:
Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance
457:
686:
332:"The boy's mother accused X of sharing his bed with the boy, and called this 'child abuse'.
304:"The boy's mother accused X of sharing his bed with the boy, and called this 'child abuse'."
461:
757:
The essential guidelines for making article names the most NPOV possible are included in:
165:
8:
816:
63:
45:
255:
87:
55:
840:
692:
592:
Whether the expert uses the common methods of the field or completely different ones
793:
741:
214:
Make only careful use of generic attributions ("Critics say..."). These are called
860:
that might come in handy when dealing with such issues are most of them listed at
833:
399:
This is a neutral statement as it stands. But what if "said" were replaced with:
828:
137:
83:
553:
936:
894:
827:
So, as an example, there is no doubt a "significant minority" would consider
647:
643:
586:
582:
653:
440:
251:
595:
Whether the expert's disciplinary specialization matches the topic at hand
245:
are closer to being objectively true. One such neutral assertion is this:
236:
851:
Handling NPOV disputes has no separate ruleset from what is described in
564:
184:
713:
737:
on the article name in the article title itself, for example there is:
660:
Knowledge:Content forking § Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles
450:
101:
777:
116:
598:
Whether the expert has responded to criticisms or has failed to do so
560:
275:
753:
Alfred the Great according to most people, but not according to some
722:
519:", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.
104:
acknowledge such beliefs? Yes, and this tutorial will tell you how.
631:
623:
509:
456:
Different views don't all deserve equal space. Articles need to be
149:
The fact that a right-wing Russian nationalist party is called the
893:
the article or the category description, so that it is no longer
97:
79:
699:
it. Often even a neutral article can be made even more neutral.
481:. A Knowledge article must comply with all three policies (i.e.
349:
294:
748:
There is no way of making that more NPOV by naming the article:
619:
733:
For an article name it is not usually possible to include all
542:
Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are
627:
601:
Whether the expert has reputable supporters of their claims
900:
391:
390:
that the Earth and its living creatures were created by
675:The NPOV way of splitting articles is explained in
919:(that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means)
501:Biased or selective representation of sources, eg:
934:
875:all available standard templates are listed at
267:" would have been. It can be difficult to find
877:Knowledge:Template messages/Category namespace
881:Note that the templates that can be used for
548:as if by its proponents to their best ability
314:done for example in reporting this exchange:
819:to POV/NPOV categorisation disputes):is to :
790:Knowledge:Categorizing articles about people
154:problems can be solved through what we call
767:Knowledge:Naming conventions (common names)
274:As a political example, take the status of
108:First: Negotiating neutrality with others
928:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/Examples
772:Knowledge:Naming conventions (precision)
432:For more on terms to watch out for, see
178:stands behind a claim. In this example:
804:NPOV cannot necessarily be achieved by
36:It explains concepts or processes used
935:
664:When an article becomes too long (see
377:Bias in attribution: Mind your nuances
917:Knowledge:Don't teach the controversy
324:Where accusations are contested in a
862:Knowledge:Template messages/Disputes
44:, and may reflect varying levels of
15:
869:Knowledge:Template messages/Cleanup
187:are the best rock music group ever
13:
702:Regard bias as a problem with the
672:, so obfuscating its whereabouts.
614:Moral and political points of view
345:"Of course, she's probably lying."
151:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
42:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
14:
954:
923:Knowledge:Information suppression
183:"According to most Australians,
19:
449:, not an irredeemable piece of
123:Knowledge:Ownership of articles
493:) to be considered compliant.
426:Knowledge isn't a battleground
1:
912:Knowledge:Be neutral in form
853:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
847:Knowledge:Dispute resolution
810:Knowledge:Overcategorization
729:Knowledge:Naming conventions
544:necessary but not sufficient
7:
10:
959:
844:
787:
781:
726:
657:
642:the European fondness for
515:Not allowing one view to "
120:
53:
762:Knowledge:Naming conflict
687:The most important lesson
677:Knowledge:Content forking
784:Knowledge:Categorization
434:Knowledge:Words to avoid
226:Knowledge:Citing sources
211:containing these data).
166:Attribution and citation
681:Knowledge:Summary style
475:Knowledge:Verifiability
468:Information suppression
231:Knowledge:Verifiability
86:, which is an official
841:Handling NPOV disputes
825:
666:Knowledge:Article size
241:Assertions written in
821:
605:An idea's popularity
209:reputable publication
84:neutral point of view
38:the neutrality policy
491:No original research
265:scientific community
28:This help page is a
708:Knowledge mediators
280:Stick to the facts.
271:objective wording.
256:Martin Fleischmann
858:Template messages
654:Article splitting
441:Space and balance
354:While hinting or
74:
73:
40:It is not one of
950:
943:Knowledge how-to
742:Alfred the Great
517:speak for itself
447:work in progress
371:lacking backbone
343:neutral to say:
243:neutral language
237:Neutral language
66:
23:
22:
16:
958:
957:
953:
952:
951:
949:
948:
947:
933:
932:
903:
849:
843:
834:state terrorist
796:
786:
780:
731:
725:
716:
714:Things to avoid
689:
662:
656:
616:
556:
470:
443:
379:
352:
326:reliable source
297:
250:"In 1989, Drs.
239:
168:
125:
119:
110:
70:
69:
62:
58:
50:
49:
20:
12:
11:
5:
956:
946:
945:
931:
930:
925:
920:
914:
909:
902:
899:
842:
839:
829:Menachem Begin
801:categorization
779:
778:Categorization
776:
775:
774:
769:
764:
755:
754:
750:
749:
745:
744:
724:
721:
715:
712:
688:
685:
655:
652:
615:
612:
603:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:self-published
583:opinion pieces
579:
555:
552:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
531:
522:
521:
520:
513:
506:
469:
466:
442:
439:
417:
416:
413:
410:
407:
404:
397:
396:
378:
375:
366:
365:
351:
348:
337:
336:
322:
321:
307:
306:
296:
293:
261:
260:
238:
235:
234:
233:
228:
203:tells readers
193:
192:
167:
164:
156:disambiguation
143:
142:
138:libertarianism
118:
117:Word ownership
115:
109:
106:
93:
92:
72:
71:
68:
67:
59:
54:
51:
35:
34:
26:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
955:
944:
941:
940:
938:
929:
926:
924:
921:
918:
915:
913:
910:
908:
905:
904:
898:
896:
892:
888:
884:
883:NPOV concerns
879:
878:
874:
870:
865:
863:
859:
855:
854:
848:
838:
836:
835:
830:
824:
820:
818:
813:
811:
807:
803:
802:
795:
791:
785:
773:
770:
768:
765:
763:
760:
759:
758:
752:
751:
747:
746:
743:
740:
739:
738:
736:
730:
723:Article names
720:
711:
709:
705:
700:
696:
694:
684:
682:
678:
673:
671:
667:
661:
651:
649:
648:United States
645:
644:welfare state
639:
635:
633:
630:, as well as
629:
625:
621:
611:
608:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
584:
580:
577:
576:
575:
572:
568:
566:
562:
551:
549:
545:
535:
532:
529:
528:
526:
523:
518:
514:
511:
507:
504:
503:
502:
499:
498:
497:
494:
492:
488:
484:
483:Verifiability
480:
477:but violates
476:
465:
463:
459:
454:
452:
448:
438:
437:
435:
429:
427:
422:
414:
411:
408:
405:
402:
401:
400:
395:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
374:
372:
364:
361:
360:
359:
357:
347:
346:
342:
335:
331:
330:
329:
327:
320:
317:
316:
315:
311:
305:
302:
301:
300:
292:
291:
287:
282:
281:
277:
272:
270:
266:
259:
257:
253:
248:
247:
246:
244:
232:
229:
227:
224:
223:
222:
219:
217:
212:
210:
206:
202:
197:
191:
189:
186:
181:
180:
179:
177:
173:
163:
159:
157:
152:
147:
141:
139:
133:
130:
129:
128:
124:
114:
105:
103:
99:
91:
90:of Knowledge.
89:
85:
81:
76:
75:
65:
61:
60:
57:
52:
47:
43:
39:
33:
31:
25:
18:
17:
890:
886:
882:
880:
872:
866:
856:
850:
832:
826:
822:
814:
805:
799:
797:
756:
734:
732:
717:
703:
701:
697:
690:
674:
663:
640:
636:
617:
606:
604:
573:
569:
557:
547:
543:
541:
524:
500:
495:
490:
486:
482:
478:
471:
455:
446:
444:
431:
430:
420:
418:
398:
387:
386:"Duane Gish
385:
380:
370:
367:
362:
355:
353:
344:
340:
338:
333:
323:
318:
312:
308:
303:
298:
289:
285:
283:
279:
273:
268:
264:
262:
252:Stanley Pons
249:
242:
240:
220:
216:weasel words
213:
204:
200:
198:
194:
188:
182:
175:
171:
169:
160:
148:
144:
135:
131:
126:
111:
94:
77:
30:how-to guide
27:
845:Main page:
782:Main page:
727:Main page:
670:common name
658:Main page:
626:, based on
565:creationism
458:interesting
409:Pointed out
356:insinuating
350:Insinuation
295:Accusations
185:The Beatles
172:attribution
121:Main page:
78:NPOV is an
873:categories
788:See also:
451:propaganda
424:Remember,
286:attributed
174:specifies
134:liberalism
132:"The word
102:liberalism
907:NPOV quiz
887:talk page
817:sensitive
794:WP:BLPCAT
561:evolution
554:Expertise
512:tactics).
462:important
415:Suggested
406:Explained
276:Jerusalem
46:consensus
937:Category
901:See also
638:stated.
632:politics
624:religion
589:outlets)
510:strawman
201:citation
64:WP:NPOVT
56:Shortcut
891:improve
704:article
693:Be bold
412:Claimed
98:liberal
80:acronym
871:. For
806:adding
620:morals
489:, and
339:It is
290:cited.
221:See:
88:policy
735:views
628:faith
607:alone
403:Noted
269:truly
205:where
798:For
792:and
563:vs.
487:NPOV
479:NPOV
388:said
288:and
254:and
82:for
895:POV
812:.)
622:or
585:or
421:was
392:God
341:not
176:who
170:An
939::
897:.
864:.
831:a
683:.
634:.
567:)
550:.
527::
485:,
394:."
199:A
158:.
140:."
436:.
190:"
48:.
32:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.