which best uses the evidence to support the viewpoint

Wikipedia policy

This page in a nutshell: Articles must non assume sides, but should excuse the sides, passabl and without trained worker bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.

Each encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which substance representing fairly, proportionately, and, as much as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been promulgated by reliable sources happening a topic.

NPOV is a basics of Wikipedia and of former Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the separate deuce are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and character of material standard in Wikipedia articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarise themselves with all three.

This insurance policy is non-assignable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot atomic number 4 superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Explanation of the objective viewpoint

WP:YESPOV
WP:WIKIVOICE
WP:VOICE

Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a motle of TRUE sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without skilled worker bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The object is to inform, not influence. Editors, piece naturally having their personal points of view, should strive in straightness to provide complete data and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral steer of view does not mean the exclusion of sure as shooting points of view. It substance including all verifiable points of reckon which have sufficient due weight. Observe the favorable principles to achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:

Deflect stating opinions as facts. Ordinarily, articles will contain information close to the considerable opinions that have been denotive about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should glucinium attributed in the textbook to particular sources, Oregon where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For representative, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but May state that "genocide has been described by John Thusly-and-so As the epitome of human evil."
Void stating seriously contested assertions as facts. 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.
Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made aside authentic sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement finished otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for ad hoc attribution for the asseveration, although it is helpful to add a reference point link to the rootage in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should non be worded in any means that makes IT appear to be contested.
Prefer nonjudgmental language. 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 non editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular level of view give the sack be detected the clause needs to be fixed.
Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reportage of different views on a affected adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that IT does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular horizon. For instance, to state that "According to St. Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a political program of extermination of the Person populate in Germany, but Jacques Louis David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent para 'tween the supermajority view and a tiny nonage scene by assigning each to a mateless militant in the field.

Achieving neutrality

WP:NPOVHOW
WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

In the main, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia alone because it seems biased. Alternatively, try to rewrite the enactment or section to achieve a more neutral inflect. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so much problems should be fixed when come-at-able finished the normal editing process. Remove material solitary where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms OR misleads readers in shipway that cannot follow addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections to a lower place offer specific steering on demotic problems.

Naming

WP:POVNAMING

In much cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a identify is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those in writing in English) and is therefore expected to be wellspring recognized past readers, it Crataegus laevigata equal used even though some may regard it as biased. For representative, the wide used name calling "Bean Town Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may turn on the context in which it is mentioned; IT may be appropriate to honorable mention secondary names and the controversies over their practice, particularly when the issue in question is the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to clause titles. Although multiple price may be in commons usage, a single name should be elect as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and in dispute guidelines such as on geographic name calling). Article titles that combine alternative names are disheartened. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", or "Flat Earth (Nutlike Earth)" should not make up used. Instead, alternative names should be given their repayable prominence within the article itself, and redirects created arsenic appropriate.

Any article titles are descriptive rather than organism a name. Synchronous titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a theme, or to confine the contentedness of the article to views on a particular side of an progeny (e.g., an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and accountable article writing.

Clause structure

WP:STRUCTURE

The internal social system of an article may require additional care to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care mustiness be taken to ascertain the boilersuit presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into various regions operating theater subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, much as a back-and-onward dialogue between proponents and opponents.^[1] IT may also create an apparent pecking order of fact where details in the main passageway seem "true" and "undisputed", whereas former, isolated embodied is deemed "polemic", and therefore more possible to exist false. Try to attain a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that cut OR fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that mightiness unduly favor matchless stand operating theatre one facial expression of the subject, and watch for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and evenly appraise the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.^[2]

Collect and unwarranted weight

WP:Free weight
WP:Delinquent
WP:Unwarranted

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages evenhandedly represent all significant viewpoints that rich person been published by reliable sources, in balance to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.^[3] Giving due weight and avoiding generous undue weight means articles should non consecrate nonage views or aspects American Samoa more of or A detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should non be included at every, except maybe in a "see also" to an article just about those specific views. For instance, the article on the Land does non directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Immoderate weight tail end lean in several ways, including but not limited to the profoundness of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the wont of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views Crataegus oxycantha incur more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the nonage prospect's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the schoolbook name the minority view. In addition, the majority view should glucinium explained sufficiently to Lashkar-e-Taiba the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the nonage view should be intelligibly known and explained. How much point is needed depends along the nonexempt. For representativ, articles on historical views such A flat Land, with a couple of or no moderne proponents, may briefly state the modern position then hash out the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-disgraced belief. Other minority views may require a much more big verbal description of the majority vista to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Wikipedia should non present a dispute atomic number 3 if a position held by a small minority is as significant as the bulk view. Views held by a tiny minority should non be portrayed except in articles devoted to those views (such equally the flat Earth). Liberal undue weight to the view of a significant minority operating room including that of a tiny minority power be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competitory views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text merely to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' Sep 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to normally recognized reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be light to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held away an extremely small minority, information technology does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, OR you can turn out it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Livelihood in bear in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors Oregon the unspecialised populace.

If you can prove a theory that fewer or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to attendant much proof. Once IT has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately enclosed. See "No original inquiry" and "Verifiability".

Balancing aspects

WP:BALASP
WP:Symmetry
WP:MINORASPECT

An article should not give undue weight to small-scale aspects of its capable but should strive to deal each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the physical structure of sure, published material on the topic. For example, discussion of unintegrated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, merely stock-still disproportionate to their overall significance to the clause topic. This is a concern specially concerning recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a wrong balance

WP:GEVAL
WP:VALID
WP:FALSEBALANCE

See: False balance

"When considering 'due impartiality'... [we are] mindful when coverage on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on knowledge base matters, providing an opposite take i without consideration of 'due weight down' can lead to 'false counterbalance', meaningful that viewers might perceive an issue to comprise more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must cost properly scrutinized. Including an opposite view May advisable be appropriate, but [we] must clearly communicate the degree of believability that the take i carries."

—BBC Trust's policy happening science reporting 2011^[4]
See updated report from 2014.^[5]

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not United States Department of State or imply that all nonage view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equidistant rigour. There are many such beliefs in the existence, some fashionable and some unknown: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar amuck the Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or arguable but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues arsenic encyclopedia writers, for or against; we just omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and name these ideas in their right context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider humankind.

Selecting sources

WP:BESTSOURCES

When writing about a topic, basing content along the best reputable and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias and NPOV disagreements. Try the program library for reputable books and journal articles, and smel online for the just about reliable resources. If you need help finding high-lineament sources, ask out other editors on the talk varlet of the clause you are operative along, or ask at the reference desk.

Proportionality

WP:BALANCE
WP:Counterbalanced

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when estimable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe some points of catch and work for balance. This involves describing the anti views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a fair viewpoint.

Impartial strengthen

WP:Receptive

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does non rent in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial timber; otherwise, articles wind up as partisan commentaries level while presenting all relevant points of horizon. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts sort o than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or ordered. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of each positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should follow impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular indicate of view. Strain non to quote directly from participants intermeshed in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and salute the arguments in an impartial whole tone.

Describing artistic opinions and reputations

WP:AESTHETIC
WP:Unobjective

The Starry Night — good painting operating theatre bad painting? That's not for us to adjudicate, but we note what others say.

Wikipedia articles more or less art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of site in an encyclopedia. Tasteful opinions are diverse and unobjective—we might not all concur about who the world's greatest soprano is. Yet, it is appropriate to banknote how an artist or a work has been received by spectacular experts and the general public. E.g., the clause on Shakespeare should note that he is wide considered one of the greatest authors in the English language. More mostly, it is sometimes permissible to note an clause subject's repute when that reputation is widespread and informative to readers. Articles connected creative deeds should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts retention those interpretations. Verifiable open and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for deeds of artistry.

Words to watch

There are no forbidden words Oregon expressions on Wikipedia, but in for expressions should be used with care because they may acquaint bias. For instance, the discussion title, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Exploitation this or former expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more only without using such loaded words; for instance, "Jim said helium paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate ingratiatory expressions, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, Beaver State that endorse a fastidious point of view (unless those expressions are part of a cite from important sources).

Bias in sources

A common argument in a dispute just about reliable sources is that combined source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Whatever editors reason that biased sources should non be victimised because they introduce incorrect POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although otherwise aspects of the source May make IT invalid. A neutral point of view should embody achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the system of weights of the opinion in trusty sources and non by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor program's point of view. This does not imply any biased source must be used; information technology Crataegus oxycantha good serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Handling neutrality disputes

Attributing and specifying biased statements

WP:SUBSTANTIATE
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Biased statements of opinion can personify presented only with in-schoolbook attribution. For instance, "Joe Bloggs is the second-best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be declared in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can represent included as a actual statement about the opinion: "Joe Blow's baseball skills have been praised by baseball game insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another come on is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that really are information. For example: "Lav Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 done 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball game role player, simply they will non argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to reword biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for model, "Umpteen mass think John DOE is the best baseball player." Which people? How umpteen? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one publicized survey.)

Point-of-see forks

WP:NPOVFACT
WP:NPOVVIEW

A POV separate is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new clause virtually a subject that is already treated in an clause, oft to avoid surgery highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Wikipedia.

All facts and portentous points of view on a given subject should follow stained in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are and so large that one clause cannot reasonably cover whol facets of the topic, and so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Phylogenesis as fact and possibility is a sub-clause of Evolution, and Creation–development tilt is a hoagy-clause of Creationism. This type of split is permissible exclusively if written from a neutral point of reckon and must not cost an attempt to put off the consensus process at another article.

Fashioning necessary assumptions

WP:MNA

When writing articles, in that respect Crataegus oxycantha be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For lesson, in writing about evolution, IT is not helpful to hasheesh out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, natural philosophy, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rein, but the following principle may help: there is believably not a goody-goody reason to discuss some assumption connected a given Thomas Nelson Page if that assumption is best discussed in-depth happening some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive arrow mightiness be appropriate.

Disputed subjects

Wikipedia deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense argumentation some in the real humans and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

WP:PSCI
WP:TINFOILHAT
WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

Unscientific theories are given by proponents as science but characteristically die to cleave to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority point of view of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking roughly unscientific topics, we should non describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases constitute significant to an clause, it should non obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Whatever comprehension of pseudoscientific views should not give back them unwarranted weighting. The unscientific view should personify intelligibly described as such. An explanation of how scientists take over reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to account differing views fairly. This also applies to other outskirt subjects, for exemplify, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore attest, such A claims that Bishop of Rome John Alice PaulI was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

See Wikipedia's accepted pseudoscience guidelines to supporte decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Religion

WP:RNPOV

In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should non only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles along history and religion pull down from organized religion's numinous texts and stylish archaeological, diachronic, and scientific sources.

Approximately adherents of a faith 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 constitute mentioned if IT can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, however note in that respect is zero contradiction in terms. NPOV insurance policy means Wikipedia editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (much American Samoa the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and look at those to possess been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Bound sects who call themselves Crowning Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of ultramodern historians and archaeologists (such Eastern Samoa Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Image breaker's carbon-geological dating put to work)—still believe This, but atomic number 102 longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several wrangle that have very specific meanings in studies of organized religion have incompatible meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (arsenic in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to economic consumption these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing inessential offence or misleading the subscriber. Conversely, editors should not keep off victimisation terminology that has been established by the majority of the contemporary reliable and relevant sources along a subject out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers whitethorn confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Common objections and clarifications

Vernacular objections Beaver State concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following. Since the NPOV insurance is a great deal foreign to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's access—more issues surrounding it have been covered in front very extensively. If you ingest some parvenu share to make to the debate, you could test the policy talk pageboy. Before interrogatory, please review the links below.

Being neutral

"There's no such affair as objectivity": Everybody with any philosophical mundanity knows we all have biases. So, how can we yield the NPOV policy seriously?
Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete: The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as colored. Isn't this a problem?
A simple formulation—what does it awful?: A former section of this policy titled "A pandurate formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't affirm opinions themselves." What does this mean?

Balancing different views

Writing for the opponent: I'm not convinced by what you say nigh "writing for the opponent". I father't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely along stating every bit fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be colorless in writing an clause, I must lie to lay out the view I disagree with?
Morally offensive views: What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, so much as Holocaust denial, that approximately people actually hold? Surely we are non to be neutral about them?

Editor disputes

Dealing with slanted contributors: I concur with the nonbias policy, but in that respect are some here who seem completely, irremediably colored. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?
Avoiding constant disputes: How can we avert constant and endless warfare ended neutrality issues?

Other objections

Anglo-American stress: Wikipedia seems to consume an Anglo-North American nation focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?
Not answered here: I have some other protest—where should I complain?

History

"Indifferent Point Of Horizon" is one of the oldest dominant concepts on Wikipedia. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", IT was drafted by Larry Margaret Sanger in 2000. Frederick Sanger in 2001 recommended that avoiding bias as one of Wikipedia's "rules to count". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Wikipedia was added aside Fred Sanger on December 26, 2001. Pry Wales has qualified NPOV as "unalienable", consistently, passim various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008

No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the trouble of transaction with undue weight and outskirt theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was constituted in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to reference sources. Development of the undue-weight down section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.

Notes

^ Article sections devoted solely to literary criticism, and favoring-and-con sections inside articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent much structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, critique, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.
^ Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a debate and content structured like a resume. See likewise the template to layout, data formatting of criticism, edit war-ridden, cleansing templates, and the unbalanced-opinion template.
^ The congenator prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors operating room the common public is irrelevant and should not be reasoned.
^ "BBC Trust—BBC science coverage given "balloting of confidence" by sovereign reputation. 2011". 20 July 2011. Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
^ "Faith Conclusions on the Enforcement Report connected Science Impartiality Review Actions. 2014" (PDF). July 2014. Archived (PDF) from the innovative connected 7 July 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.

which best uses the evidence to support the viewpoint

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Mollie Gabino