Wikibooks:Neutral Point of View

From Wikibooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Green check.png This page is a hard rule on the Simple English Wikibooks. Many people agree with it. They see it as a standard that all users should follow. When changing the page, please check that the other people agree with your changes. Use the talk page when you are not sure or when you want to propose a change.
Shortcut:
WB:NPOV
WB:NEU


Nutshell.png This page in a nutshell: All books and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.


All Wikibooks have a rule that when people write articles, they should use a Neutral Point of View (abbreviated NPOV). This is also a regular Wikibook policy.

NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about, and make them the main point of the article. Often this is known only as many people edit the book, leaving some things. This is called consensus.

The things that people disagree and argue about, must also be mentioned. But they must not be the main point of the article. The major issues or debates must be laid out, not favouring any one side too much. Strange or rare opinions can be stated as side matters with who says them. If they are too strange, they may be moved.

NPOV does not solve all problems. For instance, many things most people believe are wrong - agreeing is not truth. Facts must be checked. Honest people disagree about complex topics. A Simple English User's point of view and idea of neutral is not the same as that of a Simple English Contributor. But most cases are simple:

Example of cases of disagreement

For example, if two people are talking about a king named Marco (not a real king, but let's pretend), they might disagree about many things. One person might say, "Marco caused a war between countries", but the other person might say, "Marco tried to avoid the war between countries." One person might say, "Marco was a good king", and the other might say "Marco was a bad king."

But both people could agree on many facts about Marco, for example: Marco was 175 centimeters tall. Marco was born in 1630 and died in 1699. Marco's father was named Carlos and his mother was named Claudia. Marco's country fought a war from 1670 to 1675, etc. Since almost everyone agrees that these things are true, they are "neutral point of view" and okay as the main point of the article.

Only once these things are done should the different opinions on Marco and the war, and his skill as a king, be added - it must be clear that these are in dispute, and all sides treated fairly. Opinions should be said like this:

"Some people (then say who the people are) say that Marco was good because (say their reasons). Other people (say who they are) think he was a bad king, because (their reasons)."

If you think the view of a topic is not neutral, you may raise an NPOV dispute. This tells others not to trust the book until it is fixed.