Editing Encyclopedia:NPOV dispute (section)

==What is an NPOV dispute?==
Often, authors can view "[[WP:OWNER|their]]" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is.

Note, however, that there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page ''is'' in an NPOV dispute, it probably ''is not'' neutral—or, at least, that the topic is a controversial one, and one should be wary of a possible slant or bias. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something ''that other people would want to disagree with.''

Most probably the only grounds on which there could be an NPOV dispute over an article that actually conformed to the NPOV is when one or both of the parties to the dispute did not understand either the NPOV policy, or enough about the subject matter to realize that nothing favoring one [[Wikipedia:POV|POV]] had actually been said. For example, ideologues, when presented with an article that has exemplary neutrality (as per our policy), will consider the article biased precisely because it does not reflect ''their own'' bias ''enough''. 

By linking to this page from an article, a dissenter can register their concern without unduly upsetting the author(s) or maintainer(s) of the article, and without starting a flame war.  Others would maintain, however, that linking to this page only postpones the dispute.  This might be a good thing, though, if a "cooling off" period seems required.

Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an '''NPOV dispute''' is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral.

An NPOV dispute tag does ''not'' mean that an article actually violates NPOV. An editor should not remove the tag merely because they feel the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved.

Sometimes people have [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit wars]] over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is an NPOV dispute or not. The tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern. The NPOV-dispute tag is not a consolation prize for editors whose position has been rejected by a consensus of other editors, nor is it a substitute for pursuing appropriate [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]]. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.