Wikipedia:Article point of view vs NPOV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason."
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Some articles by definition, express a point of view, in which case I propose that a neutral point of view (NPOV), has a slightly different meaning as follows:

For a general article: (existing policy)
Neutral Point of View means as described in policy, and loosely means to (a) provide a balanced article in (b) a neutral manner.

For an article describing an inherent point of view: (proposed amended policy)
Neutral Point of View means (a) Primarily describe the subject of the article, acknowledging other points of view (b) in a neutral manner.

The main difference is that a general article is a balance of points of view, but an article about a specific point of view is inherently unbalanced (but still written in a neutral style). Two examples describe what I mean:

[edit] Example 1

An article on cosmology (study of the Universe) should provide a balance of the different types of cosmology, eg. Big Bang Cosmology, Steady state theory, Plasma cosmology, etc.
But an article on, for example, the Big Bang Cosmology should present cosmology from the point of view the Big Bang theory. In which case, a NPOV might mention that there are other cosmologies, but the article would not need to balance each fact with counterpoints on each and every alternative cosmololgy.
In other words, an article's inherent point of view, ie. the subject of the article, takes precedence over the neutral point of view of the more general subject.
And using this particular example, the same point of view would apply to articles on Steady State theory, and Plasma Cosmology.

[edit] Example 2

An article on 'Political systems' may include a balance of discussion on (a) totalitarianism (b) democracy.
But an article on 'Totalitarianism', should primarily discuss the point of view of totalitarianism in a neutral manner, and acknowledge other points of view, but NOT counterpoint most statements.
Likewise an article on 'Democracy', should primarily discuss the point of view of democracy in a neutral manner, and acknowledge other points of view, but NOT counterpoint most statements.

Otherwise, if we counterpoint and balance most statements in each specific article, we end up with a general article, in this case, very similar to that on Political systems.