Hello
Useful shortcuts - [citation needed]
- [who?]
- [clarification needed], - [further explanation needed],
-
 | This article may be confusing or unclear to readers. |
,
- [example needed], - [why?] or - [non sequitur]
Wikipedia Wisdom
To be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them. In other words, when discussing a subject, we should report what people have said about it rather than what is so. This is not to say anything philosophically contentious; indeed, philosophers describe debates all the time.
What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as homicidal cannibalism, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?
We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.
The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from neutral, independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received.