Editing Encyclopedia:NPOV dispute (section)

== How can one disagree about NPOV? ==

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is ''factual,'' the article is therefore ''neutral.''  The other party either denies that "X" ''is'' a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact.  In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the [[Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View|Neutral Point of View]] policy.  Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.

Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are.  It doesn't matter ''at all'' how convinced we are that our "facts" are the facts.  If a significant number of other interested parties ''really do'' disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are:

* The article can simply be biased, expressing viewpoints as facts (see [[Wikipedia:POV]])
* While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.
* Some viewpoints, although not presented as facts, can be given undue attention and space compared to others (see [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance]]).
* The text and manner of writing can insinuate that one viewpoint is more correct than another.
* The subject or title of the article can imply a particular point of view.
* A type of analysis of facts that can lead to the article suggesting a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives.
* The author's own viewpoint is mentioned or obvious.
* Alternate viewpoints are compared in persuasive terms.