HJJ:NPOV
From Harpo's Juke Joint
| This page is an official policy here at the Joint. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. |
To include shortcut(s), pass a parameter: {{HJJ:NPOV|[[WP:SHORT]]}}
For related Harpo's Juke Joint header templates
see Template messages/Project namespace.Template:Policy in a nutshell
Template:Policylist
- For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view (NPOV), see the NPOV tutorial.
Harpo’s Juke Joint:Neutral point of view is one of Harpo’s Juke Joint's three content policies. The other two are Harpo’s Juke Joint:Verifiability and Harpo’s Juke Joint:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.
The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view - just one that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.
