Wysiging soos op 05:14, 30 September 2007 wysig RAM (besprekings \| bydraes) 8 945 edits →‎Eerstens: Onderhandel neutraliteit met andere ← Ouer wysiging		Wysiging soos op 05:31, 30 September 2007 wysig maak ongedaan RAM (besprekings \| bydraes) 8 945 edits →‎Toeskrywing en aanhaling Nuwer wysiging →
Lyn 27: Sien: [[wikipedia:Haal bronne aan]], [[Wikipedia:Verifieerbaarheid]] == Neutrale bewoording == Aansprake met 'n '''neutale bewoording''' bevat gewoonlik 'n nouer weerspieëling van die waarheid as dit objektief beskou word. Een so 'n voorbeeld is: <!--moet nog vertaal worde▼ :''"In 1989 het Drs. [[Stanley Pons]] en [[Martin Fleischman]] van die Universiteit van Utah die wêreld geskok deur bekend te maak dat hulle 'n manier ontdek het om energie op te wek uit kernfusie wat naby aan [[kamertemperatuur]] plaasvind."'' ~~== Neutral language ==~~ Baie min wetenskaplikes glo dat Pons en Fleischmann se verslag akkuraat was en nog minder dat die aansprake verantwoordelik was en daar sou waarskynlik min mense wees wat die aanspraak in die vorige sin sou betwis. "[...] die wêreld geskok [...]" is egter waarskynlik meer dramaties gestel en mider akkuraat as sou die stelling as volg gelees het: "[...] die ''wetenskaplike gemeenskap'' [...]" geskok. Dit is maar een voorbeeld van hoe moeilik dit soms kan wees om 'n artikel ''werklik'' objektief te bewoord. ~~Assertions written in '''neutral language''' are closer to being objectively true. One such neutral assertion is this:~~ ▲<!--moet nog vertaal ~~worde~~word : ''"In 1989, Drs. [[Stanley Pons]] and [[Martin Fleischmann]] of the University of Utah shocked the world by reporting they had discovered a means to tap energy from nuclear fusion at near to room temperatures."'' Very few scientists believe Pons' and Fleischmann's report was accurate, let alone responsible, and probably none would disagree with the assertion made in the previous sentence. However, "[...] shocked the world [...]" is probably more dramatic, and less accurate, than had the statement been "[...] shocked the ''scientific community'' [...]". This serves as an example of the difficulty of finding ''truly'' objective wording. As a political example, take the status of [[Jerusalem]]. The government of Israel considers it to be that nation's capital, but many other governments do not, and have gone so far as to place their embassies elsewhere. Disagreement about what city is the capital of Israel caused heated arguments on Wikipedia. But the facts as stated above were ones that all could agree on. The solution? '''Stick to the facts.'''

Wikipedia:Neutrale standpunt-riglyne: Verskil tussen weergawes