Project:Neutral point of view

Represent significant published views proportionately, without endorsing any.

Neutral point of view requires that articles describe disputes rather than take sides in them, and that they give weight to positions in proportion to their representation in reliable sources rather than in proportion to how loudly they are held.

Neutrality is not the same as balance. Where the published evidence is one-sided, a neutral article is one-sided in the same direction and says so.

Contested claims are attributed: "the SURMOUNT-1 investigators reported", "a 2024 systematic review concluded", "the manufacturer states". Uncontested claims are stated plainly; attributing everything is its own distortion, because it implies doubt that does not exist.

A position held by one case report and a position held by three large randomised trials do not get equal space. Conversely, a genuine minority position in the literature is not omitted because the majority disagrees — it is described, attributed, and located relative to the majority view.

Supplier articles are the hardest neutrality problem on the wiki, in both directions. Promotional editing is common; so is the reflex to write disparagingly about the sector as a whole. The standard is the same as for any organisation article: verifiable facts, a testing record described from the reports, and a reception section that reports what sources say with its evidence quality labelled.

An article that reads as either an advertisement or an exposé has failed, regardless of whether its individual sentences are sourced.

Avoid premium, trusted, industry-leading, cutting-edge, gold standard and legit outside a direct quotation. Avoid only, finally and of course. Prefer a number to an adjective in every case where one exists.