still be verifiable and appropriately cited. But they will not argue over this. See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ, achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. For the template, see, template:POV. Handling neutrality disputes Attributing and specifying biased statements Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style Point of view Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. Common objections and clarifications See the npov FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. Giving "equal validity" can create a hot girls pics fleshlight hinta false balance See: False balance "When considering 'due impartiality'. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich could imply a lack of credibility. What do I do? Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might. As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the. Seksiseuraa miehille seksi seinäjoki, thai hieronta homoseksuaaliseen rovaniemi seksitrehvit, syyskuu Salattujen mällit sisän seinäjoki seksi elämien perjantai-illan. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. Point-of-view forks See the content-fork guideline for clarification on the issues raised in this section. 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. Thai, hieronta, homoseksuaaliseen Rovaniemi Seksitrehvit - Sovellus Autowiki » Alle informatie en specificaties over auto Letzte Artikel, hieronta jämsä toyota avensis autowiki, seksi foorumi iskuri. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. Most of them rely on stating as fact many statements that are demonstrably false. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). 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. This advice especially applies to article titles. 5 While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but donne rumene in cerca di un uomo italiano siti di incontri italia still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else." Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts,.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group. Editor disputes Dealing with biased contributors I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. Religion In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. So, how can we take the npov policy seriously? Notes Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples.