Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In philosophy, a point of view is a specific attitude or manner through which a person thinks about something. [1] This figurative usage of the expression dates back to 1730. [ 1 ] In this meaning, the usage is synonymous with one of the meanings of the term perspective [ 2 ] [ 3 ] (also epistemic perspective ).
Point-of-view, or simply p.o.v., camera angles record the scene from a particular player's viewpoint. The point-of-view is an objective angle, but since it falls between the objective and subjective angle, it should be placed in a separate category and given special consideration. A point-of-view shot is as close as an objective shot can ...
Point of view (literature) or narrative mode, the perspective of the narrative voice; the pronoun used in narration; Point of view (philosophy), an attitude how one sees or thinks of something; Point-of-view shot, a technique in motion photography; Point of view (pornography), a subset of gonzo pornography in which the performer also holds the ...
At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" (NPOV) policy does not mean that all the POVs of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Rather, the article should represent the POVs of the main scholars ...
For example, video captions such as, “POV: You’re a cashier confronting a Karen,” “POV: Your boyfriend is a gaming addict” or “POV: You caught her cheating.” Catch up on more teen slang:
In other words, an article's inherent point of view, ie. the subject of the article, takes precedence over the neutral point of view of the more general subject. And using this particular example, the same point of view would apply to articles on Steady State theory, and Plasma Cosmology.
This is a stab at creating an example section to help distinguish neutral vs non-neutral writing. I created it because the actual "Neutral Point of View" page now has an awful lot of commentary on it and it is getting difficult to get much guidance. I have tried to glean my examples on the basis of the majority opinion on that page.
For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.