User:Yutah123/Don't throw your POV up to the sky

Throwing your point of view (POV) above all the other POVs is considered a violation of Wikipedia:NPOV, so don't promote your POV excessively because it will likely be reverted.

"Throwing your point of view up to the sky is useless, since gravity will always pull it down to ground level

Where the other POVs are so that it will always remain that way, always no matter what."

That is the basic idea, no matter what you do to make your POV as prominent as possible, your edits will always be reverted by GF editors.

NPOV

All articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, giving all POV views published by reliable, independent sources given due weight, fairly and proportiately so that and as far as possible, without any bias.

NPOV is applied to articles and all other encyclopedic content, it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. It is completely nonnegotiable and all articles and editors must follow it. It is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies and never will and cannot be superseded by other policies, guidelines, essays or even editor consensus (it is also impossible for consensus to go against NPOV, since consensus itself is based on policies and arguments) due to the principles upon which it is based.

Achieving neutrality

In order to achieve NPOV, one must not give undue weight to only one editor's POV, but give due weight to all POV, one must also give each POV a fair representation in each article, in proportion to the significance of the viewpoint in the sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept , the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

So, in order to achieve neutrality, one must follow these rules.

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view, respectively, by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

Common objections and clarifications (COAC)

See the NPOV FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section.

Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's NPOV policy include the following.

Being neutral

• Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

• A simple formulation—what does it mean?

Balancing different views

• Morally offensive views

Editorship disputes

• Dealing with biased contributors

• Avoiding constant disputes

Other objections

• Anglo-American focus

• Not answered here
  I have some other objection—where should I complain?

Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try policy talk, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking, please review the links below.

See also

• Wikipedia:NPOV
• Civil POV pushing
• NPOV disputes
• NPOV examples
• NPOV examples debate
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV tutorial
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Why NPOV?
• Criticism of Wikipedia#Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
• {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
• NPOV noticeboard