विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन

करिता लेख specific questions or discussions, please go to the NPOV noticeboard.

तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन हे एक मुलभूत विकिमीडिया तत्व आणि विकिपीडियाचा आधारस्तंभ आहे. सर्व विकिपीडिया लेख आणि इतर विश्वकोशीय मजकुर तटस्थ दृष्टीकोनातूनच लिहिला गेला पाहिजे , आणि शक्यतोवर पुर्वग्रहांशिवाय, that have been विश्वासार्ह स्रोतातून प्रकाशित झालेले सर्व महत्वपूर्ण दृष्टीकोन उचित प्रतिनिधित्व झाले पाहिजे. याच्याशी तडजोड नाही आणि सर्व लेखात, आणि सर्व लेख संपादकांकडून हे अपेक्षित आहे. तटस्थ दृष्टीकोनाचा अवलंब लेखात लेखात व्हावा याकरिता मार्गदर्शनासाठी NPOV tutorialपहा; या धोरणाचे कळीचे मुद्दे चित्रित करणारी उदाहरणे आणि स्पष्टीकरणांसाठी विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/नेहमीचे प्रश्नपहा .

"तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन" हे विकिपीडियाच्या समावेशिताबद्दलच्या गाभ्यातील तीन धोरणांपैकी एक आहे. "पडताळणी पात्रता" आणि "मूळ संशोधन नको" ही अन्य दोन आहेत. विकीपीडिया लेखांमध्ये स्वीकारार्ह बाबींचा प्रकार आणि दर्जा ही तीनही धोरणे संयुक्तपणे सुनिश्चित करतात, ही धोरणे परस्परपूरक असल्याने त्यांचा एकमेकांपासून विलग असा एकेकट्याने अर्थ काढला जाऊ नये आणि संपादकांनी तिन्हींचा परिचय करून घेणे आवश्यक आहे. ही धोरणे ज्या तत्वांवर आधारित आहेत, त्यांवर इतर कोणतीही धोरणे किंवा संपादकांमधली परस्पर सहमती यांना कुरघोडी करता येणार नाही. समावेशिताबद्दलच्या गाभ्यातील धोरणांची पाने उपयोगीतेत सुधारणेसाठी किंवा तत्वांच्या स्पष्टीकरणासाठीच केवळ संपादित केली जाऊ शकतील.

तटस्थ दृष्टीकोनाचे स्पष्टीकरण

तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन

एखाद्या विषयावर विश्वासार्ह स्त्रोतांमध्ये पडताळणी करण्याजोगे विवादास्पद दृष्टीकोन आढळल्यास, त्यांची हाताळणी करण्याचा तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन हा मार्ग आहे. एखाद्या विषयात अनेक किंवा विवादास्पद दृष्टीकोन आढळतील तेथे त्यापैकी प्रत्येक दृष्टीकोन योग्यरितीने सादर होणे धोरणाच्या दृष्टीने आवश्यक आहे. कोणत्याही एका दृष्टीकोनावर अवाजवी भार दिला जाऊ नये किंवा तोच सत्य असल्याचे प्रतिपादन करण्यात येऊ नये. त्याऐवजी, केवळ लोकप्रिय मतांच्या मुद्द्यांपर्यंतच नव्हे, तर सर्व महत्त्वाच्या प्रकाशित मतांच्या मुद्द्यांपर्यंत वाचकाची पोहोच करून द्यावी, सर्वांत लोकप्रिय मत बरोबर असल्याचे प्रतिपादन लेखात करू नये किंवा तसे सूचित करण्यासाठी इतर मतांबद्दल केवळ टिकात्मक लिहू नये. वाचकांना त्यांचे स्वतःचे मत बनवू द्यावे.

साचा:Policy shortcut

तटस्थ दृष्टीकोनात एखाद्या विषयाबद्दल सहानुभुती किंवा निरूत्साह ठेवला जात नाही, तसेच विशीष्ट मुद्द्यांना मान्यता नसते किंवा विरोधही नसतो. खेरीज, त्याचा अर्थ दृष्टीकोनाचा अभाव असा नसतो तर, काहीसा विशीष्ट, संपादकीयदृष्टीय निष्पक्ष दृष्टीकोन असा असतो - मते अनुपस्थित ठेवणे किंवा ती वगळून टाकणे असा त्याचा उद्देश नसतो. विश्वासार्ह स्रोतांतून आलेल्या पण निष्पक्ष नसलेल्या वक्तव्यांनी विकीपिडीया भरेला आहे, त्यामुळे दृष्टीकोन मांडला आहे, एवढ्याच आधारावर लेखातील संबंधित समावेशित वगळणे न्याय्य ठरवता येणार नाही. विषयातील विवादास्पद मुद्द्यांचे स्पष्टीकरण, प्रतिनिधित्व, आणि स्वरूपण लेखात स्पष्टपणे समावेशित व्हायला हवे, पण कुठल्याही विशीष्ट मुद्द्याला मान्यता दिली जाऊ नये. त्याऐवजी, कुणाचे काय मत आहे आणि का आहे तसेच कोणते दृष्टीकोन अधिक लोकप्रिय आहेत, याची पार्श्वभूमी लेखांनी पुरवायला हवी. सविस्तर लेखांत अनेकदा प्रत्येक दृष्टीकोनाचे मूल्यांकन समावेशित असते, मात्र त्यातसुद्धा बाजू घेण्याचे कटाक्षाने टाळले जावे.

Bias

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 निष्पक्ष लेख. 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.

एक सोपा उपाय

साचा:निती लघुपथ वस्तुस्थितीवर भर द्या, including मतांबद्दलच्या वस्तुस्थिती सद्धा चालतील—परंतु assert the opinions themselves नको. By "वस्तुस्थिती" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." करिता example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a ग्रह called मंगळ is a fact. That प्लेटो was एक तत्वज्ञ होता a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. करिता instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. करिता example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A careful selection of reliable sources is also critical for producing लेखs 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 cite a prominent representative of the view.

See also #Let the facts speak for themselves below and विकिपीडिया:Describing points of view, an essay on the topic.

निष्पक्षता संपादणे

पहा विकिपीडिया:NPOV tutorial आणि विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/उदाहरणे

शीर्षकलेखन

मुख्य निती पान: विकिपीडिया:शीर्षकलेखन संकेत

विकिपीडिया is governed by the principle of तटस्थतेचेतत्व.

A विकिपीडिया लेख must have one definitive name. The general restriction against POV forks applies to लेख names as well. If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the लेख, the controversy should be covered in the लेख text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative लेख names should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among विकिपीडिया contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" लेख names, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth). 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 लेख 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 निष्पक्ष लेख title is very important because it ensures that the लेख topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic लेख titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of निष्पक्षता. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a निष्पक्ष view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Where proper nouns such as names are concerned, disputes may arise over whether a particular name should be used. विकिपीडिया takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources. Where inanimate entities such as geographical features are concerned, the most common name used in English-language publications is generally used. See विकिपीडिया:Naming conflict for further guidance.

लेख आराखडा

साचा:Policy shortcut Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect निष्पक्षता, 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 निष्पक्ष.

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. 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 — an implication that may not be appropriate. A more निष्पक्ष 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 निष्पक्ष reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

See the guideline विकिपीडिया:Manual of Style for clarification on the issues raised in this section.

अनावश्यक महत्व

साचा:Policy shortcut निष्पक्षता requires that the article should fairly represent सर्वसमावेशक दृष्टीकोन all significant viewpoints that have been published by a सिद्ध करण्या जोगे स्रोत, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. करिता example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

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, निष्पक्षता 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 the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

विकिपीडिया should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. विकिपीडिया aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not निष्पक्ष, 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.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in विकिपीडिया regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among विकिपीडिया editors.

If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, विकिपीडिया is not the place to première such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: विकिपीडिया:No original research and विकिपीडिया:Verifiability.

Giving "equal validity"

साचा:Policy shortcut The विकिपीडिया निष्पक्षता 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.

A vital component: good research

Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources.

Balance

Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, the core of the तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: describe the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources, and give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.

Impartial tone

विकिपीडिया describes disputes. विकिपीडिया does not engage in disputes. A निष्पक्ष 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.

The tone of विकिपीडिया articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Characterizing opinions of people's work

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some विकिपीडिया articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia; we might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history. But it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. करिता instance, that Shakespeare is widely considered one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context and enhances the credibility of the article; idiosyncratic opinions of individual विकिपीडिया contributors, however, do not.

निष्पक्षता disputes and handling

निष्पक्षता and verifiability

A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

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

• cited selectively
• painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate
• made to look more important or more dubious than a निष्पक्ष दृष्टीकोन would present
• subject to other factors suggestive of bias

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-निष्पक्ष fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal दृष्टीकोन, 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.

POV forks

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the निष्पक्षता 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 दृष्टीकोन on a certain subject are treated in one article.

See the guideline विकिपीडिया:Content forking for clarification on the issues raised in this section.

Let the facts speak for themselves

साचा:Policy shortcut Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man"—we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.

Attributing and substantiating biased statements

साचा:Policy shortcut Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into a निष्पक्ष statement by attributing or substantiating it.

करिता instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for विकिपीडिया is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.

There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems.

Making necessary assumptions

साचा:Policy shortcut When writing any of a long series of articles on some general subject, there can be cases where we must make some potentially controversial assumptions. करिता example, in writing about evolution, it's not helpful to hash out the evolution-vs.-creationism debate on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, physics, etc.

It is difficult to draw up general principles on which to rule in specific cases, but the following might help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if an assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however.

Pseudoscience and related fringe theories

हेसुद्धा पाहा: WP:UNDUE आणि WP:FRINGE

Pseudoscientific theories are claimed to be science, however, they lack scientific status by use of an inappropriate methodology or lack of objective evidence. Conversely, scientific consensus is by its very nature the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the scientific view as the majority view and the pseudoscientific view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories: This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Similar arguments apply to other fringe subjects, for instance, historical revisionism that is considered to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as Holocaust denial.

The following guidelines may help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience:

Things which generally should be classified as pseudoscience (for instance, for categorization purposes) include:

• Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labelled and categorized as such without more justification.
• Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

However, some things usually should not be classified as pseudoscience:

• Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point.
• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. While an alternative theoretical formulation may be looked on with derision, it is still published in reasonably respectable scientific journals, and negative responses will usually attack it for failure to explain some aspect of reality, which researchers into the alternative theoretical formulation will attempt to correct. करिता instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. However, pseudoscience usually requires rewriting basic, well-tested laws of science for it to work, without any evidence other than anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection (Examples: parapsychology and homeopathy).

धर्म

In the case of मानवी श्रद्धा human beliefs आणि practices, विकिपीडिया content should encompass not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account how such beliefs and practices developed. विकिपीडिया articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts as well as from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. तटस्थता निती means that विकिपीडिया editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. विकिपीडिया articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.

Common objections and clarifications

See विकिपीडिया:तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन/FAQ for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section.

Common objections or concerns raised to विकिपीडिया's तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन policy include the following.

निष्पक्ष असणे

• There's no such thing as objectivity
  Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "निष्पक्षता" policy seriously?

• Lack of निष्पक्षity as an excuse to delete
  The निष्पक्षity policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

Balancing different views

• Writing for the "enemy"
  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 निष्पक्ष in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

• Morally offensive views
  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 निष्पक्ष about them?

Editorship disputes

• Dealing with biased contributors
  I agree with the non-bias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

• Avoiding constant disputes
  How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over निष्पक्षity issues?

Other

• Anglo-American focus
  विकिपीडिया seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the तटस्थ दृष्टीकोन?

• Other objections
  I have some other objection—where should I complain?

Since the निष्पक्ष-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to विकिपीडिया's approach—many issues surrounding the निष्पक्षity 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-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.

इतर स्रोत

• तटस्थता प्रशिक्षण
• तटस्थता नेहमीचे प्रश्न
• तटस्थता उदाहरणे
• तटस्थता उदाहरणे विवाद
• तटस्थता वाद
• en:Talk:Creationism आणि लॅरीचे मोठे उत्तर

• Countering Systemic Bias
• Bias समजून घ्या
• सकारात्मक tone
• Objectivity (journalism)
• Consensus reality
• One-sided argument
• Subject-object problem

• विकिपीडिया:Article size
• विकिपीडिया:Avoid peacock terms
• विकिपीडिया:Avoid weasel words
• विकिपीडिया:Coatrack
• विकिपीडिया:Conflict of interest
• विकिपीडिया:दृष्टीकोनाचे वर्णन
• विकिपीडिया:Fringe theories
• विकिपीडिया:विवादास्पद विषयाबद्दल मार्गदर्शक तत्वे
• विकिपीडिया:वाचकांना ठरवू द्या
• विकिपीडिया:विवादास्पद विषयांची यादी
• विकिपीडिया:तटस्थता प्रकल्प
• विकिपीडिया:वैज्ञानिक सहमती
• विकिपीडिया:टाळायचे शब्द

साचे

• {{दृष्टीकोन}} or {{Bias}} — message used to warn of problems
• {{दृष्टीकोन-check}} — message used to to request that an article be checked for निष्पक्षity
• {{दृष्टीकोन-section}} — tags only a single section as disputed
• {{दृष्टीकोन-intro}} — when the article's introduction is questionable
• {{दृष्टीकोन-title}} — when the article's title is questionable
• {{दृष्टीकोन-statement}} — when only one sentence is questionable
• {{तटस्थ भाषा}} — message used when the निष्पक्षity of the style of writing is questioned
• {{लेख विकिकरण}} — When an article or section fails to abide by multiple विकिपीडिया content policies

बाह्य दुवे

• On MeatballWiki:
  • AssumeGoodFaith
  • NeutralPointOfView
• Multiple points of view: see [religion-wiki: Multiple points of view]