Wikipedia:Article point of view vs NPOV

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained as a historical archive.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of 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.

[edit] Background

I was enouraged to submit this policy proposal after receiving some encouraging feedback in this section at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view

Submitted and Proposed by --Iantresman 14:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)