This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut WP:POVC

In situations where an article still carries a "Point of View" cleanup tag, but the discussion about the neutrality of the article has ended, and the problem has been resolved, the POV tag should be removed. A complete list of pages with the POV template on them can be found at Category:All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes.

1. If the discussion presents major issues that have not been fixed in the current article version, even if the discussion is old, leave the NPOV tag on so it can be cleaned up in the future.
2. If the issues are minor and there is no recent discussion, remove the tag. (If someone disagrees they can just put it back!)
3. If the issues seem to be suitably resolved, remove the tag.
4. Don't get involved in a revert war.

For articles where there are still differences to be ironed out, it is helpful for people not involved in the original dispute to offer opinions or compromises. This process can take longer than simple cleanup. Some tips:

1. Sometimes a disputed passage needs to be re-written for completely different reasons or in a completely different way than what was being fought over, and doing so solves the problem to the satisfaction of both sides.
2. If you see a reasonable compromise to an old dispute, write it into the article, and remove the tag. If anyone disagrees, she will respond, or change it back.
3. If you come across an active dispute, you may wish to weigh in on the talk page before editing the article.

• Ignore any personality conflicts (even if some "wrongs" have been committed) and focus solely on content.
• Ignore any philosophical disputes that don't affect the content of the article.

1. Be polite, even when confronted with anger or insults. The point is to help defuse and resolve a conflict, not to fan the flames with more anger or rudeness.
2. If someone reverts your changes, instead of reverting them, respond on the talk page, or with a personal message. Another revert will almost certainly make them upset, and make your job much harder.

If you are involved in activity concerning NPOV templates and neutrality of the articles, consider joining the Wikipedia Neutrality Project, which works with NPOV issues, including addition or removal of NPOV tags.

In some cases, an editor will add one of these expressions to an article. These expressions may be indicators that POV is being added:

• "One of the most [or least]..."
• "Perhaps the most [or least]..."
• "Arguably the worst [or best]..."
• "It has been said that..."
• "The so-called..."

In some cases, removing these subjective expressions restores an NPOV tone and approach to the sentence:

• In "Foo Barkley is one of the most important Foo philosophers, as she is known for Foo and Nothingness, published by Binglewangie Press in 1970", take out "one of the most important", which is a subjective POV-ish Weasel worded viewpoint. If the other information in the sentence is factual, this edit may restore NPOV balance to this passage.
• In "The FooFace is arguably the best fuzz pedal, as it sold 150,000 units in 1983", take out "arguably the best". If the sales figure is solid, this edit may turn a POV sentence into a factual statement.