What is the correct application of the 'neutral point of view' policy when covering a topic with significantly polarized viewpoints?

When covering a topic with significantly polarized viewpoints, the correct application of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires presenting all significant viewpoints fairly, proportionately, and without bias. This means avoiding language that expresses an opinion or takes a side. Instead, the article should accurately describe each viewpoint, attributing it to reliable sources that hold that view. The goal is not to determine which viewpoint is 'correct' or 'true,' but rather to present each perspective in a way that is understandable to readers, allowing them to form their own informed opinions. The weight given to each viewpoint should reflect its prominence in reliable sources. If one viewpoint is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence and reliable sources, it should be presented as such, while acknowledging the existence of minority viewpoints. All viewpoints should be presented respectfully and without disparaging language. For example, in an article about climate change, the scientific consensus view should be presented prominently, while dissenting viewpoints should also be included and attributed to their proponents, provided they are discussed in reliable sources. The article should not attempt to 'balance' the two viewpoints equally if the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports one side; instead, it should reflect the actual distribution of viewpoints in the relevant literature.