"विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन" च्या विविध आवृत्यांमधील फरक

{{संक्षीप्त|प्रत्येक विकिपीडिया articleलेख andआणि other content must be written from a ''तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन'', by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, andआणि without bias.}}

{{dablink|करिता articleलेख specific questions or discussions, please go to the [[WP:NPOVN|NPOV noticeboard]].}}

'''तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन''' is a [[meta:Foundation issues|fundamental Wikimedia principle]] andआणि a [[विकिपीडिया:५ तत्वे|विकिपीडिया आधारस्तंभ]]. All [[विकिपीडिया]] articlesलेखs andआणि other encyclopedic content must be written from a '''तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन''', representing fairly, andआणि as far as possible without bias, all ''significant'' views that have been [[विकिपीडिया:Verifiability|published by reliable sources]]. This is non-negotiable andआणि expected of all articlesलेखs, and of all articleलेख editors. करिता guidance on how to make an articleलेख conform to the तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन, see the [[विकिपीडिया:NPOV tutorial|NPOV tutorial]]; करिता examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see [[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ]].

"'''तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन'''" is one of विकिपीडिया's three core content policies. The other two are "[[विकिपीडिया:Verifiability|Verifiability]]" and "[[विकिपीडिया:No original research|No original research]]". Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in विकिपीडिया articlesलेखs. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Core content policy pages may only be edited to improve the application and explanation of the principles.

The तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन is a means of dealing with the conflicting [[WP:V|verifiable]] perspectives on a topic found in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. The policy requires that '''where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly'''. None of the views should be given ''undue weight'' or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various ''significant'' published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An articleलेख should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only [[pejoratively]]. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

The तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a ''lack'' of viewpoint, but rather a specific, ''editorially neutralनिष्पक्ष'' point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. विकिपीडिया is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of articleलेख content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articlesलेखs should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articlesलेखs will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides.

Neutrality requires views to be represented without [[bias]]. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutralनिष्पक्ष articleलेख. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired.<ref name="see_also_uw">करिता more details, see the ''Undue Weight'' section in this policy.</ref>

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing articlesलेखs with a तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to [[विकिपीडिया:Cite sources|cite]] a prominent representative of the view.

==Achieving neutralityनिष्पक्षता==

A विकिपीडिया articleलेख must have one definitive name.<ref>Note, however, that [[WP:Redirect|redirects]] may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.</ref> The general restriction against [[WP:Content forking#What forking is|POV forks]] applies to articleलेख names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the articleलेख, the controversy should be covered in the articleलेख text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative articleलेख names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among विकिपीडिया contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" articleलेख names, in the form of: ''Flat Earth/Round Earth''; or ''Flat Earth (Round Earth).''<ref>See also: [[विकिपीडिया:Naming_conflict#How_to_make_a_choice_among_controversial_names|Choosing among controversial names]], [[विकिपीडिया:Naming conventions (geographic names)|Choosing geographic names]], [[विकिपीडिया:Naming conflict]], [[विकिपीडिया:Naming conventions]].</ref> Even if a synthesis is made, like ''Shape of the Earth'', or ''Earth (debated shapes)'', it may not be appropriate, especially if it is a novel usage coined specifically to resolve a POV fork.

Sometimes the articleलेख title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutralनिष्पक्ष articleलेख title is very important because it ensures that the articleलेख topic is placed in the proper [[contextualization|context]]. Therefore, encyclopedic articleलेख titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutralityनिष्पक्षता. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutralनिष्पक्ष view (for example, renaming ''"Criticisms of drugs"'' to ''"Societal views on drugs"''). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutralityनिष्पक्षता, and to avoid problems like ''POV forking'' and ''undue weight''. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, in some cases the article structure may need attention. Care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutralनिष्पक्ष.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.<ref>Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and "pro and con" sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see [[विकिपीडिया:Avoid thread mode]], [[विकिपीडिया:Criticism]], [[विकिपीडिया:Pro and con lists]], and [[Template:Criticism-section]].</ref> It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact: details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false &mdash; an implication that may not be appropriate. A more neutralनिष्पक्ष approach can sometimes result from folding debates into the narrative, rather than distilling them into separate sections that ignore each other.

Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutralनिष्पक्ष reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.<ref>Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also: [[विकिपीडिया:Guide to layout]], [[विकिपीडिया:Criticism#Formatting criticism|Formatting criticism]], [[विकिपीडिया:Edit war]], [[विकिपीडिया:Template messages/Cleanup#Contradiction and confusion|WP cleanup templates]], and [[Template:Lopsided]].</ref>

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is, in fact, the minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from the widely accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: करिता instance, articles on historical views such as [[flat earth]], with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrallyनिष्पक्षता presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. [[विकिपीडिया:Fringe theories]] and [[WP:NPOV/FAQ|the NPOV F.A.Q.]] provide additional advice on these points.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutralनिष्पक्ष, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

The विकिपीडिया neutralityनिष्पक्षता policy ''does not'' state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views ''as such''; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

विकिपीडिया ''describes'' disputes. विकिपीडिया does not ''engage'' in disputes. A neutralनिष्पक्ष characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone, otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries ''even while'' presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutralityनिष्पक्षता: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutralनिष्पक्ष. करिता example, it might be:

*made to look more important or more dubious than a neutralनिष्पक्ष view would present

[[WP:V|Verifiability]] is only one content criterion. तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन is a core policy of विकिपीडिया, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutralनिष्पक्ष fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and ''both'' must be considered in full, in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article.

A ''POV fork'' is an attempt to evade the neutralityनिष्पक्षता policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article.

Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a neutralनिष्पक्ष statement by ''attributing'' or ''substantiating'' it.

;[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQनेहमीचे प्रश्न#Beingनिष्पक्ष neutralअसणे|Beingनिष्पक्ष neutralअसणे]]:

* ''[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQनेहमीचे प्रश्न#There's no such thing as objectivity|There's no such thing as objectivity]]''<br />Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutralityनिष्पक्षता" policy seriously?

* ''[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ#Lack of neutralityनिष्पक्षity as an excuse to delete|Lack of neutralityनिष्पक्षity as an excuse to delete]]''<br />The neutralityनिष्पक्षity policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

* ''[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ#Writing for the "enemy"|Writing for the "enemy"]]''<br />I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutralनिष्पक्ष in writing an article, I must ''lie,'' in order to represent the view I disagree with?

* ''[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ#Morally offensive views|Morally offensive views]]''<br />What about views that are morally offensive to most Westerners, such as racism, sexism, and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutralनिष्पक्ष about ''them''?

* ''[[विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ#Avoiding constant disputes|Avoiding constant disputes]]''<br />How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutralityनिष्पक्षity issues?

Since the neutralनिष्पक्ष-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to विकिपीडिया's approach—many issues surrounding the neutralityनिष्पक्षity policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try [[Talk:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन]], or bring it up on the [[Wikipedia:Mailing lists|Wikipedia-l]] mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.

* {{tl|दृष्टीकोन-check}} — message used to to request that an article be checked for neutralityनिष्पक्षity

* {{tl|तटस्थ भाषा}} — message used when the neutralityनिष्पक्षity of the style of writing is questioned