Wikipedia:Puntu di vista niutrali

Tutti li Wikipedia nta tutti i lingui ca ci sunu anu na reggula fundamintali quannu li edituri (ca nun v'ata mai a scurdari ca su pirsuni veri se si escludunu li "bot") scrivunu o editanu li articuli, avissuru a utilizzari nu "Puntu di vista Niutrali"("Neutral Point of view|Point of View]]" (abbriviatu NPOV picchini nta lingua angrisi l'acronimu eni chissu).
NPOV significa ca li pirsuni avissiru a scriviri di cosi supra cui a maggiuritati di li genti supra stu pianeta eni d'accordu, e farini lu puntu guida principali di l'articulu.

Quannu n'articulu eni editatu da nu munzieddu di pirsuni, giniralmenti rifletti robba supra a quali a maggiuritati di la genti si trova d'accordu.
Chissu eni ciamatu cunsenzu.
Li cosi supra ei quali a genti nun eni d'accordu e di cui si sciarrianu avissiru macari a ssiri minziunati.
Ma nun avissiru a ssiri lu puntu principali di l'articulu.
Li quistioni maggiuri o li dibbattiti ana ssiri scritti nta na manera ca nun favurisci nissuna di li parti nta na manèra particulari ividenti.
Upiniuna strani o rari ponu ssiri macari assiriti assuciannu macari li argumenta di parti cu li dittagli di chidi ca li dìciunu e/o scrìvunu.
Si su truoppu, ma truoppu strani , allura ponu siri rimossa di l'amministratura.

NPOV nun arrisovvi (purtroppu!) tutti li probblema. P'a isempiu a maggiuritati di li cosi nta cui criri a gghienti eni sbagghiata: ssiri d'accordu nun eni ô veru.
Li fatta anu a ssiri cuntrullata. Gghienti unesta nun eni d'accordu supra a argumenti assai cumplessa.

Facts must be checked. Honest people disagree about complex topics. A Simple English Wikipedia user's point of view and idea of neutral is not always the same as that of a Simple English Wikipedia contributor. But most cases are simple:

Example of cases of disagreement

For example, if two people are talking about a king named Marco (not a real king, but let's pretend), they might disagree about many things. One person might say, "Marco caused a war between countries", but the other person might say, "Marco tried to avoid the war between countries." One person might say, "Marco was a good king", and the other might say "Marco was a bad king."

But both people could agree on many facts about Marco, for example: Marco was 175 centimeters tall. Marco was born in 1630 and died in 1699. Marco's father was named Carlos and his mother was named Claudia. Marco's country fought a war from 1670 to 1675, etc. Since almost everyone agrees that these things are true, they are "neutral point of view" and okay as the main point of the article.

Only once these things are done should the different opinions on Marco and the war, and his skill as a king, be added - it must be clear that these are not agreed on by everyone, and all sides should be treated fairly. Opinions should be said like this:

"Some people (then say who the people are) say that Marco was good because (say their reasons). Other people (say who they are) think he was a bad king, because (their reasons)."

If you think the view of a topic is not neutral, you may raise a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. This tells others not to trust the article until it is fixed. scn:Puntu di vista niutrali