1499:. 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.
627:
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
1483:
1634:
209:
1248:. Knowledge 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
1004:, 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
917:, 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.
43:
99:
607:, 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 "
1369:" 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.
864:
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.
1027:
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
1542:. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Knowledge 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
542:
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.
1146:. 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
863:
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
638:
Knowledge 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 minority or
407:
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
1648:
Common objections or concerns raised to
Knowledge's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Knowledge's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to
943:
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
1026:
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
798:
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
626:
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
541:
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
1356:
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
545:
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
1224:
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
1444:
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
1225:
contradiction. NPOV policy means
Knowledge 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
1208:
In the case of beliefs and practices, Knowledge 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 articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as
489:
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
1383:
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
254:". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Knowledge 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.
1561:
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.
1399:
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.
1061:
Knowledge 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, but it is often needed most in these.
335:
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
1448:
The tone of
Knowledge 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.
1698:
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
743:
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.
1229:—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."
1295:
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.
397:. 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
2265:
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
494:. 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.
951:
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
888:
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
2551:
670:
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on
Knowledge, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
2374:
2698:
1683:
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?
414:
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
380:
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.
1928:
814:
2945:
2538:
1372:
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
323:
and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Knowledge aims to
1440:
in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries
1127:, 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
2014:
1944:
2860:
1670:
1590:
There are no forbidden words or expressions on
Knowledge, but certain expressions should be used with care because they may introduce bias. For example, the word
2024:
1319:. 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.
2345:
1662:
3192:
2054:
1730:
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?
1711:
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
643:
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.
1452:
1725:
1502:
1391:
Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint
538:. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
408:
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.
2691:
2304:
1845:
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
1809:
1618:, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from noteworthy sources).
652:
1733:
1678:
3118:
1693:
683:
If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Knowledge is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in
2531:
1999:
1706:
1377:
880:
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Knowledge policy does not state or imply that every minority view,
386:
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in
Knowledge's voice, for example
1427:
2417:
2073:
1303:. 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,
1748:
808:
2059:
434:
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.
195:
1817:
2367:
2004:
1756:
3151:
1895:
359:
that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Knowledge's voice. Rather, they should be
20:
2875:
2524:
948:
would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.
3351:
1021:
3417:
2457:
2320:
The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Knowledge editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.
1873:
1585:
1249:
1065:
477:
658:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
604:
3146:
2885:
2627:
1687:
1166:
159:
1351:
639:
including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Knowledge aims to present competing views
3166:
2952:
2821:
1913:
803:
and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for
920:
2291:
Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a debate and content structured like a resume. See also the
1232:
Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g.,
965:
739:
to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another
1650:
1155:
227:), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant
3422:
3249:
1994:
1923:
1908:
1805:
1627:
632:
596:
310:
28:
3328:
1667:
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?
1495:
Knowledge articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become
3139:
2410:
2039:
1606:
may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such
1312:
526:
The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like
415:
2222:—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
1357:
recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "
3171:
2548:
1781:
1299:
All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a
262:
188:
51:
2341:
340:. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:
3161:
3156:
1984:
1533:
1159:
902:
521:
1793:
1675:
The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
1621:
1038:
320:
3176:
3113:
2622:
2009:
1771:
169:
2890:
2850:
2791:
2708:
2636:
2612:
2034:
1878:
1863:
1822:
1789:
1742:
1178:
688:
251:
144:
2296:
549:
2786:
2403:
2228:
1979:
1719:
1185:
1001:
3323:
1255:
3381:
3202:
2880:
2855:
2801:
2470:
2240:
1959:
1304:
676:
Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources,
181:
2738:
1838:
1797:
1776:"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Knowledge. Originally appearing within
3412:
3244:
3020:
2967:
2940:
2870:
2845:
2275:
2267:
2199:
1974:
1969:
1656:
890:
959:
497:
363:, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that
3366:
2816:
2811:
2781:
2686:
2642:
2570:
2279:
1151:
997:
684:
356:
328:
228:
164:
129:
59:
2584:
3134:
3015:
2935:
2718:
2713:
2292:
1868:
1834:
1139:
1103:
881:
628:
3197:
3103:
3058:
3010:
3005:
2723:
2681:
2647:
2483:
2179:
2083:
1842:
1547:
1373:
1009:
491:
243:
154:
1093:
3091:
2912:
2676:
2607:
2044:
2019:
1964:
1883:
1857:
1826:
1543:
1286:
1086:
969:
800:
692:
473:
398:
247:
232:
149:
24:
1576:
many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)
1523:
1516:
842:
461:
440:
3086:
2806:
2796:
2563:
2444:
2167:
2155:
2143:
1918:
1482:
1147:
1124:
983:
789:
782:
239:
3333:
1473:
761:
2957:
2216:
1579:
1466:
1417:
1403:
1341:
511:
293:
2516:
1846:
1276:
1269:
719:
401:. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
3390:
3256:
2895:
2771:
2703:
2671:
2632:
2498:
2426:
2119:
2049:
2029:
1642:
1132:
1120:
993:
729:
712:
454:
3313:
1633:
1015:
775:
768:
570:
286:
8:
3261:
2962:
2865:
2776:
2766:
2271:
1989:
1933:
1813:
1491:—good painting or bad painting? That's not for us to decide, but we note what others say.
1362:
1214:
1199:
1128:
1115:
theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to
1052:
906:
835:
828:
804:
584:
300:
266:
2368:"Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions. 2014"
1079:
81:
3273:
3268:
2761:
2342:"BBC Trust—BBC science coverage given "vote of confidence" by independent report. 2011"
2300:
2088:
1938:
1508:
1458:
1409:
1385:
1333:
1261:
1218:
1191:
1071:
1044:
975:
934:
926:
820:
753:
704:
577:
562:
503:
486:
446:
278:
73:
63:
1804:
has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions:
1753:
The English Knowledge seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
1322:
3108:
3098:
2982:
2308:
2131:
2078:
1901:
1615:
1603:
1496:
1300:
1210:
1116:
393:
3290:
747:
698:
663:
428:, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but
2186:
1566:
1539:
1487:
425:
360:
3318:
1123:
is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about
728:"WP:BALANCE" redirects here. For balance regarding the "In the news" section, see
1599:
1366:
1358:
1172:
1005:
894:
885:
661:
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name
3035:
246:. It is also one of Knowledge's three core content policies; the other two are "
1796:
with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The
1234:
1032:
555:
327:
The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own
956:
page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.
619:
concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give
3406:
1327:
1169:
to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.
1112:
914:
910:
854:
332:
208:
2113:—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
611:" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the
2107:
1889:
1788:
in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Knowledge's
1785:
1607:
429:
32:
1829:(V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with
372:
genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil
261:, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other
2190:
1801:
1638:
1626:
For answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section, see
1569:, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player."
1316:
1154:
to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that
648:
2074:
Criticism of Knowledge § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
2395:
2161:—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
1445:
proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.
898:
616:
2095:
1738:
How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?
1308:
1240:
870:
216:
2066:
1565:
Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with
365:
2173:—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
1777:
355:
Usually, articles will contain information about the significant
346:
272:
58:
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
1952:
1213:
and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as
2327:
1428:
Knowledge:Writing better articles § Information style and tone
680:
its prevalence among Knowledge editors or the general public.
2546:
612:
1177:"WP:RNPOV" redirects here. For neutrality of redirects, see
3221:
350:
116:
1852:
1022:
Knowledge:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources
554:"Knowledge:UNDUE" redirects here. Not to be confused with
641:
in proportion to their representation in reliable sources
2137:—message when the article's introduction is questionable
1765:
1538:
Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with
1352:
Knowledge:Article titles § Neutrality in article titles
487:
do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia
119:. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
2246:—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only
378:
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
319:
means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of
315:
Achieving what the Knowledge community understands as
2252:
2125:—message that tags only a single section as disputed
1761:
I have some other objection—where should I complain?
603:significant viewpoints that have been published by
412:
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
966:Knowledge:Reliable sources § Some types of sources
815:Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance
615:does not directly mention modern support for the
422:to a particular view. For example, to state that
3404:
2699:Do not include copies of lengthy primary sources
2185:—message when a sentence may or may not require
1653:. Before asking, please review the links below.
653:September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list
2149:—message when only one sentence is questionable
2015:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
1614:he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate
1142:or pseudoscientific views should not give them
1131:the description of the mainstream views of the
19:For raising issues with specific articles, see
2861:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point
1849:by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.
2532:
2411:
1453:Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations
1031:be used; it may well serve an article better
1008:of the article you are working on, or ask at
189:
3287:
2025:POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
1843:verifiability policy was established in 2003
1841:to address problematic uses of sources. The
1503:Attributing and specifying biased statements
1179:Knowledge:Redirect § Neutrality of redirects
361:attributed in the text to particular sources
27:. For frequent critiques and responses, see
3193:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
2055:Knowledge only reports what the sources say
1798:original NPOV policy statement on Knowledge
2539:
2525:
2418:
2404:
1800:was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001.
325:describe disputes, but not engage in them.
196:
182:
62:follow. Changes made to it should reflect
23:. For advice on applying this policy, see
2205:—when in-text attribution should be added
1830:
1671:Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
1534:Knowledge:Manual of Style § Point of view
1143:
1107:
736:
687:, it may be appropriately included. See "
534:
419:
337:
50:This page documents an English Knowledge
2425:
2234:—same as above but to tag a section only
1632:
1586:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Words to watch
1481:
1250:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Words to watch
528:
115:the sides, fairly and without editorial
2503:Other essays on Knowledge's principles
1679:A simple formulation—what does it mean?
3405:
1703:to represent the view I disagree with?
1663:"There's no such thing as objectivity"
2520:
2399:
2348:from the original on 21 December 2012
992:In principle, all articles should be
1622:Common objections and clarifications
1376:(and relevant guidelines such as on
599:articles and pages fairly represent
93:
37:
3352:List of all policies and guidelines
2060:Ye shall know them by their sources
1628:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/FAQ
1160:the Apollo Moon landings were faked
873:'s policy on science reporting 2011
311:Knowledge:Neutral point of view/FAQ
13:
3391:Summaries of values and principles
3232:
3070:
2833:
2659:
2005:Let the facts speak for themselves
1839:NOR policy was established in 2003
1244:, and (as in the prior paragraph)
1119:. Conversely, by its very nature,
1033:to exclude the material altogether
240:fundamental principle of Knowledge
207:
14:
3434:
1598:he paid for the sandwich", could
1066:Fringe theories and pseudoscience
3301:
3298:
3229:
3046:
2993:
2990:
2923:
2920:
2876:Please do not bite the newcomers
2749:
2595:
2380:from the original on 7 July 2014
1726:Dealing with biased contributors
1117:scientific standards and methods
903:Apollo Moon landings were a hoax
522:Knowledge:Manual of Style/Layout
384:Avoid stating facts as opinions.
97:
41:
3418:Knowledge neutral point of view
1772:Knowledge:Core content policies
2360:
2334:
2314:
2285:
2259:
1649:the debate, you could try the
1313:Creation–evolution controversy
799:related to one subject may be
405:Prefer nonjudgmental language.
1:
2886:Responding to threats of harm
2628:Biographies of living persons
2000:Don't "teach the controversy"
1186:Knowledge:Myth versus fiction
875:See updated report from 2014.
233:published by reliable sources
160:Biographies of living persons
2953:Criteria for speedy deletion
2822:Paid-contribution disclosure
2475:Synopsis of our conventions
2449:Statement of our principles
1914:List of controversial issues
1305:Evolution as fact and theory
1165:See Knowledge's established
1156:Pope John PaulI was murdered
921:Making necessary assumptions
215:All encyclopedic content on
7:
2309:unbalanced-opinion template
1600:imply a lack of credibility
441:What to include and exclude
10:
3439:
3423:Knowledge content policies
1769:
1734:Avoiding constant disputes
1625:
1583:
1531:
1506:
1456:
1425:
1407:
1349:
1331:
1284:
1259:
1227:Ultimate Frisbeetarianists
1189:
1183:
1176:
1101:
1069:
1042:
1019:
973:
963:
924:
818:
751:
727:
702:
560:
553:
519:
501:
444:
308:
276:
71:
18:
3346:
3286:
3219:
3185:
3127:
3082:
3067:
3043:
3033:
2980:
2910:
2830:
2746:
2736:
2656:
2592:
2582:
2558:
2433:
1995:Describing points of view
1909:Describing points of view
1688:Balancing different views
1104:Knowledge:Fringe theories
685:sources that are reliable
629:fringe theories guideline
595:Neutrality requires that
2210:Undue-weight templates:
2101:General NPOV templates:
2084:Journalistic objectivity
2040:Scientific point of view
1947:(historical Meta policy)
1941:(historical Meta policy)
1694:Writing for the opponent
1388:created as appropriate.
1167:pseudoscience guidelines
244:other Wikimedia projects
105:This page in a nutshell:
31:. For the template, see
3329:Licensing and copyright
2549:policies and guidelines
2297:formatting of criticism
1858:Policies and guidelines
1707:Morally offensive views
1553:Another approach is to
1436:disputes, but does not
1287:Knowledge:Content forks
1150:that are considered by
1125:pseudoscientific topics
970:Knowledge:Academic bias
219:must be written from a
2488:Common to all projects
1985:Controversial articles
1645:
1616:flattering expressions
1602:. Using this or other
1492:
1374:article titling policy
1323:How to write neutrally
1148:historical negationism
1108:§ Due and undue weight
1039:Controversial subjects
866:
492:normal editing process
432:disputes this analysis
263:policies or guidelines
212:
3324:Friendly space policy
3114:Broad-concept article
2623:What Knowledge is not
2618:Neutral point of view
2010:Let the reader decide
1784:", it was drafted by
1637:Knowledge co-founder
1636:
1532:Further information:
1485:
1184:Further information:
1152:more reliable sources
1102:Further information:
964:Further information:
861:
550:Due and undue weight
520:Further information:
221:neutral point of view
211:
170:What Knowledge is not
140:Neutral point of view
2891:Talk page guidelines
2851:Conflict of interest
2792:Ownership of content
2637:Copyright violations
2613:No original research
2484:Wikimedia principles
2462:Historic principles
2427:Knowledge principles
2229:Undue weight section
2035:Scientific consensus
1879:No original research
1864:Conflict of interest
1823:No original research
1749:Anglo-American focus
1643:WikiConference India
1641:talks about NPOV at
1610:; for example, "Jim
1604:expressions of doubt
1315:is a sub-article of
1307:is a sub-article of
1133:scientific community
1121:scientific consensus
905:, and similar ones.
689:No original research
252:No original research
145:No original research
21:the NPOV noticeboard
2787:No personal attacks
2709:Don't create hoaxes
2241:Undue weight inline
2187:in-text attribution
1980:Conflicting sources
1790:"rules to consider"
1540:in-text attribution
1363:Teapot Dome scandal
1301:spinoff sub-article
1256:Point-of-view forks
915:speculative history
907:Conspiracy theories
886:extraordinary claim
807:that may be in the
735:Neutrality assigns
370:but may state that
331:, should strive in
3413:Knowledge policies
3382:List of guidelines
3203:Template namespace
2881:Courtesy vanishing
2856:Disruptive editing
2802:Dispute resolution
2471:Simplified ruleset
2280:criticism template
2200:Attribution needed
2089:One-sided argument
1990:Criticism sections
1960:Be neutral in form
1646:
1546:and appropriately
1493:
1378:geographical names
1010:the reference desk
213:
111:sides, but should
107:Articles must not
3400:
3399:
3342:
3341:
3282:
3281:
3245:Project namespace
3215:
3214:
3211:
3210:
3152:Dates and numbers
3119:Understandability
3029:
3028:
2976:
2975:
2968:Revision deletion
2941:Proposed deletion
2906:
2905:
2871:Gaming the system
2846:Assume good faith
2732:
2731:
2514:
2513:
2509:
2508:
2458:Jimbo's statement
2305:cleanup templates
2276:pro-and-con lists
2079:Consensus reality
1975:Coatrack articles
1970:Civil POV pushing
1902:Information pages
1847:mailing-list post
1757:Not answered here
1138:Any inclusion of
1094:WP:FRINGESUBJECTS
960:Selecting sources
944:assumptions that
748:Balancing aspects
647:Paraphrased from
498:Article structure
368:is an evil action
206:
205:
123:
122:
92:
91:
25:the NPOV tutorial
3430:
3377:
3376:
3367:List of policies
3362:
3361:
3319:List of policies
3306:
3305:
3304:
3296:
3295:
3292:
3289:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3227:
3226:
3223:
3220:Project content
3080:
3079:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3041:
3040:
3037:
2998:
2997:
2996:
2988:
2987:
2984:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2918:
2917:
2914:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2817:Child protection
2812:No legal threats
2782:Ignore all rules
2754:
2753:
2752:
2744:
2743:
2740:
2687:Reliable sources
2664:
2663:
2662:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2590:
2589:
2586:
2571:Ignore all rules
2553:
2541:
2534:
2527:
2518:
2517:
2436:
2435:
2420:
2413:
2406:
2397:
2396:
2390:
2389:
2387:
2385:
2379:
2372:
2364:
2358:
2357:
2355:
2353:
2344:. 20 July 2011.
2338:
2321:
2318:
2312:
2289:
2283:
2263:
2245:
2239:
2233:
2227:
2221:
2215:
2204:
2198:
2184:
2178:
2172:
2166:
2160:
2154:
2148:
2142:
2136:
2130:
2124:
2118:
2112:
2106:
1896:NPOV noticeboard
1743:Other objections
1651:policy talk page
1526:
1519:
1488:The Starry Night
1476:
1469:
1420:
1344:
1279:
1272:
1202:
1113:Pseudoscientific
1096:
1089:
1087:WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
1082:
1055:
986:
937:
876:
845:
838:
831:
792:
785:
778:
771:
764:
722:
715:
605:reliable sources
587:
580:
573:
514:
464:
457:
433:
426:Simon Wiesenthal
396:
389:
373:
369:
321:reliable sources
303:
296:
289:
267:editor consensus
198:
191:
184:
165:Image use policy
132:
130:Content policies
125:
124:
101:
100:
94:
84:
45:
44:
38:
16:Knowledge policy
3438:
3437:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3403:
3402:
3401:
3396:
3374:
3373:
3359:
3358:
3338:
3302:
3300:
3278:
3233:
3231:
3207:
3181:
3135:Manual of Style
3123:
3071:
3069:
3063:
3047:
3045:
3025:
3021:Page protection
2994:
2992:
2972:
2936:Deletion policy
2924:
2922:
2902:
2834:
2832:
2826:
2750:
2748:
2728:
2719:Patent nonsense
2714:Fringe theories
2660:
2658:
2652:
2596:
2594:
2578:
2554:
2545:
2515:
2510:
2505:
2492:
2490:(in Meta-Wiki)
2477:
2464:
2451:
2429:
2424:
2394:
2393:
2383:
2381:
2377:
2370:
2366:
2365:
2361:
2351:
2349:
2340:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2324:
2319:
2315:
2293:guide to layout
2290:
2286:
2264:
2260:
2255:
2243:
2237:
2231:
2225:
2219:
2213:
2202:
2196:
2182:
2180:Fact or opinion
2176:
2170:
2164:
2158:
2152:
2146:
2140:
2134:
2128:
2122:
2116:
2110:
2104:
2098:
2093:
2069:
2064:
1955:
1950:
1945:Understand bias
1904:
1892:
1869:Fringe theories
1860:
1855:
1835:fringe theories
1782:Non-bias policy
1774:
1768:
1745:
1722:
1720:Editor disputes
1690:
1659:
1631:
1624:
1588:
1582:
1536:
1530:
1529:
1524:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
1522:
1517:WP:SUBSTANTIATE
1515:
1511:
1505:
1480:
1479:
1472:
1465:
1461:
1455:
1430:
1424:
1423:
1416:
1412:
1406:
1367:Jack the Ripper
1359:Boston Massacre
1354:
1348:
1347:
1340:
1336:
1330:
1325:
1289:
1283:
1282:
1275:
1268:
1264:
1258:
1211:primary sources
1206:
1205:
1198:
1194:
1188:
1182:
1175:
1110:
1100:
1099:
1092:
1085:
1078:
1074:
1068:
1059:
1058:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1024:
1018:
1016:Bias in sources
990:
989:
982:
978:
972:
962:
941:
940:
933:
929:
923:
895:Knights Templar
878:
868:
849:
848:
843:WP:FALSEBALANCE
841:
834:
827:
823:
817:
796:
795:
788:
781:
774:
767:
760:
756:
750:
733:
726:
725:
718:
711:
707:
701:
591:
590:
583:
576:
569:
565:
559:
552:
524:
518:
517:
510:
506:
500:
468:
467:
462:WP:ACHIEVE NPOV
460:
453:
449:
443:
423:
394:the sky is blue
391:
388:the sky is blue
387:
371:
364:
313:
307:
306:
299:
292:
285:
281:
275:
257:This policy is
231:that have been
202:
128:
98:
88:
87:
80:
76:
68:
67:
42:
36:
17:
12:
11:
5:
3436:
3426:
3425:
3420:
3415:
3398:
3397:
3395:
3394:
3387:
3386:
3385:
3370:
3347:
3344:
3343:
3340:
3339:
3337:
3336:
3334:Privacy policy
3331:
3326:
3321:
3316:
3310:
3308:
3293:
3284:
3283:
3280:
3279:
3277:
3276:
3271:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3254:
3253:
3252:
3241:
3239:
3224:
3217:
3216:
3213:
3212:
3209:
3208:
3206:
3205:
3200:
3198:Categorization
3195:
3189:
3187:
3186:Classification
3183:
3182:
3180:
3179:
3174:
3169:
3164:
3159:
3154:
3149:
3144:
3143:
3142:
3131:
3129:
3125:
3124:
3122:
3121:
3116:
3111:
3106:
3104:Disambiguation
3101:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3083:
3077:
3065:
3064:
3062:
3061:
3059:Editing policy
3055:
3053:
3038:
3031:
3030:
3027:
3026:
3024:
3023:
3018:
3013:
3008:
3006:Administrators
3002:
3000:
2985:
2978:
2977:
2974:
2973:
2971:
2970:
2965:
2960:
2955:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2938:
2932:
2930:
2915:
2908:
2907:
2904:
2903:
2901:
2900:
2899:
2898:
2888:
2883:
2878:
2873:
2868:
2863:
2858:
2853:
2848:
2842:
2840:
2828:
2827:
2825:
2824:
2819:
2814:
2809:
2804:
2799:
2794:
2789:
2784:
2779:
2774:
2769:
2764:
2758:
2756:
2741:
2734:
2733:
2730:
2729:
2727:
2726:
2724:External links
2721:
2716:
2711:
2706:
2701:
2696:
2695:
2694:
2684:
2682:Citing sources
2679:
2674:
2668:
2666:
2654:
2653:
2651:
2650:
2648:Article titles
2645:
2640:
2630:
2625:
2620:
2615:
2610:
2604:
2602:
2587:
2580:
2579:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2559:
2556:
2555:
2547:Knowledge key
2544:
2543:
2536:
2529:
2521:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2506:
2502:
2495:
2493:
2489:
2487:
2480:
2478:
2474:
2467:
2465:
2461:
2454:
2452:
2448:
2441:
2439:
2434:
2431:
2430:
2423:
2422:
2415:
2408:
2400:
2392:
2391:
2359:
2332:
2331:
2329:
2326:
2323:
2322:
2313:
2284:
2257:
2256:
2254:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2235:
2223:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2194:
2174:
2162:
2150:
2138:
2126:
2114:
2097:
2094:
2092:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2062:
2057:
2052:
2047:
2042:
2037:
2032:
2027:
2022:
2017:
2012:
2007:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1962:
1956:
1954:
1951:
1949:
1948:
1942:
1936:
1931:
1926:
1921:
1916:
1911:
1905:
1903:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1881:
1876:
1874:Words to watch
1871:
1866:
1859:
1856:
1854:
1851:
1806:2001 statement
1767:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1759:
1754:
1751:
1744:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1736:
1731:
1728:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1714:
1709:
1704:
1702:
1696:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1673:
1668:
1665:
1658:
1655:
1623:
1620:
1581:
1580:Words to watch
1578:
1528:
1527:
1520:
1512:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1478:
1477:
1470:
1462:
1457:
1454:
1451:
1422:
1421:
1413:
1408:
1405:
1404:Impartial tone
1402:
1346:
1345:
1337:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1281:
1280:
1273:
1265:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1235:fundamentalism
1204:
1203:
1195:
1190:
1174:
1171:
1098:
1097:
1090:
1083:
1075:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1057:
1056:
1048:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1017:
1014:
988:
987:
984:WP:BESTSOURCES
979:
974:
961:
958:
939:
938:
930:
925:
922:
919:
897:possessed the
874:
860:
859:
858:
847:
846:
839:
832:
824:
819:
816:
813:
794:
793:
790:WP:MAJORASPECT
786:
783:WP:MINORASPECT
779:
772:
765:
757:
752:
749:
746:
724:
723:
716:
708:
703:
700:
697:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
659:
589:
588:
581:
574:
566:
561:
556:Knowledge:UNDO
551:
548:
516:
515:
507:
502:
499:
496:
483:
482:
466:
465:
458:
450:
445:
442:
439:
436:
435:
409:
402:
381:
375:
345:Avoid stating
329:points of view
305:
304:
297:
290:
282:
277:
274:
271:
259:non-negotiable
204:
203:
201:
200:
193:
186:
178:
175:
174:
173:
172:
167:
162:
157:
155:Article titles
152:
147:
142:
134:
133:
121:
120:
102:
90:
89:
86:
85:
77:
72:
69:
57:
56:
48:
46:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3435:
3424:
3421:
3419:
3416:
3414:
3411:
3410:
3408:
3393:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3383:
3378:
3371:
3369:
3368:
3363:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3349:
3348:
3345:
3335:
3332:
3330:
3327:
3325:
3322:
3320:
3317:
3315:
3312:
3311:
3309:
3307:
3297:
3294:
3285:
3275:
3272:
3270:
3267:
3263:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3255:
3251:
3248:
3247:
3246:
3243:
3242:
3240:
3238:
3228:
3225:
3218:
3204:
3201:
3199:
3196:
3194:
3191:
3190:
3188:
3184:
3178:
3175:
3173:
3170:
3168:
3165:
3163:
3160:
3158:
3155:
3153:
3150:
3148:
3147:Accessibility
3145:
3141:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3133:
3132:
3130:
3126:
3120:
3117:
3115:
3112:
3110:
3107:
3105:
3102:
3100:
3097:
3093:
3092:Summary style
3090:
3089:
3088:
3085:
3084:
3081:
3078:
3076:
3066:
3060:
3057:
3056:
3054:
3052:
3042:
3039:
3032:
3022:
3019:
3017:
3014:
3012:
3009:
3007:
3004:
3003:
3001:
2999:
2989:
2986:
2979:
2969:
2966:
2964:
2961:
2959:
2956:
2954:
2951:
2947:
2944:
2943:
2942:
2939:
2937:
2934:
2933:
2931:
2929:
2919:
2916:
2909:
2897:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2889:
2887:
2884:
2882:
2879:
2877:
2874:
2872:
2869:
2867:
2864:
2862:
2859:
2857:
2854:
2852:
2849:
2847:
2844:
2843:
2841:
2839:
2829:
2823:
2820:
2818:
2815:
2813:
2810:
2808:
2805:
2803:
2800:
2798:
2795:
2793:
2790:
2788:
2785:
2783:
2780:
2778:
2775:
2773:
2770:
2768:
2765:
2763:
2760:
2759:
2757:
2755:
2745:
2742:
2735:
2725:
2722:
2720:
2717:
2715:
2712:
2710:
2707:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2697:
2693:
2690:
2689:
2688:
2685:
2683:
2680:
2678:
2677:Autobiography
2675:
2673:
2670:
2669:
2667:
2665:
2655:
2649:
2646:
2644:
2641:
2638:
2634:
2631:
2629:
2626:
2624:
2621:
2619:
2616:
2614:
2611:
2609:
2608:Verifiability
2606:
2605:
2603:
2601:
2591:
2588:
2581:
2573:
2572:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2561:
2560:
2557:
2550:
2542:
2537:
2535:
2530:
2528:
2523:
2522:
2519:
2504:
2501:
2500:
2494:
2491:
2486:
2485:
2479:
2476:
2473:
2472:
2466:
2463:
2460:
2459:
2453:
2450:
2447:
2446:
2440:
2438:
2437:
2432:
2428:
2421:
2416:
2414:
2409:
2407:
2402:
2401:
2398:
2376:
2373:. July 2014.
2369:
2363:
2347:
2343:
2337:
2333:
2317:
2310:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2294:
2288:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2262:
2258:
2242:
2236:
2230:
2224:
2218:
2212:
2211:
2209:
2201:
2195:
2192:
2188:
2181:
2175:
2169:
2168:Political POV
2163:
2157:
2156:NPOV language
2151:
2145:
2144:POV statement
2139:
2133:
2127:
2121:
2115:
2109:
2103:
2102:
2100:
2099:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2071:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2048:
2046:
2045:Systemic bias
2043:
2041:
2038:
2036:
2033:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2020:NPOV tutorial
2018:
2016:
2013:
2011:
2008:
2006:
2003:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1965:Cherrypicking
1963:
1961:
1958:
1957:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1939:Positive tone
1937:
1935:
1932:
1930:
1927:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1917:
1915:
1912:
1910:
1907:
1906:
1897:
1894:
1893:
1885:
1884:Verifiability
1882:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1861:
1850:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1827:verifiability
1824:
1820:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1810:November 2003
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1773:
1760:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1747:
1746:
1737:
1735:
1732:
1729:
1727:
1724:
1723:
1712:
1710:
1708:
1705:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1692:
1691:
1682:
1680:
1677:
1674:
1672:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1657:Being neutral
1654:
1652:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1629:
1619:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1594:, as in "Jim
1593:
1587:
1577:
1575:
1572:
1571:Which people?
1568:
1563:
1560:
1556:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1535:
1525:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1500:
1498:
1490:
1489:
1484:
1475:
1474:WP:SUBJECTIVE
1471:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1460:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1429:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1411:
1401:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1387:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1353:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1320:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1294:
1288:
1278:
1274:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1253:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1237:
1236:
1230:
1228:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1201:
1197:
1196:
1193:
1187:
1180:
1170:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1063:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1023:
1013:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
985:
981:
980:
977:
971:
967:
957:
955:
949:
947:
936:
932:
931:
928:
918:
916:
912:
911:pseudoscience
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:Earth is flat
887:
883:
882:fringe theory
877:
872:
865:
857:
856:
855:False balance
851:
850:
844:
840:
837:
833:
830:
826:
825:
822:
812:
810:
806:
805:recent events
802:
791:
787:
784:
780:
777:
773:
770:
766:
763:
762:WP:PROPORTION
759:
758:
755:
745:
742:
738:
731:
730:WP:ITNBALANCE
721:
717:
714:
710:
709:
706:
696:
694:
693:Verifiability
690:
686:
681:
679:
669:
666:
665:
660:
657:
656:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
642:
636:
634:
630:
624:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
593:
586:
582:
579:
575:
572:
568:
567:
564:
557:
547:
543:
539:
537:
536:
531:
530:
523:
513:
509:
508:
505:
495:
493:
488:
481:
479:
478:NPOV examples
475:
474:NPOV tutorial
470:
469:
463:
459:
456:
452:
451:
448:
438:
431:
427:
424:According to
421:
417:
413:
410:
406:
403:
400:
399:verifiability
395:
385:
382:
379:
376:
367:
362:
358:
354:
352:
348:
343:
342:
341:
339:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
312:
302:
298:
295:
291:
288:
284:
283:
280:
270:
268:
264:
260:
255:
253:
249:
248:Verifiability
245:
241:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
210:
199:
194:
192:
187:
185:
180:
179:
177:
176:
171:
168:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
153:
151:
150:Verifiability
148:
146:
143:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
131:
127:
126:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:
96:
95:
83:
79:
78:
75:
70:
65:
61:
55:
53:
47:
40:
39:
34:
30:
26:
22:
3389:
3380:
3372:
3365:
3357:
3350:
3314:Terms of Use
3299:
3250:WikiProjects
3230:
3167:Lead section
3087:Article size
3068:
3044:
2991:
2981:Enforcement
2921:
2831:
2807:Sockpuppetry
2797:Edit warring
2747:
2657:
2617:
2593:
2569:
2564:Five pillars
2562:
2497:
2496:
2482:
2481:
2469:
2468:
2456:
2455:
2445:Five pillars
2443:
2442:
2382:. Retrieved
2362:
2350:. Retrieved
2336:
2316:
2301:edit warring
2287:
2261:
2217:Undue weight
1919:NPOV dispute
1890:Noticeboards
1831:undue weight
1821:
1794:was codified
1786:Larry Sanger
1775:
1647:
1611:
1608:loaded words
1595:
1591:
1589:
1573:
1570:
1567:weasel words
1564:
1559:substantiate
1558:
1554:
1552:
1537:
1494:
1486:
1467:WP:AESTHETIC
1447:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1431:
1418:WP:IMPARTIAL
1396:
1392:
1390:
1382:
1371:
1355:
1342:WP:POVNAMING
1298:
1292:
1290:
1245:
1239:
1233:
1231:
1226:
1223:
1207:
1164:
1144:undue weight
1137:
1111:
1060:
1028:
1025:
991:
953:
950:
945:
942:
879:
867:
862:
852:
797:
740:
734:
682:
677:
675:
662:
640:
637:
625:
621:undue weight
620:
608:
600:
594:
592:
546:viewpoints.
544:
540:
535:undue weight
533:
527:
525:
512:WP:STRUCTURE
484:
471:
437:
430:David Irving
420:undue weight
411:
404:
383:
377:
344:
324:
316:
314:
294:WP:WIKIVOICE
258:
256:
237:
235:on a topic.
224:
220:
214:
139:
112:
108:
104:
49:
33:Template:POV
29:the NPOV FAQ
2958:Attack page
2946:Biographies
2268:thread mode
2191:Jimmy Wales
2120:POV section
1802:Jimmy Wales
1770:Main page:
1639:Jimmy Wales
1584:Main page:
1317:Creationism
1277:WP:NPOVVIEW
1270:WP:NPOVFACT
1002:independent
901:, that the
893:, that the
720:WP:BALANCED
649:Jimbo Wales
529:POV forking
485:Generally,
273:Explanation
3407:Categories
3262:User boxes
3257:User pages
2896:Signatures
2772:Harassment
2704:Plagiarism
2672:Notability
2499:Principles
2328:References
2307:, and the
2278:, and the
2030:Presentism
1825:(NOR) and
1818:March 2008
1814:April 2006
1544:verifiable
1442:even while
1432:Knowledge
1426:See also:
1350:See also:
1285:See also:
1158:, or that
1020:See also:
899:Holy Grail
801:verifiable
713:WP:BALANCE
667:adherents;
617:flat Earth
455:WP:NPOVHOW
418:, or give
333:good faith
317:neutrality
309:See also:
238:NPOV is a
3269:Shortcuts
2963:Oversight
2911:Deletion
2866:Etiquette
2777:Vandalism
2767:Consensus
2643:Image use
2633:Copyright
2352:14 August
2272:criticism
2096:Templates
2050:Why NPOV?
1934:Recentism
1929:NPOV quiz
1509:Shortcuts
1459:Shortcuts
1434:describes
1386:redirects
1309:Evolution
1262:Shortcuts
1241:mythology
1221:sources.
1215:secondary
1129:obfuscate
1072:Shortcuts
1006:talk page
871:BBC Trust
821:Shortcuts
776:WP:ASPECT
769:WP:BALASP
754:Shortcuts
705:Shortcuts
664:prominent
597:mainspace
571:WP:WEIGHT
563:Shortcuts
447:Shortcuts
392:believes
287:WP:YESPOV
279:Shortcuts
265:, nor by
217:Knowledge
64:consensus
3274:Subpages
3140:Contents
3109:Hatnotes
3034:Editing
3016:Blocking
2762:Civility
2737:Conduct
2692:Medicine
2583:Content
2375:Archived
2346:Archived
2189:(e.g., "
2132:POV lead
2067:Articles
1924:NPOV FAQ
1853:See also
1780:titled "
1497:effusive
1410:Shortcut
1365:", and "
1334:Shortcut
1293:POV fork
1246:critical
1219:tertiary
1200:WP:RNPOV
1192:Shortcut
1173:Religion
1053:WP:SNPOV
1045:Shortcut
998:reliable
976:Shortcut
927:Shortcut
836:WP:VALID
829:WP:GEVAL
633:NPOV FAQ
631:and the
609:see also
585:WP:UNDUE
504:Shortcut
472:See the
366:genocide
357:opinions
347:opinions
301:WP:VOICE
74:Shortcut
60:normally
3172:Linking
3099:Be bold
3011:Banning
1792:. This
1778:Nupedia
1766:History
1596:claimed
1555:specify
1397:against
1080:WP:PSCI
946:someone
699:Balance
691:" and "
623:to it.
250:" and "
242:and of
113:explain
82:WP:NPOV
3162:Layout
3157:Images
2384:7 July
2193:says")
1953:Essays
1837:. The
1438:engage
1328:Naming
1311:, and
1140:fringe
968:, and
935:WP:MNA
737:weight
578:WP:DUE
416:parity
338:weight
52:policy
3177:Lists
3128:Style
2378:(PDF)
2371:(PDF)
2253:Notes
1592:claim
1548:cited
994:based
954:other
884:, or
853:See:
613:Earth
351:facts
229:views
2386:2014
2354:2011
1833:and
1713:them
1612:said
1380:).
1361:", "
1217:and
1106:and
1029:must
809:news
532:and
476:and
390:not
225:NPOV
117:bias
109:take
3291:(?)
3288:WMF
3222:(?)
3036:(?)
2983:(?)
2913:(?)
2739:(?)
2585:(?)
2552:(?)
2108:POV
1701:lie
1574:How
1557:or
1395:or
1393:for
996:on
741:and
695:".
678:not
601:all
349:as
3409::
3379::
3364::
2303:,
2299:,
2295:,
2274:,
2270:,
2244:}}
2238:{{
2232:}}
2226:{{
2220:}}
2214:{{
2203:}}
2197:{{
2183:}}
2177:{{
2171:}}
2165:{{
2159:}}
2153:{{
2147:}}
2141:{{
2135:}}
2129:{{
2123:}}
2117:{{
2111:}}
2105:{{
1816:,
1812:,
1808:,
1550:.
1291:A
1252:.
1238:,
1162:.
1135:.
1035:.
1012:.
1000:,
913:,
909:,
811:.
655::
651:'
635:.
269:.
3375:G
3360:P
3303:P
3234:G
3072:G
3048:P
2995:P
2925:P
2835:G
2751:P
2661:G
2639:)
2635:(
2597:P
2540:e
2533:t
2526:v
2419:e
2412:t
2405:v
2388:.
2356:.
2311:.
2282:.
1715:?
1630:.
1181:.
869:—
732:.
558:.
480:.
374:.
353:.
223:(
197:e
190:t
183:v
66:.
54:.
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
