Misplaced Pages

:NPOV dispute: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:10, 20 May 2008 editDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits Find consensus to remove this, also see WP:CIV and Wikipedia_talk:NPOV_dispute#Consensus_needed← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:36, 22 December 2024 edit undoXeverything11 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,725 edits Reverting edit(s) by 89.164.254.150 (talk) to rev. 1259047091 by Moxy: Vandalism (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
(334 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Supplement|interprets=WP:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOVD}}
{{how-to|WP:NPOVD|WP:DRIVEBY}}
Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an '''NPOV dispute''' (NPOV stands for ''neutral point of view''; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to ]. Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an '''NPOV dispute''' (NPOV stands for ''neutral point of view''; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to ].


Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to '''specific issues that are actionable within the content policies''', namely ], ], ] and ]. 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. ] is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to '''specific issues that are actionable within the ]''', namely ], ], ] and ]. 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 ]{{snd}}using multiple redundant templates (e.g. {{tl|Citation needed}} and {{tl|Dubious}}){{snd}}for the same problem.


==What is NPOV?== ==What is NPOV?==
{{main|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view}} {{main|Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view}}
NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Misplaced Pages's ] by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of ], 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 such, not as facts. NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Misplaced Pages's ] by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by ] (]: ''not'' all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of ], 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.


See ] or ] for a list of articles in a NPOV dispute. See ] for a list of articles in an NPOV dispute.


==What is an NPOV dispute?== ==What is an NPOV dispute?==
⚫ Often, authors can view "]" 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.


⚫ Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page ''is'' in an NPOV dispute, it probably ''is not'' 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 ''that other people would want to disagree with.''
⚫ Often, authors can view "their" 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.


⚫ 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 ] 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 ''their own'' bias ''enough''.
⚫ Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page ''is'' in an NPOV dispute, it very probably ''is not'' 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 ''that other people would want to disagree with.''


⚫ 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, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.
⚫ 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 ] 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 ''their own'' bias ''enough''.

⚫ By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register his or her 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, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.


Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an '''NPOV dispute''' 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. Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an '''NPOV dispute''' 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.


It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. An NPOV dispute tag does ''not'' 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.


Sometimes people have ] over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing ] or ]. 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. Sometimes people have ] 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 whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate ]. 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.


== How can one disagree about NPOV? == == How can one disagree about NPOV? ==


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 ''factual,'' it is therefore ''neutral.'' The other party either denies that "X" ''is'' a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the ] policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral. 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 ''factual,'' the article is therefore ''neutral.'' The other party either denies that "X" ''is'' a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the ] policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.


Neutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter ''at all'' how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties ''really do'' 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. Neutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter ''at all'' how convinced we are that our "facts" are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties ''really do'' 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.


There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:
Line 43: Line 42:
* Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms. * Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.


== How to initiate an NPOV debate == == How to initiate an NPOV debate? ==
If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Misplaced Pages's ] 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 entitled "NPOV dispute ". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly ''explain'' which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Misplaced Pages's ] 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 ''explain'' 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.


== How can neutrality be achieved? == == How can neutrality be achieved? ==
Talking with other contributors is a great way to find out why there is a dispute over an article's neutrality. Ideas and POV's 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 in the article. 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 in the article.


Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Misplaced Pages can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions. Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Misplaced Pages can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions.

Additionally, there are several steps one can take to resolve an NPOV dispute:

*Please remember to ]
*] point out the perceived problem either on the article's ] or the ]
*Consider filing a ]
*Get a ]
*File a report at ]
*File a report at ] (if the article features information about living people)
*File a report at ] (if the article covers or features fringe theories)
*Other options available to resolve such situations explained at ].


== POV pushing == == POV pushing ==
{{Shortcut|WP:POVPUSH}} {{Shortcut|WP:POVPUSH}}
{{see also|Misplaced Pages:Advocacy|WP:Civil POV pushing}}
''POV pushing'' is a term used on Misplaced Pages to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the promotion of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is always ], even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them.
''POV-pushing'' is a term used on Misplaced Pages to describe the ''aggressive'' presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the ] presentation of minor or ].


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 happening (it is not always obvious), follow the steps listed in the above section (NPOV resolution).
If you suspect POV-pushing is happening, please remember to ] and ] point out the perceived problem either on the article's ] or the ]. If the problem persists, consider filing a ], get a ], or if appropriate, file a report at ]. There are other options available to resolve such situations explained at ].


==Adding a page== ==Adding a tag to a page==
To mark a dispute on a page, type '''{{]}}''', which expands into: To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert '''{{tl|POV}}''' at the top of the article to display:


{{POV}} {{POV|date=September 2022}}


Please note: The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to be biased to you, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to ''at least'' leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the problem with enough specificity to allow constructive discussion towards a resolution, such as identifying specific passages, elements, or phrasings that are problematic. 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 ''at least'' 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 viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published, ], 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.


----
<hr />
Or, add '''{{tl|POV-section}}''' at the top of a section in the article to display:
Another related boilerplate is '''{{]}}''':

{{POV-check}}

Use this boilerplate when there is no active discussion of a dispute on the talk page, but the article does not appear to conform to NPOV guidelines. You should explain what's wrong with the article on the talk page. See also: ]

<hr />
'''{{]}}''':


{{POV-section}} {{POV-section}}


Use this when the bulk of an article is okay, but a single section appears not to be NPOV. You should explain what's wrong with the section on the talk page. 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.

<hr />
'''{{]}}''', which expands into:

{{POV-title}}

Use this when the POV complaint targets to the title of the article. You should explain what's wrong with the title on the talk page.


==See also== ==See also==
* ] * ] (policy)
* ] * ] (guideline)
* ] (dispute-resolution venue)
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ]
* ] * ]
* ] * ]
* ] <small>(the phrase doesn't mean what you think it means)</small>
* ]
* ]
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ]
⚫ * ]
⚫ * ]
* ]
* ]


] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 12:36, 22 December 2024

This is an explanatory essay about WP:Neutral point of view.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.		Shortcut
Explanatory essay about WP:Neutral point of view

Articles that have been linked to this page are the subject of an NPOV dispute (NPOV stands for neutral point of view; see below). This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. 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 over-tagging – using multiple redundant templates (e.g. {{Citation needed}} and {{Dubious}}) – for the same problem.

What is NPOV?

Main page: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

NPOV stands for Neutral point of view. An NPOV (neutral, unbiased) article is an article that complies with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources (N.B.: not all views held by editors or by the general public). This is especially important for the encyclopedia's treatment of controversial issues, 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.

See Category:All Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes for a list of articles in an NPOV dispute.

What is an NPOV dispute?

Often, authors can view "their" 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.

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it probably is not 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 that other people would want to disagree with.

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 POV 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 their own bias enough.

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, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.

Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute 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.

An NPOV dispute tag does not 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.

Sometimes people have edit wars 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 whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate dispute resolution. 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.

How can one disagree about NPOV?

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 factual, the article is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.

Neutrality here at Misplaced Pages is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our "facts" are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do 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.

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

  • The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see Misplaced Pages:POV)
  • While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
  • Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see Misplaced Pages:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance).
  • The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
  • The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
  • 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.
  • The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
  • Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.

How to initiate an NPOV debate?

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Misplaced Pages's NPOV 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 explain 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.

How can neutrality be achieved?

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 in the article.

Historians commonly cite many sources in books because there are and will always be disputes over history. Contributors on Misplaced Pages can do the same thing, thus giving readers a broad spectrum of POVs and opinions.

Additionally, there are several steps one can take to resolve an NPOV dispute:

POV pushing

Shortcut See also: Misplaced Pages:Advocacy and WP:Civil POV pushing

POV-pushing is a term used on Misplaced Pages to describe the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view in an article, particularly when used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas.

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 happening (it is not always obvious), follow the steps listed in the above section (NPOV resolution).

Adding a tag to a page

To indicate that the neutrality of an article is disputed, insert {{POV}} at the top of the article to display:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (September 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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 at least 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 viewpoint is missing, then you should try to give examples of published, independent, 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.

Or, add {{POV-section}} at the top of a section in the article to display:

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

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.

See also

Categories:
Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute: Difference between revisions Add topic