Wikipedia:Policypedia/NPOV

Infodump:

Arbcom precedent:

Neutral point of view (and associated principles)[edit]

Statement(s) of principle

It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information that is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.
Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.
Wikipedia articles should contain information regarding the subject of the article; they are not a platform for advocacy regarding one or another point of view regarding the topic. Sweeping generalizations that label the subject of an article as one thing or another are inappropriate and not a substitute for adequate research regarding details of actual positions and actions that can speak for themselves.
Injection of personal viewpoints regarding the subject of an article is inappropriate and not to be resolved by debate among the editors of an article, but referenced from reputable outside resources. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda advocacy or advertising.
A strong point of view expressed elsewhere on a subject does not necessarily mean POV-pushing editing on Wikipedia; that can only be determined by the edits to Wikipedia.
Unexplained deletions of portions of controversial articles are unacceptable.
Aggressive point-of-view editing can produce widespread reactions as editors attempt to combat an outbreak of it, mobilizing others to join the fray. While this creates the appearance of disorder, it is better seen as an attempt to deal with a refractory problem.
The Wikipedia policy of editing from a neutral point of view, a central and non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia, applies to situations where there are conflicting viewpoints and contemplates that significant viewpoints regarding such situations all be included in as fair a manner as possible.
Wikipedia users are usually expected to discuss changes that are controversial; while this does not necessarily mean discussing the edit before making it, if an edit is reverted a user should make an attempt at discussion before changing it back.
Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy contemplates including only significant published viewpoints regarding a subject. It does not extend to novel viewpoints developed by Wikipedia editors that have not been independently published in other venues.
When disputing the accuracy or neutrality of an article, users are always expected to give a reason on the article's talk page.
Editors with a national background, in this case, Serbian, are encouraged to edit from a Neutral Point of View, presenting the point of view they have knowledge of through their experience and culture without aggressively pushing their particular nationalist point of view by emphasizing it or minimizing or excluding other points of view.
Neutral point of view as defined on Wikipedia contemplates inclusion of all significant perspectives regarding a subject. While majority perspectives may be favored by more detailed coverage, minority perspectives should also receive sufficient coverage. No perspective is to be presented as the "truth"; all perpectives are to be attributed to their advocates. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia articles are edited from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which contemplates that all significant viewpoints regarding a matter shall be appropriately represented. Where necessary, contributors must be willing to "write for the enemy".
All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)

Previous penalties relating to principle

Attempts to "push (one's) POV" are usually met with revert limitations whereupon the Wikipedia:three-revert rule is reduced to two, one, or even zero reverts with similar penalties, as revert warring is often associated with violations of this policy. For a period between January 2005 and February 2005, an experimental POV parole was implemented in some cases, wherein re-insertion of any edits that were judged by a majority of those commenting on the relevant talk page in a 24-hour poll to be a violation of the NPOV policy would result in temp-bans for a short time, up to one week. The experiment was generally regarded as a failure.

Bans on editing the articles in question are issued in more extreme cases.

Cases involving this principle