Policies and guidelines
Why they exist
Content
Rules for writing articles
Conduct
Getting along with others
Summary
Review what you've learned
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.[1] 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.[2] In September 2014, he was arrested again, this time on charges of drunk driving and speeding in Baltimore, Maryland.[3]
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.
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.
The New York Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history.
William Shakespeare is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language.
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.
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.
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.