Talk:Proposed baseline NPOV standard

We welcome your feedback!

Hello-hello!

I am inviting you to participate in the public discussion regarding a proposed baseline Neutral Point of View (NPOV) standard. The proposed baseline is meant for the Wikipedias which do not yet have an NPOV policy, for their communities to adopt, use, and build upon. The timeframe for the discussion is from June 17 - July 15, 2026.

Please share your thoughts here on this talkpage! You can choose relevant discussion prompt question or share your thoughts in free form! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The idea of ​​a basic standard of neutrality has a key flaw that cannot be fixed in our reality. There are many topics where the best authoritative sources carry an exclusively negative assessment of events. Wikipedia editors should not artificially soften these assessments or seek out alternative sources for artificial balance for the sake of "neutrality". Because they will immediately be forced to express their own value judgments regarding these sources, which is unacceptable. Sikorskiy (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that general comment and perspective, Sikorskiy! This has been well noted. Does this mean that in your perspective there should not be NPOV policy or a baseline NPOV standard? Or is this geared more towards changing language or framing for it? --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Most likely, the standard should recommend neutrality towards sources. If the source is reliable, the information from it should be presented, even if we do not like this source for some reason. In general, additional ANOTHER STANDARD is needed - regarding marking directly in the articles the degree of reliability of the source. It would also be nice to mark how the source relates to the subject of discussion - negatively, positively or neutrally. This would help Wiki readers understand the context in each specific quote. I am sure that such marking can now be automated by AI. A common script on the Wiki that will not require editors to make their own judgment. Sikorskiy (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that's always a good idea. It's good to give in-text attribution to some sources ("The vegetarian advocacy organization said..." or "The opposition politician said..."), but many times a label would be strange. We all know that teachers are in favor of children learning how to read, that labor unions are in favor of better pay for workers, and doctors are in favor of sick people becoming healthy. When it is obvious, the labels should be excluded.

This can not be handled by script. A newspaper that is usually "positive" towards one politician will usually be "negative" towards another, and usually "neutral" on a third. But that same newspaper might sometimes be "negative" about their favorite politician, or it might be cited for something unrelated to politicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this clarification and additional elaboration, Sikorskiy and WhatamIdoing! This is well noted in revision triage. Regarding having another standard on neutrality of sources or reliable sources - it is clear from the conversation that there are gaps regarding this and even for NPOV policy it would be good to have more clear reference points. At the same time, as also noted in other comments, there are even less Wikipedias with Reliable sources policy and only about 15 Wikipedias that curate a sort of Perennial sources list.

There is a suggestion in another comment to include work on reliable sources in the actionable recommendation for improvement for the communities. I am documenting a suggestion for a standard around this from this thread. If there are other clear proposals or suggestions for improvement, you can help to concretely highlight them! Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the text of the proposed baseline NPOV standard clear?

• In English this seems clear in a few number of words and applaud the committee's work. I am curious if the committee tried machine translating it into languages spoken on the committee to see how well it works that way because I expect many projects/users where this becomes the policy to be using it that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • There was some consideration of translatability, more from actual people than machine translation. A machine translation testing is a good idea, especially as we are looking at rather small languages, so we will see what we can do, as it would still need human verification of the quality of translation. One idea we have for the near future is running some supported workshops with some communities, so we can test the idea out there. Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

    I can tell you from UCOC experience that we want humans to be driving translation but that most definitely does not always happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• This needs to be written in simple English in order to be easily translatable and clear, I don’t think the English wording needs to be exact and uber-precise, there are loads of words used here that very likely don’t have direct translations in many languages. People would translate the ideas/concepts, which would stray from the precision of this proposal. It just needs to get the basic ideas across simply. Kowal2701 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Kowal2701 for this suggestion for improvement! We have tried to already keep the language short and simple. An issue that has come up is the existing use of terminology on Wikipedias, as jargon is used and specific terms have specific meanings. We have tried translations to some languages and overall it has worked with keeping the same jargon. However, it can indeed be worthwhile to find ways to simplify the language to have more clarity. If you have suggestions for this, it would be great to have them proposed as part of this discussion! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you @KVaidla (WMF) for the quick response, I agree jargon is the hardest to translate (even "due weight" on enwiki is not that intuitive, and often confused with en:WP:BALASP). I haven't any experience on small wikis, so my impression is just based on browsing, but lots of small wikis appear to not have the concept of "reliable sources" and have most pages uncited (similar to how enwiki used to be, en:WP:RS wasn't created until 2005), which keeps the learning curve as low as possible to help them grow. Neutrality is still important, but it's more abstract than currently on enwiki.

  Re the current proposal, I'd just remove mention of reliable sources and add something about weighing views in proportion to how prominent they are (ie. WP:DUE). Idk if "impartial" and "objective" may be hard to translate sometimes without elaboration Kowal2701 (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Kowal2701, for elaborating! Indeed only 77 Wikipedias have reliable sources policy, so that might create an additional barrier or at least refer to missing link or guidance. This point is well noted. Also, thank you for a concrete improvement suggestion, this is now documented as well. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• No, it's confusing, because it jumps suddenly from NPOV to "neutrality". As I've stated below, The text core principle of neutrality should be replaced by core principle of a neutral point of view. Attempting to abbreviate NPOV to "neutrality", without having the definition immediately adjacent for disambiguation, is confusing. This confusion has long since been sorted out on enwiki - most experienced editors avoid the ambiguity, but every now and then confusion occurs due to ambiguous sentences. The current text sounds like the intended meaning is that just as NPOV is important, the more general concept of "neutrality" is a core principle. Given that "neutrality" is generally seen as a good thing, this is a natural reading of the text as written. Boud (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, Boud for sharing your perspective here and additionally in other threads were relevant! Indeed, the English Wikipeida use of neutrality in the context of NPOV needs to be considered in the context outlined in the explanation section of the policy. Uncontextualized references might indeed cause unnecessary ambiguity or leave room for interpretation. At the same time, neutrality as a general term sometimes translates better than longer neutral point of view, which is not a concept that exists in all languages, even though in some languages there are translatability issues also with neutrality as a term. In any case, clarity and lack of ambiguity needs to be ensured for a baseline NPOV standard. Your point made here and elsewhere is well noted for consideration and potential language adjustment! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Does it include the key aspects of NPOV? Is there anything essential missing?

I think some focus on WP:DUE is definitely missing here. ‘The range of knowledge available in reliable published sources’ can be misinterpreted to mean that we need to give undue weight to more fringe view points, leading to, for example, giving undue weight to Armenian genocide denial if that’s what’s broadly available in the reliable sources in certain languages (Azerbaijani, Turkish). Some sentence about this is definitely required for this to work. stjn^[ru] 10:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well noted, stjn! Do you have a suggestion for the sentence, language that would work? --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Something like Articles should represent the broad opinion of reliable sources on their subject, and not give equal importance to less common view points. I’m sure it could be written in a simpler way, though. stjn^[ru] 11:26, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much, stjn! Noted for review - we will let the discussion run its course, to see what are all the suggestions for improvement, and then review all the suggestions together in July. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with stjn and Femke. Based on my experience on Chinese Wikipedia (where there are many complicated politics-related disputes), DUE is a good and simple standard that allows the community to determine whether the content is neutral or not. SCP-2000 14:59, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this perpsective, SCP-2000, especially with a practical example from CHinese Wikipedia! Well noted for consideration of the due weight amendment. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Related to the above, the concept of en:WP:FALSEBALANCE is missing. If we for instance look at sources on climate change, normally reliable newspapers might decide to platform fringe scientists because they believe they need to show "both sides", despite the fact that one of the two sides reflects the scientific consensus and the other an individual paid to spread misinformation. In the 2000s, you had a lot of respectable newspapers engage in spreading misinformation like that on the topic of climate change, and we are probably seeing the same in different topic areas. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Well noted, —Femke 🐦! Again, if there is a suggested language on how and where it would make sense to incorporate the suggestion, it would be great to share! Of course, keeping in mind that the intent is to keep the baseline clear and concise. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I was going to say something similar: "impartial and objective" suggests that no matter how "insane" the position is, you have to include it because otherwise you wouldn't be impartial. We see this kind of argument used a lot by Climate denial, Covid Denial and a number of other "politicized" anti expert topics. Similar dogwhistle words are "fair", "balanced", and "truth". "Objective" in particular is used to undermine idigenous knowledges, and "impartial" is used to empower radical positions that aren't part of the Overton window.

I think a better way of framing it is "fairly represent the range of the best reliable documented opinions or interpretations" of a topic, with a definition for how a community determines reliability in subsequent sentence. Sadads (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think part of the challenge is that we are in an era of radicalization by algorithm and rhetoric, and if you have to be "impartial and objective", you platform a number of opinions that are otherwise not evidence based, or actually represent things like concensus among the public or experts, Sadads (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadads, for weighing in here and proposing an alternative. Your point is clear and well noted for review. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Given that this whole work group appears to have arisen as a means to institutionalize genocide denial in Gaza after Jimbo got upset that he couldn't control what en-wiki does, I think that's a feature, not a bug. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts, the discussion you're talking about started in November 2025. In that discussion, @Risker said that the this group's work officially started in March 2025 – six months before Jimmy started a discussion at enwiki about what to name the article about the mess in Gaza. I would be sorry to see enwiki's contents controlled by any person, but your perception of the timeline is wrong. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:59, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I counter propose:

Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. Articles are expected to be impartial and objective. Their content is expected to consider the range of knowledge available in reliable published sources. Wikipedia articles are a summary of the information and points of view found in the best reliable sources, not all points of view.

changes: "reflect" -> "consider"; "reliable" -> "the best reliable"; + ", not of all points of view"

Reflecting implies too much that fringe and small minority views need to be put in, just because of reliable sources.

Just reliable is just a repeat here, but I think it is important to emphasize out that you have to consider the sources the best weighted more.

Not of all points of view explicitly and concisely points out fringe views as something to consider dropping.

Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Karsenat Your suggestions regarding changing the words are very clearly articulated - well noted! Just for clarity, do I understand correctly that your argumentation also supports the point made earlier by stjn about including WP:DUE in the baseline? Is there a nuance you would like to add and specify regarding this? Thank you again, for your contribution to the discussion! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Additionally, Karsenat, using the language of best reliable sources includes assessment. In many cases, the Wikipedias that do not have the NPOV policy, also do not have reliable sources policy. What would be the guidance of assessing reliable sources in that case? The perceived problem here is that it might be rather complex for a baseline - maybe there is a straightforward solution here, so happy to learn. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Those suggestions are derived from WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, and are an attempt at distilling it all the way down, trying to avoid the need for larger explicit additions.

I support expansions to the base, but ideally in a modular way and keeping in the spirit of keeping things as short as possible. We should make it easy to expand from the base, while keeping the base itself short. Those base addons are to be less of a mandate and more of a foundation to build from (and also really helpful for introducing new editors to the basics). I think the two guidelines mentioned are most likely worthy of their own condensed version(s?). A base guideline on content assessment certainly is important enough too. In any case, I think the language of best should generally evoke the right kind of idea, sources with better data, better methods, ideally more neutral, stuff like that. I do not think using best would hurt, people will continue as they please, people will get it or maybe we get lucky and the ambiguity triggers the creation of content assessment guidelines. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for additional clarification on the matter! I think it is very clear now and I am documenting this for the content review. Very helpful! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

A project doesn't need a reliable source guideline or policy to understand the concept of reliable sources or what best means. That said I think best is actually counterproductive in a default NPOV policy. I do think the "not all sources" clause is a very strong addition. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The point is well noted, Barkeep49. Yes, of course, the concept of reliable sources can be understood without a dedicated policy. The line of thinking was more about how one defines "best" reliable sourcews, as it can be rather subjective assessment, unless there are more concrete guidelines. I am documenting the note regarding "not all sources" for review. Would this be the right link to accompany the perspective? Thank you for the contribution! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI: any mention like this generates a separate notification for users mentioned, so unless you really want my attention on the matter, please just mention me in plain text or via {{noping}} template :-) stjn^[ru] 21:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, stjn for kindly conveying this! I apologize for redundant pings! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Like others above, I think the proposed draft is missing kind of the entirety of NPOV, or at least what I think of as NPOV, which is English Wikipedia's definition. "Articles are expected to be impartial and objective." is a recipe for disaster, and we know this from 25+ years of having this debate. "Impartial and objective" will be interpreted to mean "don't take sides in a dispute," i.e. if some call it a "war" and some call it a "special military operation," Wikipedia shouldn't take sides, or if some say climate change is real and others deny it, we shouldn't state either one as fact. That's not NPOV. Wikipedia takes sides in all kinds of disputes, because Wikipedia defines a "dispute" as "a dispute among reliable sources," not "a dispute among anyone in the world." NPOV means, to quote from enwiki's policy, "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice..." and "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." We are partial, in a sense: we are partial to the mainstream view. We mention significant minority views, but only if they are significant (not fringe), and we clearly identify them as the minority view (whereas the mainstream view is stated in wikivoice). That's why Wikipedia says climate change is really happening and caused by humans, while also mentioning those who disagree, but we aren't "impartial and objective" about whether or not climate change is real, or vaccines cause autism, or who shot JFK, etc. etc., at least not in the way that common people think of the words "impartial" and "objective." I would strike any reference to absolute standards like "impartial" and "objective" -- since those terms are always in the eye of the beholder, not even statistics or data are objective -- and instead cast it in relative terms, meaning relative to the RS. NPOV means, in my view, "accurately summarizing reliable sources," which means accurately stating what is the mainstream view, and what are significant minority viewpoints. Levivich (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that the current text misses the "entirety" of NPOV, but I more or less agree. What I noticed was the problem of the current text jumping from NPOV to "neutrality", despite NPOV and neutrality being in conflict, but that more or less overlaps with Levivich's point here, as I see it. A neutral article on the climate emergency or the Earth would include climate denialism and flat-earth "theory" as equally viable empirical claims. Nevertheless, I think we should propose concrete edits to keep the text minimal.

1. As I've said, replace core principle of neutrality by core principle of a neutral point of view.

2. Remove impartial and because, as Levivich says, it sounds like we have to be impartial towards no-climate-emergency and flat-Earth claims as valid alternatives to the mainstream POVs.

I tend to think that we could retain objective, in the sense that using RS per appropriate weight is a more or less objective process - which is why Wikipedia talk page discussions do often tend to converge. I'm not so sure about the Neither ... supersede ... bit, especially in the context of w:WP:NORULES and the fact that interpreting NPOV has to go through editor consensus, by definition. It makes Wikipedia sound draconian instead of having reasoned structured editorial debate. Boud (talk) 22:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Levivich and Boud for elaborating on the language of impartial and objective here. All the points made are well noted for the language review of the baseline NPOV standard!

Additionally, the note about Neither ... supersede ... has also been noted for review. If there is a clear suggestion for improvement to convey the meaning better, it would be great to have one. Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposed modification based on discussion above

Noting, in particular, the discussion about the importance of due weight, I suggest expanding the last sentence of the first paragraph to read:

Wikipedia articles are a summary of the information and points of view found in reliable sources giving more attention to widely reported positions, and less attention to positions that are not widely reported.

(Proposed addition in italics)

The language is simplified when compared to policies on larger, mature projects; this is so that it is easier to translate. Would this additional wording (or some similar but equally simplified phrasing) meet the concerns about due weight? Risker (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I like this.

At enwiki, we're slowly organizing the NPOV policy into three main parts:

1. Due weight for viewpoints
2. Balancing aspects for facts
3. Writing with a neutral tone

To give an example using Wikipedia's own deletion processes, that would look like:

1. The article needs to say something about Deletionism and Inclusionism (i.e., not just one of those POVs).
2. You have to explain the basic facts about deletion (e.g., speedy deletion vs normal deletion; role of consensus; each Wikipedia has its own system – not just the delete/include POVs), but you can't unfairly over-emphasize (e.g., yes, describe speedy deletion, but the article shouldn't be 99% about speedy deletion).
3. You have to provide fair, non-persuasive descriptions of all sides. You can't write "The bad 👿 deletionists say ____, but the good ♥️ inclusionists say they're wrong".

The three-part model might be a useful here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

How would this baseline help promote and improve neutrality on Wikipedia? Do you have concerns related to adopting such baseline?

• I don't love a feedback process where one of the questions is "tell us about how we did a great job of making this proposal." and there's no equivalent question asking about concerns. That aside I think unlike other global policies it's going to be much harder to figure out when a community adopts an NPOV policy whether that is above, below, or at the minimum expectation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this feedback Barkeep49! We have been iterating on the questions several times and have tried to balance the positive / negative in the questions themselves. Apparently, this was cut on this particular question. I have now amended the question. If you have a recommendation for framing from your side, let us know! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Regarding the level of policy, the idea here is to have a baseline to understand that there is at least minimum level, key content. More qualitative understanding takes indeed a research. We conducted one last year and are thinking about monitoring systems to create better ongoing understanding. If you have concrete ideas beyond stating that it is "harder to figure out", it would be great to also hear those! Thank you for engaging with the topic and sharing your thoughts! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

    I think this is an inherent challenge with NPOV compared to all other global policies. I leave it to the people who've been thinking deeply about this to decide how or if to confront this challenge. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

    Clear and noted. Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• The second paragraph ("not negotiable" etc.) can be read as trying to supersede WP:5P5, WP:IAR, and WP:NOTPERFECT (which I think plays an even larger role in smaller wikis).

Have you ruled out grounding the baseline in all WP:Five Pillars to give a sense of how NPOV is one of several imperatives editors have to pursue in balance? Taghdtaighde (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The Five Pillars is not any sort of official policy, even at the English Wikipedia. It's an attempt to provide a short summary of the real policies. w:Wikipedia talk:Five pillars/FAQ has an explanation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note and surfacing a potential reading of the text, Taghdtaighde! Also thank you for chiming in here, WhatamIdoing! The concept of Neutral Point of View is itself rooted in the WP:Five Pillars. The language of "non-negotiability" stems directly from the English language NPOV policy lead section and is present in NPOV policies across many other languages. This is why it has a prominent place also in the proposed baseline. It is clear that policies should not override the general spirit of content creation, especially for smaller Wikipedias, where there is so much work to be done and so many areas to cover. It is important, however, to ensure that quality of content is there and neutral point of view is considered from the get-go or already burdened administrators from smaller communities will experience even further strain. Do you have other suggestions and ideas, in addition to rooting the policy in five pillars, to balance this? --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing, I had been thinking of 5P as itself being policy until this.

I support a NPOV baseline, just perhaps not a stand-alone one. The reason I bring up WP:NOTPERFECT in particular is that it validates the stepwise progress made by incorporating a solid source when you happen to have the chance, even when it introduces a distortion of NPOV since that can be balanced out later. That doesn't go without saying when a strict reading of this baseline rules it out – it is negotiating NPOV in the interests of building the encyclopaedia.

Even though the wording stems from existing policy, when English's WP:NPOV is one policy among many it's implicit that they do need to be negotiated against each other despite what that one says. It's a different story when one policy is being propagated alone as it lends itself to being misinterpreted as an instruction from Higher-Ups, with a different status to other policies. That's how I initially interpreted it and the language of non-negotiability strengthened the impression.

After re-reading the proposition page I am mostly reassured since it is intended specifically for wikis without their own NPOV policy "for their communities to adopt, use, and build upon", implying the communities can remove the wording in question if necessary. I think more clarity on that issue, included in the text to be translated though not necessarily in the baseline itself, would be helpful. Taghdtaighde (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Taghdtaighde, for elaborating! Feedback is clear and well documented! KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The first question is pointless. We don't want to improve neutrality on Wikipedia: that would require making, for example, the article on w:Adolf Hitler neutral, and would be in complete violation of w:WP:DUE in proportion to the w:WP:RS. We have lots of very non-neutral articles that portray many people, living and dead, as evil, and lots that portray many people as mostly good, because that's what reflects the sources per NPOV. In other words, neutrality and NPOV are badly in conflict for many articles. The English Wikipedia's consensus is to go for NPOV rather than neutrality. Boud (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

@Boud, the English Wikipedia's w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy uses the word neutrality 14 (fourteen) times, including in key sentences, such as the first sentence in w:WP:DUE. This could not have happened if your claims about "neutrality" and "NPOV" being different and sometimes opposite things were true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It looks like most of those fourteen occurrences include context in the sentence or phrase that distinguishes the specific meaning of neutrality from a generic meaning, and most are clear that "neutrality" is an abbreviation for NPOV rather than a broader sense. I see one of the fourteen cases that could probably be improved, but this meta.w.o page is not the place to fix that. The limiting of neutrality to a specific meaning in the current consensus text of w:WP:NPOV is fully consistent with (unspecified) "neutrality" and "NPOV" being different and sometimes opposite things. In fact, the lead of w:Neutrality (philosophy), pointed to in w:WP:NPOV#Explanation, points to a self-contradiction of neutrality in colloquial usage (neutrality = unbiased and neutrality is a bias), making it impossible to be sure what is intended by neutrality if it is not clarified in a particular context.

In the context here, the proposed text has a coloured paragraph on NPOV, and then jumps to neutrality in a new paragraph as a generic thing, with the specific meaning of neutrality dropped. Busy editors of small Wikipedias may feel under pressure to strictly follow the "core principle" despite the principle being ambiguous. Ambiguity will not help them. Boud (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that providing a definition is helpful, but I do not agree that the word is inherently wrong or bad in this context. Most people are going to assume that if a "neutral point of view" is wanted, then that's the same thing as wanting "neutrality". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to note that the threads about the tension between the concept of neutrality and neutral point of view have been marked for language review. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

What enforcement approaches work on your wiki that you think are adaptable and adoptable on other wikis?

I think that this:

This standard is not negotiable. Neither editor consensus nor other policies and guidelines can supersede the principle of neutral point of view.

is unhelpful and unenforceable. In practice, what it means is that instead of saying "I don't want a neutral article. To protect readers, we must have a non-neutral article that says ____", savvy editors instead say "Of course I want a neutral article. A neutral article is one that says ____". We do not have a problem with people trying to "negotiate" the standard; we have a problem with people saying that they agree with the standard and claiming that their biased version is actually neutral.

Something like this would be simpler and more pointful:

Wikipedia editors must use their judgment to determine which sources are reliable and the best way to fairly represent these sources. They must not intentionally produce biased articles.

and perhaps the first sentence ("Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view") would become "Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I largely agree with WhatamIdoing, and I would go further by saying that I thought the WMF Board wants to stay away from content policies or moderation, but creating this standard as a policy appears to be incompatible with the Board's role as supervising the platform that it owns but and not the content which resides on it (with some limited exceptions for legal interventions, which themselves may be controversial). I could support creating a global NPOV "guideline" or "norm", maybe even "policy", if the ratification process is a global RFC and not WMF-driven. ↠Pine (✉) 02:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  See also foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people, foundation:Resolution:Media about living people, foundation:Resolution:Controversial content, etc., not to mention a good deal of the Terms of Use, especially section 4. This would be far from the first time that the WMF imposed some rules that affect content. In this case, however, I think that this amounts to recognizing long-standing reality. Nobody argues that Wikipedias should have non-neutral articles. The fight is always over whether "my" viewpoint is the neutral one or the biased one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm. Unless there is a compelling reason for WMF's Board to get involved with this, I much prefer simply making this a global policy with a global community RFC. And enforcing this across languages, in ways that are not themselves subject to credible accusations of bias, would not be trivial. I don't think that the stewards, global sysops or U4C would be good choices for this, and WMF certainly isn't. I'm generally in favor of a community-created global policy without WMF pushing a top-down approach (WMF's assistance with research may be very helpful), but I'm reluctant to add another global committee to enforce it and/or to add a potentially contentious and highly time-consuming set of content disputes on small wikis in diverse languages to the U4C's work. Local enforcement by people who are fluent in the applicable language would be preferable. Perhaps instead of having a global enforcement body, existing capacity development systems for small wikis could be tasked and resourced with developing their own local enforcement systems specifically for a community-approved global NPOV policy. Creating a new global enforcement body or adding NPOV to the U4C's scope would be a last, painful, and highly undesirable resort. Hi @KVaidla (WMF): does WMF currently have a vision or plan for how to enforce a global NPOV policy on a local wiki that lacks its own policy or effective local enforcement mechanisms, regardless of how such a global policy is enacted? "Wikimedia projects will be responsible for enforcement based on their context" sounds good in theory, but what is the backup plan, such as if a wiki's local enforcement body becomes part of an NPOV problem or has too much internal conflict to resolve it over a long period of time, but there isn't really a U4C problem? I would hope that WMF finding reasons to apply office bans is not the plan. ↠Pine (✉) 05:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• The initial point about the language and framing has been well captured, thank you WhatamIdoing!

Regarding the point about the enforcement and the role of the Wikimedia Foundation, for this process this has been mostly about conducting the research to understand the current situation and then supporting the NPOV working group in drafting a proposal.

The plan for Wikimedia Fountation is to continue with the conversation and process facilitation - for the global project community it is sometimes difficult to uphold the global conversations, so we investing some staff time here to inform people to participate, respond to any questions of clarity and understanding, and helping the conversation to move towards clear suggestions for improvement. We are also documenting the perspectives shared and noting them for the working group for language adjustments, content amendments, and points made about enforcement. The intent here is to tap into the collective expertise and experience to get to a short and clear baseline NPOV policy that is easy to translate and apply for the smaller communities. It seems like we are making progress towards that.

As to actual enforcement on the projects, the current plan is to continue in the way as the NPOV policies have been introduced so far, i.e. creating a shared understanding about the value of the NPOV policy as a clear reference point, then finding community members to introduce the policy on their projects and manage a project conversation about this. The Wikimedia Foundation is playing the role here in reaching out to people by participating on regional calls, doing outreach on local Wikipedia village pumps, and organizing a public session at Wikimania. We are exploring the idea of organizing workshops for interested community members where we can discuss the concept of neutrality and neutral point of view, to then look at the language of the proposed baseline NPOV standard to work towards a good and concise translation that could be proposed on their Wikipedia

It will take time to bridge the existing gap, yet the hope is that by having a clear and translatable baseline, it will be easier for the projects to introduce the policy over trying to make sense of a mature and extensive NPOV policy to adapt that to their project. We will see how it will start to work out and adapt as needed.

Otherwise, there is no current intent of taking further action, especially through negative reinforcement. As each actor in the movement has their role, we, as a movement, rely on project functionaries playing their role in working on contextually fitting policy framework for their project. Hopefully, such global conversations can support the project communities in this. In the same way, Wikimedia Foundation has a role to play in support of the projects, to ensure Terms of Use are followed and to reduce threats to contributors of our projects. As a result, sometimes actions need to be taken. However, clear policy frameworks and reference points hopefully improve the contributions, so contributors have less frustration through better understanding, so there will be less need for interventions. Thank you for raising your concerns and inquiring into further available information! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• @KVaidla (WMF): thanks for replying. What you're describing sounds more like a global guideline than a global policy or "standard". To simplify the work and improve the adaptability for local communities, instead of making a new policy other change that would involve the WMF Board, how about simply referring to the existing Meta policy page Neutral point of view and putting more emphasis on providing support to wikis which don't have their own policy to refer to the Meta policy and/or develop their own, and to develop their own enforcement capabilities? That would be a more flexible approach, and I would be happy to support it. At the same time, developing a policy for what to do about communities that have internal issues with this, such as if a community's administrator population gets taken over by POV-pushers but who stay within the bounds of other policies that WMF claims the right to issue global bans for breaking, would be worth doing as a longer-term project by community members and possibly with WMF support. ↠Pine (✉) 05:17, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• Interesting. The offending line is nearly verbatim from w:en:WP:NPOV. IznoPublic (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm sure that enwiki's policy is the source of it. I've long thought it was strange. We only rarely see anyone trying to "negotiate" the NPOV principle directly ( and when that happens, it's usually something like "but it's illegal to say that in my country" or "Don't you realize people could die if we say that?").

  On the other hand, editors are supposed to negotiate the application of the NPOV principle to any given article. Negotiation is consensus building, and consensus building is how we improve articles.

  Consequently, I am concerned that this phrasing could be misunderstood (especially if someone doesn't read English well) as discouraging ordinary consensus processes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

  Noting here that the point about negotiability and its possible interpretations and implications is well captured. Thank you!

• I think the alternative is not better at users attempting to lawyer their way out of it, since you might as well say ‘we don’t intentionally produce biased articles, we just reflect what’s written in the sources!’ The first version at least says that no project can ignore NPOV. stjn^[ru] 20:07, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

  If the article fairly and proportionately reflects what's written in the sources, then it is not biased – by enwiki's definition, at least. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  These points have been well noted for the review, clarifying the line of argumentation. It is clear that "lawyering out" does take place in the talk page discussions. I am wondering whether there is any language to prevent that in the policy of is it just a cultural thing to manage? What are your thoughts? --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no language that will prevent all disputes. What we can do is provide a clear statement of the desirable direction, and remind editors that they're supposed to use their best judgment to aim for the goal. As the 19th century poet w:James Russell Lowell said, "Not failure, but low aim is crime". At any given point in time, nearly all articles will fail to be neutral in some particular. But if we aim for the lofty goal of neutrally representing the sources, we should come close, even if we don't achieve perfection.

  In terms of language, one thing we might consider is re-writing it to use the active voice. That would sound something like "Wikipedia editors must write articles from an editorially neutral point of view. Wikipedia editors are expected to be impartial and objective. Wikipedia editors should ensure that articles reflect the range of knowledge available in reliable published sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Excellent! Thank you for taking the time to elaborate and suggest language for this, WhatamIdoing ! This is now well documented for review. KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

What errors are in the proposed text?

NPOV != neutral

The current text incorrectly jumps from presenting NPOV to the wrong Wikipedia has a core principle of neutrality. This is false. NPOV and neutrality are not the same thing. NPOV != neutrality. Look at the article on w:Adolf Hitler for example. This is extremely non-neutral. Nobody reasonable can read the article without concluding that Hitler was utterly evil. There is also no way to convince Wikipedians to edit the article to make it neutral. The first paragraph of w:WP:YESPOV does link to w:neutrality (philosophy) and use the word neutrality, but the sentence starts with Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as ... and it defines the word in the second half of the sentence to the Wikipedia-specific meaning. The text here has no such surrounding text: it is a non sequitur.

The sentence should be corrected to core principle of a neutral point of view to avoid the jump in meaning. Boud (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

As noted abouve, the whole point about conceptual differences between neutrality and neutral point of view, as the need to use the terms in context has been well noted for language review. Thank you, Boud !

Free form comment space

A practical question sitting behind any baseline NPOV standard: how would we notice when an article slowly drifts away from it? Existing tooling (ORES / Lift Wing) scores individual edits, but little tracks an article's framing across many edits over time, which is how gradual POV-pushing usually happens.

There's an early prototype at phab:T428896 (WikiNPOV Drift Detector), grounded in the Foundation's 2025 NPOV research (arXiv:2510.21526). It's deliberately a drift detector, not a bias classifier, it flags when and where an article's viewpoint balance started shifting and points to the edits, but leaves the neutrality call to human editors.

I started working on this project along with Dev at Indic Wiki Hackathon. It's early days, and feedback on the approach and on whether automated drift-monitoring is even desirable would be welcome. AgarwalMahima (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for surfacing that project, AgarwalMahima! This is well documented for any potential follow-up and monitoring steps. Good luck working on it! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation hinting - we need to discuss the exact meanings of words and phrases

As the title says. To accurately translate the meaning, we need to go deep into hinting for at least key words. Languages do not map onto one another cleanly and it would be preferable to explicitly define what ways things should and should not be read and interpreted. Synonyms and close rephrasings need to be put up against the English version and the choice against them explained, these alternatives should be presented least bad first. There should be explicitly forbidding readings. We do not need to try divine issues in translation, if we just give the translators the information they so desperately crave in cases like this. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing, Karsenat! I am wondering what do you have in mind exactly: a) do you recommend a glossary of definitions for key words?, b) do I understand correctly that it would need to include negative definitions, i.e. what these key words do not mean?, c) is there anything else I am missing here? Just to ensure that the perspective is correctly captured. Thank you for your kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Pretty much exactly right to a) and b), maybe to clarify a word can also be "neutral point of view", since it acts like one and has its own distinct meaning, compared to the one you would arrive at from first principles by combining "neutral" and "point of view".

c) I think it is important that translators get to see (some of) the reasoning and the longer form alternatives that the final phrasing got derived from. It is difficult to give translators too much information, but painfully easy to give too little.

Also, I really hope translations will not need to be made based on other translations. If this is foreseeable, maybe some thought can be put into how to handle the most important intermediary languages. Karsenat (she/her) (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Very clear. Thank you for validating and adding additional layer in your explanation to ensure quality in transmitting the essence of the principle of neutral point of view in implementation of the baseline across diverse range of languages. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Definition suggestions

Following up on the previous comment thread by Karsenat, I am creating a space for suggestion on definitions for key terms to complement the text of the baseline NPOV standard for clarity and translation accuracy. Feel free to add your thoughts and suggestions around the terms to define and suggested definitions here. Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

“Neutral point of view” is somewhat of a catch-phrase on English Wikipedia, and I wondered how well the concepts neutrality and viewpoint would translate. (Disclaimer: I’m monolingual and don’t have experience knowing multiple languages.)

I notice the English version has four phrases that are subtly yet significantly different: “written from a neutral point of view”, “points of view found”, “principle of neutral point of view”, “core principle of neutrality”. Then the French version has “esprit de neutralité”, “des points de vue présentés”, “le principe de la neutralité”, “principe fondamental de neutralité”. In English “point of view”:”neutrality” is 3:4 ratio, and in French “pointes de vue”:”neutralité” is 1:4.

So definitions and interpretation hints could be aimed at the concept level – what does neutrality mean really? (leading to questions of balance and due weight) – and at the phrasal level: are “from a neutral point of view” and “in a spirit of neutrality” interchangeable, and what works best in the target language? Pelagic (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. thanks for this section. I just reviewed the translation of the page in French et harmonize the formulations in all the text. I've made a choice : i have prioritize the spirit and formulation of the pillar on the french wikipedia. For example, the first sentence of the draft which is the first one of the english WP is : "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.". If i translate it literally, it will be : "Wikipedia est écrit d'un point de vue neutre" but that is not the formulation here : "Wikipédia recherche la neutralité de point de vue" which would be in English : "Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view". The concept is the same but the way it is conveyed is different and that will be a challenge in all linguistic version of Wikipedia. My translation of this page is not really interesting for french speaking contributors since we are not concerned by the problem being treated (I translate it for those who will come to see at least the draft and may not speak English) but it will be crucial for the wikipedias concerned. I've discovered, by reading documentation around this that the french translation of Neutral point of view should be corrected but the notice above the page is mentioning that any modification should be done with community consent, initial consent... that does not exist (at least I have not found it, just the initial deplacement of text in 2004 at the beginnings but since then, things have changed). To be fair, those pages are not important for our well established communities since no one would redirect newcomers on meta page of NPOV. That will be another story for the communities concerned by the problem. Where are they in this discussion ? Are they informed of this draft ? Have those who are bilingual in those communities read the text and analyze in comparison to what they are doing on their wikis in order to share thoughts ? It's just looking like another thing that will be enforced on people on a wiki somewhere. I think that's the main thing to do is : do everything to get them involved in the discussion. I know that it's hard to even involve our big communities into meta discussions but we have to try again and again... Sorry for the long answer — L'embellie @ 09:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Pelagic, for raising the point and L'embellie for adding your perspective! As translatability has been one of the principles for working on the baseline NPOV standard, we have tried out translations to some languages and they have generally worked out. At the same time, to L'embellie's point, there is already "jargon" on wikis from early times and translations, which might continue to exist, as running a wider discussion would just take too much energy from the community. So the existing language just continues to exist.

We have made a special effort to reach out to languages actually impacted by the policy, having left a note to about 90 Wikipedias concerned. We have joined monthly East, South East Asia, and Pacific call in May and just joined African admins call on Friday, June 19th. We are exploring an idea of hosting workshops to these communities, where we can especially try out translatability and find language that works for them, so we can bring the lessons learned back to the global conversation. It is an ongoing process. If you have suggestion on how to approach this even in a better way, it would be great to have your recommendations! Thank you again for your time and kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Additional note of gratitude to L'embellie for translating the main page to French! This is very helpful! Thank you! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

These are instructions, not an actual standard

Either I am misunderstanding something, or this looks incomplete, because it contains instructions for local communities to self-organize to finish creating the text. I would like this part removed -

individual projects are encouraged to include this principle in its documentation on creating content by doing one or more of the following:

• having a written policy
• providing editing guidelines
• referring to this standard as part of their editing principles

This looks weird because these are actually instructions for writing a standard, and not an actual standard. I really would like to send this back to the drafting committee. You all are resourced and empowered to develop this text. If you cannot come to consensus in your small group, it is completely beyond the realm of precedent and possibility for anyone to send this into all the Wikimedia projects, and expect the various communities to organize crowdsourced better local versions.

Please lean into your roles, demonstrate some leadership, and submit a text which looks like a standard that could be adopted out of the box. If you know that some groups may want local changes, then list those as bullets in a toolbox that various projects can choose or use for inspiration.

I very much want this to look like a standard, and not an incomplete uncertain assembly kit. Local Wikimedia groups are not remotely or plausibly resourced to have discussions to adopt global standards that need significant work. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, Bluerasberry! The point is well taken, as the bullet list is indeed more an implementation guidance than part of the proposed baseline standard itself. I have now moved this guidance out of the proposed text box to follow it as a practical guidance right after. Thank you for a suggestion for improvement and clarity! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

When and how to use unreliable sources

English Wikipedia has challenges when evaluated extremely biased sources. If this is to be a global standard, then I wish we could have more discussion about when and how to cite sources which are reliable within their scope. If this standard goes out to languages and cultures which have more biased journalism than English, then I do not want to export the most challenging problems without some insight and guidance.

Reporters Without Borders issues a regular report which always says that the majority of the world lacks freedom of the press. I would like this standard to be more designed for places with only unreliable journalism, and not only designed around places with easily identifiable and accessible reliable journalism.

A typical circumstance is that an extremist publication, often associated with a government, may criticize protestors, political opposition, art, or public figures. In English Wikipedia I have gotten pushback for trying to cite sources which are deemed unreliable at en:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, but I think even generally unreliable sources are reliable for communicating opinions of support or opposition. It is good for Wikipedia to cite and log the opinions of major news sources, regardless of their fact-checking practices on non-opinionated matters.

For example, English Wikipedia disfavors Breitbart, even though it is one of the most popular and government-favored news sources of the past generation. Breitbart's fact checking is unreliable, I agree with that, the paper reports lies. However, when it reported its own views and opinions about a protest, I think those are valid to bring to Wikipedia, but designating a source as "unreliable" often leads to blanket rejection for all uses. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I second this. Same difficulties on french Wikipedia where we have a place to discuss sources but it is not easy to assess reliability and quality of sources. About african medias, I've started this page, two years ago, with a good groundwork report of the main newspapers' sources since I'm from that country and pretty familiar with the information's ecosystem but as you can see, only Ivory Coast and Togo have a significant work and I wonder how many people know the existence of that page. If our big communities have those problems, I can't imagine what it is in the smaller ones... — L'embellie @ 10:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Bluerasberry and L'embellie for sharing your thoughts on the reliable sources! This topic has come up in several community discussions regarding the matter!

First of all, I am following up on whether anything regarding this would need to be included in the standard itself? Currently, it has a sentence on "reliable published sources". Are you recommending an amendment to add specificity on this?

Secondly, I am noting your comments for any further conversation on reliable sources. The current proposal is really a baseline proposal, yet it might be indeed useful to have further global guidance beyond the baseline. Thank you again for taking the time to share these thoughts! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess a specific possibility could be to add a fourth item to one or more of the following, something like develop a list of sources in your language, linking to prior discussions on the sources' reliability or unreliability, i.e. effectively like the seed of a w:WP:RSP page or fr:Projet:Sources/Médias africains. Boud (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement well noted, thank you Boud! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Does the NPOV standard include English Wikipedia?

Unsure of the project scope. Guz13 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The usual way these things work is that we try to write a simple, short policy for small communities. This is meant to save them time and energy. If a community already has a page, or if they want to write a bigger one, then that's great. This is a gift to the ones that don't.

You may also be interested in reading w:model legislation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is essentially correct. This proposal is developed for small, young and developing Wikipedias, especially those with limited resources to develop a project-specific standard or policy. It is based on the most essential points from the existing, substantially more complex and detailed policies of our larger, mature, well-developed projects. During the course of the development of this proposal, we did look at all of the existing project-specific NPOV policies. As I recall, all of them include the basic information included in this proposal. Although I suppose one could say that it also applies to English Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia that has invested time and consideration in developing their own version of an NPOV policy), those individual policies already include the baseline and expand upon it in ways that are important to those local communities. Risker (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Wrong section when we try to access the source

I wanted to access the source code of a section by clicking on the edit button (not to modify it, just to get it), but I got the source of the next section. Is it just me ? Dominic Mayers (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for documenting and reaching out regarding this! I tested and I get the same issue - will look into it. Meanwhile, main edit button works just fine, so you can get the code in that way. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This is now fixed. As I implemented some changes on the main page following the feedback we are gathering, I needed to remark the translation tags and apparently missed one, which offset the whole section thing. This is now fixed. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Dominic Mayers! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Research across languages that uses the 5 pillars

@KVaidla (WMF): Thanks to L'embellie, I got notified about this work.

I am from French Wikipedia. I tend to avoid using the adjective neutral to qualify Wikipedia as the neutrality varies from pages to pages. I also tend to avoid saying that editors should write from a neutral point-of-view as I think that NPOV is actually better when different people confront their ideas and style. On the French Wikipedia, as L'embellie mentionned, the fr:5-pillars stated that Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view. I wondered if this idea existed in other language editions. So...

I've conducted a study on all languages editions using the d:5 pillars using DeepL + GoogleTranslate as translation tools

Study on the 2nd pillar

Type of 2nd pillar	Number of languages editions	Examples
has/adopt a NPOV	16 + 34	it, nl, id, ru, uk, fa, ur, ar, zh, ...
is neutral/impartial	11	hi, pl, ...
is written in the NPOV	32	en, tl, ms, el, he, bh, th, ...
THE NEUTRALITY	11	de, azb, ta, ...
strives for NPOV	7	es, fr, ...

There are also a few notable features :

• nap, ml, sa have chosen "MUST adopt/be written in NPOV"
• or, gan, mn guarantee that "NPOV always is"
• mg, ba, kk have chosen an imperative phrase : "Exercise NPOV"
• sv, war, qu use a negative sentence : "WP does not take position"
• so, hy, ja "rely on NPOV"
• tr, cs, rue "respect the NPOV"

I think the true statement is that we strives for NPOV, collectively, as an on-going process. It is THE thing we can guarantee : "We *really* are trying the best we can."

Data used for this research :

 

A Wikipedia ten un punto de vista neutral
La Biquipédia ten un punto de bista neutral
La Vichipedie e à un pont di viste neutrâl,
Wikipedia ha un puncto de vista neutral,
Wikipedia ha un punto di vista neutrale
Wikipedia ha un punto di vista neutrale
Wikipedia haes a neutral pynt o view
Wikipedia har ein nøytral synsvinkel
Wikipedia har en nøytral synsvinkel,
Wikipedia har et neutralt synspunkt,
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view
Wikipedia heeft een neutraal standpunt
Wikipedia ła gà on ponto de vista neutrałe
Wikipedia la gh'ha on pont da vista neutral
Wikipedia tenet unu puntu de bista neutrale.
וויקיפעדיע האט א נייטראלן קוק
Mae gan Wicipedia safbwynt diduedd,
Vikipedija yra neutralaus požiūrio
Vikipedio havas neŭtralan vidpunkton.
Vikipediya betaraf nuqtai nazarga egadir
Wikipedia gadhah cara ningali nétral
Wikipedia giữ một thái độ trung lập
Wikipedia handhaaf ’n neutrale standpunt
Wikipedia i lukluk ol long neutral point of view.
Wikipedia memiliki sudut pandang netral
Wikipedia memiliki sudut pandang netral
Wikipedia memiliki sudut pandang netral
Wikipédia miboga jihat sawangan nétral
Wikipedia nduweni sudut pandang netral
Wikipediak ikuspegi neutral bat erabiltzen du
Wikipidia memiliki sudut pandang nitral
Википедија има неутрална гледна точка
Википедия придерживается нейтральной точки зрения
Википедия придерживается нейтральной точки зрения (НТЗ)
Вікіпедія дотримується нейтральної точки зору
Вікіпедыя трымаецца нейтральнага пункту гледжання,
Вікіпэдыя мае нэўтральны пункт гледжаньня.
ვიკიპედიას ნეიტრალური თვალსაზრისი აქვს
ويكيبيديا تعتمد وجهة النظر المحايدة
ویکی‌پدیا دیدگاهی بی‌طرف دارد
ویکیپیڈیا میں معتدل نقطہ نظر اختیار کیا جاتا ہے
ویکیپېډیا د بې پرې والي لید لري
వికీపీడియా తటస్థ దృక్కోణాన్ని అనుసరిస్తుంది
විකිපීඩියාවට ඇත්තේ මධ්‍යස්ථ දෘෂ්ටි කෝණයකි
ວິກິພີເດຍມີມຸມມອງທີ່ເປັນກາງ
위키백과는 ‘중립적 시각’에서 바라봅니다.
維基百科取中立嘅觀點
维基百科採用中立观点

Wikipedia notast við hlutleysisregluna
Wikipedia s'apprisentasse cu nu punto 'e vista neutrale
വിക്കിപീഡിയക്ക് തീർച്ചയായും ഒരു സന്തുലിതമായ കാഴ്ചപ്പാടുണ്ടാവണം
विकिपीडियालेखाः तटस्थदृष्ट्या लिखिताः भवेयुः ।
ဝီႇၶီႇၽီးတီးယႃးၼႆႉ တေလႆႈပဵၼ် လၢႆးတႅမ်ႈ ဢၼ်ဢမ်ႇၸပ်းၽၢႆႇ
Wikipedijin sadržaj mora biti neutralan
A Wikipédia cikkei elfogulatlan nézőpontból íródnak,
El Wikipedia escribido na neutral punto de vista
Nakasulat ang Wikipedia sa punto de bistang walang pinapanigan
Vikipēdija tiek rakstīta no neitrāla skatpunkta
Wikipedia ana rubuta ta daga mahangar da ba son rai
Wikipedia ditulis dari sudut pandang berkecuali
Wikipedia este scrisă respectând punctul de vedere neutru
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia se piše sa neutralnim gledištem
Wikipedia shkruhet nga një pikëpamje neutrale
Wikipediaa kirjoitetaan neutraalista näkökulmasta.
Wikipedija hija miktuba fuq punt ta' vista newtrali
Wikipediya be yew deqa vênayışiê bêterefi ra nuşiyena.
Wîkîpediya bi nêrîna bêalî tê nivîsandin
Η Βικιπαίδεια γράφεται από ουδέτερη οπτική γωνία
Википедија је написана са неутралне тачке гледишта
Википедия бейтараптуу жазылат
Википедия гожтӥське нейтрал учкон инъетъя
Википедиядә нейтраль караштан языла.
ויקיפדיה נכתבת מנקודת מבט נייטרלית
ويكيبيديا مكتوبه من وجهة نظر محايده
विकिपीडिया तटस्थ हो के लिखल जाले
ৱিকিপিডিয়া নিৰপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভংগীৰে লিখা হয়
ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ ਇਕ ਨਿਰਪੱਖ ਨਜ਼ਰੀਏ ਤੋਂ ਲਿਖਿਆ ਜਾਂਦਾ ਹੈ।
વિકિપીડિયા નિષ્પક્ષતાથી લખાય છે:
ꯋꯤꯀꯤꯄꯤꯗꯤꯌꯥ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯅ꯭ꯌꯨꯇꯔꯦꯜ ꯃꯤꯠꯌꯦꯡ ꯑꯃꯗꯒꯤ ꯏꯕꯅꯤ
วิกิพีเดียเขียนจากมุมมองที่เป็นกลาง
ဝီကီးပီးဒီးယားကို ဘက်မလိုက်ရေ အမြင်ဖြင့် ရီးသားထားရေ
ဝီကီပီးဒီးယားကို ဘက်မလိုက်သော အမြင်ဖြင့် ရေးသားထားသည်
វិគីភីឌាត្រូវបានសរសេរតាមទស្សនៈអព្យាក្រឹត
Stališče Wikipedije je nepristransko
Neptu ar wikipedia
Suduik pandang Wikipedia adolah indak mamihak
Wikipédia je nestranná,
Wikipedia to neutralny punkt widzenia
ویکی‌پدیا بی‌طرف هسته
विकिपिडियाको दृष्टिकोण निष्पक्ष छ
विकिपीडिया का दृष्टिकोण निष्पक्ष है
विकिपीडिया का दृष्टिकोण निष्पक्ष है
विकिपीडियाक दृष्टिकोण निष्पक्ष अछि
विकिपीडियाचा दृष्टिकोन निष्पक्षपाती आहे
A Wikipédia rege-se pela imparcialidade,
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ସର୍ବଦା ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣରୁ ଲେଖାଯାଏ
Hajao ny fijerena tsy mitongilana
Википедияла объектив булыуығыҙ һорала
Уикипедияда әділетті болуыңыз
維基百科保證中立觀點
D'Neutralitéit
Neutrale Sichtwais
Neutralität
Neutralität
Neutralität
Ουδετερότητα
Википедиа дидгоҳи бетарафӣ
ვიკიპედიას ნეიტრალური თოლწონუა უღუ
ويکيپديا نظر بيطرفانه'
ویکی‌پدیانین طرف‌سیز باخیشی واردیر
விக்கிப்பீடியா நடுநிலை நோக்குக்
Neutralitat de punt de vista.
We Wikipedyji je prawidło uobojyntnygo wezdrzyńo
Wikipedia tar inte ställning
Iton Wikipedia in waray inuogupan nga punto hit paglantaw
Wikipidiyaqa manam huklla runap qhawariyllanniyuqchu
Wikipediju pišemo s neutralnog gledišta
Wikipédja ka sasé nétralité-a di mannyè di wè
وڪيپيڊيا ۾ اڻڌريو نقطي نظر اختيار ڪيو ويندو آهي.
La Viquipèdia cerca el punt de vista neutral
Vikipedya bushka el «punto de vista neutral»
Wikipedia busca el «punto de vista neutral»
Wikipedia busca'l «puntu de vista neutral»
Wikipédia recherche la neutralité de point de vue
Wikipédia recherche la neutralité de point de vue
Wikipedya ap chèche netralite opinyon
Wikipedia waxay ku dhisantahay aragtida dhexdhexaadnimada
Վիքիպեդիան առաջնորդվում է չեզոք տեսակետի սկզբունքով
ウィキペディアは中立的な観点に基づきます
ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⵉⴷⵢⴰ ⵜⴱⴷⴷ ⵖⴼ ⵜⴰⵏⵏⴰⵢⵜ ⵜⴰⵔⴰⵡⵙⴰⵏⵜ
ވިކިޕީޑިޔާ އަކީ ހަމަހަމަ ސިޔާސަތުތަކެއް ގެންގުޅޭ އެކުމާފާނެވެ
Vikipedi tarafsız bakış açısını gözetir
Wikipedie dodržuje zásadu nezaujatého úhlu pohledu
Вікіпедія дотримує засаду непредвзятого погляду,
ویکیپیدیا بێلایەنی دەنوێنێت
Википедиа дахь аливаа мэдээлэл нь төвийг сахисан байр сууринаас хандана

Assassas77 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2026 (UTC)