Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/neutrality quiz

Policies and guidelines
Why they exist

Content
Rules for writing articles

Conduct
Getting along with others

Summary
Review what you've learned

View all as single page

<< Back to tutorials menu

Can you guess which of the following passages comply with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy?

---

Michael Phelps (born June 30, 1985) is an American former competitive swimmer and the most decorated Olympian of all time with a total of 28 medals. He has encountered legal trouble on several occasions. At age 19 in November 2004, he was arrested for drunk driving in Salisbury, Maryland. In February 2009, a photograph of Phelps using a bong went viral; this resulted in the loss of the Kellogg Company as a sponsor and a three-month suspension by USA Swimming. In September 2014, he was arrested again, this time on charges of drunk driving and speeding in Baltimore, Maryland.

Answer

Not neutral. An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject. While Phelps has indeed encountered legal trouble on several occasions, it would be inappropriate to devote such a large portion of the opening paragraph of this article to those occasions.

---

Extensive investigation into vaccines and autism has found no relationship between the two, causal or otherwise, and there is no evidence that vaccine ingredients cause autism.

Answer

Neutral. Wikipedia does not give undue weight to fringe theories not supported by reliable sources, like the idea that vaccines cause autism. This passage is an appropriate summary of the scholarship on the topic.

---

Earth is the third planet from the Sun and the only astronomical object known to harbor life. While many people think that the Earth is spherical, more and more people are coming to agree that the Earth is actually flat.

Answer

Not neutral. This is an example of false balance. This sentence is true (modern flat Earth beliefs are indeed growing), but this phrasing is highly misleading as it leads the reader to think that there is substantive disagreement about the shape of the Earth. In reality, reliable sources have an overwhelming consensus on the shape of the Earth, to the point where the spherical Earth perspective is treated by Wikipedia as fact, and the flat Earth perspective is considered WP:FRINGE, meaning it generally doesn't need to be mentioned.

---

The New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history.

Answer

Not neutral. Calling something the greatest is an example of peacock language, in this case expressing an opinion that can't be supported by reliable sources. You should show instead of telling, using verifiable facts; it would be much better to instead write The New York Yankees have won 26 World Series championships — almost three times as many as any other team.

---

William Shakespeare is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language.

Answer

Neutral. This is a proper description of a reputation. Crucially, it is only valid because many reliable sources have actually stated that Shakespeare has this reputation. The phrase widely considered is important – while it is a fact that he is considered one of the greatest, it would be an opinion to directly say that he is one of the greatest.

---

Cats received negative reviews from critics, who criticized the CGI effects, plot, and tone, with many calling it one of the worst films of 2019.

Answer

Neutral. Wikipedia describes reputations, indicating the relative prominence of different viewpoints. When reputations are bad, Wikipedia should say so, without employing false balance.

For example, Critic A reviewed Cats positively, praising X, while critic B reviewed Cats negatively, criticizing Y is verifiably true, but still not acceptable as it isn't neutral. Writing that would be false balance, as it inaccurately summarizes an overwhelmingly negative critical reception as if it were evenly mixed between positive and negative reviews.

---

According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis.

Answer

Not neutral. This phrasing puts these ideas side-by-side, presenting the Holocaust as a matter of opinion rather than historical fact. This is not neutral because David Irving's position of Holocaust denial is a fringe viewpoint that should not be given equal standing with the consensus among respected historians.

When discussing David Irving, a neutral phrasing might look like this: The Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany. David Irving is a Holocaust denier, meaning he holds the false belief that the Holocaust did not occur.

---

Return to tutorial