Cunfruntu tra virsioni di "Wikipedia:Puntu di vista niutrali"

n
travagghiu in corsu... (sarbu tanticchia)
n (agghiustamenti di stu nirettu..)
n (travagghiu in corsu... (sarbu tanticchia))
 
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.<br>
Chissu eni ciamatu [[Wikipedia:consensus|cunsenzu]].<br>
Chissu eni ciamatu [[Wikipedia:consensus|cunsensu]]. The things that people disagree and argue about must also be mentioned. But they must not be the main point of the article. The major issues or debates must be written in a way which does not favour any one side too much. Strange or rare opinions can be stated as side matters with details about who says them. If they are too strange, they may be moved.
Li cosi supra ei quali a genti nun eni d'accordu e di cui si sciarrianu avissiru macari a ssiri minziunati.<br>
Ma nun avissiru a ssiri lu puntu principali di l'articulu.<br>
Li quistioni maggiuri o li dibbattiti ana ssiri scritti nta na manera ca nun favurisci nissuna di li parti nta na manèra particulari ividenti. Strange or rare opinions can be stated as side matters with details about who says them. If they are too strange, they may be moved.
 
NPOV does not solve all problems. For instance, many things most people believe are wrong - agreeing is not [[truth]]. 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:
5 651

cuntribbuti