Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

• 3.1 Substantive Questions 3.1.1 What is fact, what is rating?
• 3.1.2 How do I describe positions?
• 3.1.3 What is impartial account?
• 3.1.4 To what extent it is appropriate to mention minority opinions?

Declaration of the neutral position

A neutral position describes a subject with neither derogatory nor sympathisierendem undertone. He is not her towards a favorable, but not hostile. This does not mean that ratings should be re- see the article in any form at all, but rather that they must be prepared from an editorially neutral point of view. An article and its sub - items are intended to describe and characterize, to advocate without one of them to represent or to reject all the different points of view, opinions and disputes of a topic clear. It should be pointed as much as possible

• Who represents that opinion,
• Why he represents and
• How widespread is.

It also points of view may be reproduced, taking a critical attitude to other points of view. But even if a text says such criticism, should the representation remain neutral in itself and merely describe this criticism, not practice it. All positions shown also need to be assigned a reliable source.

Only this neutral point of view makes it possible to handle multiple disparate viewpoints on the same topic properly. It presupposes, of course, that the views of the majority are represented adequately. However, it also requires that the views of minorities to speak, unless it can find a reliable source. The description should have a neutral tone, and the proportion of individual positions on the total amount to reflect their particular relevance. Therefore, the text should not be removed just because this is the representation of a dissenting opinion; However, it should be shortened if necessary or outsourced to a new sub- article if you would otherwise be given a disproportionate amount of weight.

Neutrality requires that the views are presented without bias. That all users and all sources tend to certain positions (ie their own opinions have ), does not preclude that can nevertheless be writing an article that all this - brings together viewpoints in the article and correctly describes and neutral as a whole - possibly mutually contradictory is. This should not be done as if the sources were unbiased, but it should be made clear on the contrary, that there are differences of opinion, for example, by direct comparison to the other relevant points of view.

Principle

Occupied

Balanced representation of the positions

Objectivity of the presentation

Procedure

Substantive issues

What is fact, what is rating?

• Obvious facts can be presented in articles as such. For example, is detectable from countless sources that Vincent van Gogh was a Dutch painter, or that Brazil is on the South American continent.
• Value judgments are statements that are not descriptive (descriptive ), but are prescriptive ( prescriptive or normative). Since no conclusion from being on the 'ought' is possible ( naturalistic fallacy, Hume's law ), these judgments are always subjective. You can only check the contents of empirical statements, but not normative. For an encyclopedia judgments are therefore always problematic. Depending on the importance of judgmental instance but they can be to the article subject as information ( fact ) itself again. In any case, judgments must be separated from facts and reported as such. For example, it is a summary, Vincent van Gogh to name the most important Dutch painter, but also to refer to Brazil as a developing country.

As I describe positions?

" The German Trade Union Federation called in a statement the bill to regulate the employment data protection as problematic as data retention. "

" In the 500 most influential music albums Ranking Rolling Stone magazine rated the album Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by the Beatles as the most influential album of all time. "

What's impartial account?

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, all relevant points of view must be represented ( there must be no hidden value judgment by the selection or weighting of individual perspectives take place ). Significant ratings must be presented in a balanced. For impartial representation thus belongs in the first place, the views and arguments of all sides to describe adequately, that is, both to maintain a balance in scope, as to make any (implicit) rating in the choice of words. The art here is to focus on the essentials.

It is the neutrality also not conducive when authors viewpoints and arguments of different sides of a conflict are made ​​own and with their help in the style of a discussion of its own position describes argumentative. A separation of the various arguments in separate lists ( pro and con list) is not a suitable form of representation.

To what extent it is appropriate to mention minority opinions?

For example, if a scientific theory in the scientific world is only recognized by a professor and his three assistants, the representation of these differences in attitude must not be portrayed in the same extent as the established positions. This of course applies only to minority opinions in terms of a so-called minority opinion and as a counter to a prevailing view, not so limited issues where the view of the author is the only existing scientific opinion.

If minority opinions already have historical weight by the fact that they are publicly accordingly often discussed, it is appropriate to mention the relevant points of view and their discussion as well as the social, political, economic, etc. effects to a reasonable extent.

Example: The theoretical and practical research on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life compared with the reports of UFO sightings and contacts with extraterrestrials; the latter two occupy a certain minority status.

Word choice and formulation

The choice of words is important. Even a single word in a sentence can destroy the objectivity and make the sentence a tendentious statement. An example: In the sentence He has failed to inform the public, it is neglected the word. It implies and presupposes a careless attitude that led to this alleged failure. The sentence can be written failed even without the word. The formulation He has the public is not informed neutral, since it involves no rating. Another example: let not still implies that they would have long since have to do, possibly due to a law or similar. You do not inform is neutral.

With the choice of words the author can manipulate the reader. There are authors that its not are aware and writers who use this opportunity consciously and purposefully. Some readers feel manipulated, others are manipulated without being aware.

Words as often, rarely, many, few are inaccurate, and what little is often depends on the viewpoint. Example: Is the glass half full or half empty? Plain figures are: The glass has a capacity of 2 dl and is filled with 1 dl of liquid.

Words as known, famous, important, successful, popular are often relative and should be used to understand and specifically, but not campaigning or as noise words. From the description in the article should at least indicate what and in which the public known what has been described, is famous, significant, successful or popular.

Structuring

In many cases, there is the core of a phenomenon, that of ( almost) is seen all the players undisputed, while there is also controversial aspects or reviews of the phenomenon. In these cases it is advisable to first represent the uncontroversial aspects and hereinafter then be presented in a separate section of the reception of the phenomenon from the perspective of the various relevant actors. This section should explicitly include not only negative reviews, but all relevant voices that can of course be consistently negative in each case.

Statistics and figures

Statistics facts from press in numbers, but they are not therefore in principle factual. The problems begin on the one hand where one specifies what is to be measured at all, and listen to where the measured values ​​evaluated, summarized and commented with sentences.

Generally, anyone who brings a statistic that should always attach a byline.

What to do with non-neutral texts?

Articles, in which one or more positions will be declared only insufficient, can not thereby make neutral that it truncates the object point. Instead, efforts should be made sure that the only inaccurately stated position better justified (eg sources) and is formulated. It is recommended that high-risk and controversial articles are added to the repeated non-neutral passages on observation candidates to link, from where they are being watched by more long-term users.

As a remedy for non-neutral articles, there are several options:

• The first step is to check under version history, how many people have already worked on the text. If the version history does not appear to understand at first glance, are under discussion most important information.
• Who knows the subject sufficiently or has appropriate sources can rewrite or expand the article accordingly.
• Another, more polite way is to provide the not neutral parts appearing on the talk page as a quotation or to outsource with a - at best argumentative conclusive - Please to the author to reword it.
• Articles, which some consider as non- neutral and can not be rewritten without much effort, you can with the block { { neutrality } } denote that points to this page. The whole thing looks like this:

• The last resort for articles that appear as not " desensitised ", is a deletion request. In his text is to justify why a revision is not possible or advisable, so that other people could understand why the deletion request.