ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ:ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣ - ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ
Jump to content
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆରୁ
"Wikipedia:Point of view" redirects here. For the essay on how to describe points of view, see
Wikipedia:Describing points of view
To raise issues with specific articles, see the
NPOV noticeboard
. For advice on applying this policy, see the
NPOV tutorial
. For frequent critiques and responses, see the
NPOV FAQ
ଏହି ପୃଷ୍ଠାଟି ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ
ନୀତି
ବାବଦରେ ଇଂରାଜିରେ ବର୍ଣ୍ଣିତ, ସଭିଙ୍କ ଦେଇ ଗ୍ରହଣ କରାଯାଇଥାଏ ଯାହାକୁ ସବୁ ଦାତା
ସମାନ ଭାବରେ
ମାନି ପାରିବେ । ବଦଳ ସବୁ
ବହୁମତ
ଦେଇ କରାଯାଇପାରିବ ।
Shortcuts
WP:NPOV
WP:NPOV
WP:NPV
WP:POV
This page in a nutshell:
Articles mustn't
take
sides, but should
explain
the sides, fairly and without
bias
. This applies to both what you say and how you say it.
ପାଞ୍ଚଟି ଖମ୍ବ
ମୂଳ ବିଷୟବସ୍ତୁ ନୀତି
ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ମତ
ମୂଳ ଗବେଷଣା ନ ଦେବା
ପରଖାଯାଇପାରିବା
Other content policies
ପ୍ରସଙ୍ଗ ନାମ
ଜୀବନ୍ତ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଜୀବନୀ
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ କଣ ନୁହେଁ
Editing from a
neutral point of view
NPOV
) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been
published by reliable sources
. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a
neutral
point of view. NPOV is a
fundamental principle of Wikipedia
and of
other Wikimedia projects
. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. The other two are "
Verifiability
" and "
No original research
". These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The
principles
upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.
Explanation of the neutral point of view
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcut
WP:YESPOV
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of
reliable sources
and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately. Wikipedia aims to
describe disputes, but not engage in them.
Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view should not be interpreted as the exclusion of certain points of view. Observe the following principles to achieve the level of neutrality which is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Avoid stating opinions as facts.
Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.
If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion.
Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of
verifiability
. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
Prefer non-judgmental language.
A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone.
Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.
Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of
parity
, or give
undue weight
to a particular view. For 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.
Achieving neutrality
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
See
Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial
and
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples
As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems
biased
. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be
fixed when possible
through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.
Naming
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
See
Wikipedia:Article titles
for more on choosing an appropriate title for an article.
In some cases, the choice of name used for something can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names
Boston massacre
Tea Pot Dome scandal
and
Jack the Ripper
are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgement. The best name to use for something may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the thing in question is the main topic being discussed.
This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the
article titling policy
(and other relevant guidelines such as
geographical names
). Article titles which combine alternative names are discouraged. For example,
Derry/Londonderry
Aluminium/Aluminum
or
Flat Earth (Round Earth)
should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and
redirects
created as appropriate.
Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being the name of something. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint "for" or "against" something, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled
"Criticisms of X"
might be better renamed
"Societal views on X"
). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
Article structure
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcut
WP:STRUCTURE
See the guideline
Wikipedia:Manual of Style
for clarification on the issues raised in this section.
The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like
POV forking
and
undue weight
. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.
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 where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.
Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
Due and undue weight
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcuts
WP:UNDUE
WP:WEIGHT
WP:DUE
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by
reliable sources
, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the
Earth
does not directly mention modern support for the
Flat Earth
concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the
Flat Earth
belief.
In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader.
Wikipedia:Fringe theories
and the
NPOV FAQs
provide additional guidance.
Wikipedia 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 (such as Flat Earth). 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. Wikipedia 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.
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. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be
verifiable
and
neutral
, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to
recent events
that may be in the
news
. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors or the general public.
Also, if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in
reliable sources
, it may be appropriately included. See:
Wikipedia:No original research
and
Wikipedia:Verifiability
Giving "equal validity"
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcuts
WP:GEVAL
WP:VALID
"When considering 'due impartiality' under the new Editorial Guidelines, the BBC needs to continue to be careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to 'false balance', meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but the BBC must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries."
–From the
BBC
Trust's policy on science reporting
While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world.
Good research
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
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. If you need help finding high-quality sources for something, ask other editors on the
talk page
of the article you are working on, or ask at
Wikipedia:Reference desk
Balance
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Neutrality assigns
weight
to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and
are
relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.
Impartial tone
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Wikipedia
describes
disputes. Wikipedia does not
engage
in disputes. A neutral 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 Wikipedia 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.
Describing aesthetic opinions
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Wikipedia articles about art and other creative topics (e.g. musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse – we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors of the English language. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art.
Words to watch
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
See also:
Wikipedia:Words to watch
There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word
claim
is an
expression of doubt
and can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as:
John claimed he had not eaten the pie.
Using
loaded words
such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using loaded words; for example,
John said, "I did not eat the pie."
Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).
Handling neutrality disputes
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Attributing and specifying biased statements
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcuts
WP:SUBSTANTIATE
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV
Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be
verifiable
and appropriately
cited
Another approach is to
specify
or
substantiate
the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.
Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with
weasel words
, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But
Who?
and
How many?
are natural objections. An exception is situations where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group.
Point of view forks
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
See the guideline
Wikipedia:Content forking
for clarification on the issues raised in this section.
point of view fork
is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia.
All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an
article spinout
. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example,
Evolution
Evolution as theory and fact
Creationism
, and
Creationism-evolution controversy
are separate articles. 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.
Making necessary assumptions
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Policy
shortcut
WP:MNA
When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is 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 a rule but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some
other
page. A brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however.
Controversial subjects
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Wikipedia deals with numerous areas which are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Wikipedia, but it is often needed most in these.
Pseudoscience and related fringe theories
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Shortcut
WP:PSCI
Further information:
WP:UNDUE
and
WP:FRINGE
Pseudoscientific
theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to
scientific standards and methods
. Conversely, by its very nature,
scientific consensus
is 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 mainstream views of the
scientific community
. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate with the scientific view. Likewise, the pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of
historical revisionism
that are considered by
more reliable sources
to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as
Holocaust denial
, or
claims the Apollo moon landing was faked
See
Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Pseudoscience
for Wikipedia's established guidelines to help with deciding whether something is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.
Religion
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Shortcut
WP:RNPOV
In the case of human beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia 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. NPOV policy means that Wikipedia 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
. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses 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 particular terms can be found at
words to avoid
History of NPOV
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
NPOV is one of the oldest policies on Wikipedia.
Nupedia
's "
Non-bias policy
" was drafted by
Larry Sanger
in spring or summer of 2000.
Wikipedia's first NPOV policy goes back to at least
December 2001
"Avoid bias" was one of the first of Wikipedia's
"rules to consider"
proposed by Sanger.
Jimbo Wales
elaborated the "avoid bias" rule with a statement about "neutral point of view" in the early months of Wikipedia: see
copy in web archive
(note: that page also contains comments by other Wikipedians up to 12 April 2001)
in subsequent versions of the NPOV page, Jimbo's statement was known as the "original formulation" of the NPOV policy.
A more elaborate version of the NPOV policy was written by
Larry Sanger
, at
Meta-Wiki
in December 2001: see
"Neutral point of view--draft," Larry Sanger's version of 20 December 2001
After several transformations (see
edit history of "draft" at Meta
) the version by Larry Sanger et al. was moved to
this page
on 25 February 2002, and was further edited (see
edit history of this page
), resulting in the current version.
Another short formulation was introduced by Brion Vibber in meta, 17 March 2003: see
Meta's "Neutral point of view," version of 17 March 2003
Development of the
Undue weight
section started in 2003, for which a mailing list post by Jimbo Wales on
29 September 2003
was instrumental.
Jimbo Wales qualifies NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions:
November 2003
April 2006
March 2008
(compare also
User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles
#1).
Common objections and clarifications
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Wikipedia founder
Jimmy Wales
talking about NPOV at
WikiConference India
See
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
for answers and clarifications on the issues raised in this section.
Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy include the following.
Being neutral
There's no such thing as objectivity
Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows that. So how can we take the "neutrality" policy seriously?
Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete
The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?
A simple formulation
what does it mean?
A former section of this policy called "
A simple formulation
" was about the different ways in which we present facts (uncontroversial statements) versus opinions (value judgement or disputed views). What Wikipedia states
directly
is facts and only facts. Opinions can be reported too, but they cannot be stated directly
they need to be converted into facts by attributing them
in the text
to some person or group.
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 neutral 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 readers, such as sexism and Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral 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 neutrality issues?
Other
Anglo-American focus
Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?
Other objections
I have some other objection—where should I complain?
Since the neutral-point-of-view policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Wikipedia's approach—many issues surrounding the neutrality policy have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try
Talk:Neutral point of view
, or bring it up on the
Wikipedia-l
mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.
Notes
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
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
Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode
Wikipedia:Criticism
Wikipedia:Pro and con lists
, and
Template:Criticism-section
Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also:
Wikipedia:Guide to layout
Formatting criticism
Wikipedia:Edit war
WP cleanup templates
, and
Template:Lopsided
"BBC Trust – BBC science coverage given "vote of confidence" by independent report"
. July 20, 2011
. Retrieved
August 14,
2011
Other resources
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
ଛାଞ୍ଚ:Spoken Wikipedia-3
Policies
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
No original research
Verifiability
Guidelines
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Article size
Conflict of interest
Fringe theories
Words to avoid
Essays
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Avoid peacock terms
Avoid weasel words
Be neutral in form
Civil POV pushing
Coatrack
Controversial articles
Describing points of view
Do not assert what you know
Guidelines for controversial articles
Let the reader decide
List of controversial issues
NPOV Disputes
NPOV Examples
NPOV Examples debate
NPOV FAQ
NPOV tutorial
Positive tone
(meta, historical)
Scientific consensus
Systemic bias
Understand Bias
(meta, historical)
Articles
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Consensus reality
Objectivity (journalism)
One-sided argument
Subject-object problem
Templates
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
General NPOV templates:
POV
—message used to warn of problems
POV-check
—message used to request that an article be checked for neutrality
POV-section
—tags only a single section as disputed
POV-lead
—when the article's introduction is questionable
POV-title
—when the article's title is questionable
POV-statement
—when only one sentence is questionable
NPOV language
—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
Multiple issues
—when an article or section fails to abide by multiple Wikipedia content policies
ASF
—when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g. so-and-so says)
Undue weight templates:
Undue
—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
Undue-section
—same as above but to tag a section only
Undue-inline
—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only
Wikiproject
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Wikiproject Neutrality
Noticeboard
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
Neutral point of view noticeboard
Related information
ସମ୍ପାଦନା
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ନୀତିନିୟମ
ପାଞ୍ଚଟି ସ୍ତମ୍ଭ
ଆମ ନୀତି ବିଷୟରେ
ଜିମ୍ବୋଙ୍କ ସ୍ଵିକାରୋକ୍ତି
ଐତିହାସିକ ରାୟ
ସରଳ ନିୟମ
ଆଲୋଚନା ସବୁର ସାରକଥା
ଉଇକମିଡ଼ିଆର ନିୟମ
ସବୁ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ପାଇଁ ଲାଗୁ
(ମେଟା-ଉଇକିରେ)
ନୀତିନିୟମ
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆର ନିୟମ ଉପରେ ବାକି ଲେଖାସବୁ
Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Overview
Five pillars
Policies and guidelines
List of policies and guidelines
List of policies
List of guidelines
Project-wide principles
What Wikipedia is not
Editing policy
Consensus
Dispute resolution
Ignore all rules
Core content policies
Neutral point of view
No original research
Verifiability
Other content policies
Article titles
Biographies of living persons
Deletion
Content guidelines
Citing sources
Disambiguation
Do not create hoaxes
Do not include copies of primary sources
Identifying reliable sources
Notability
Map conventions
Patent nonsense
Behavioural policies
Child protection
Civility
Edit warring
Harassment
No legal threats
No personal attacks
Ownership of articles
Sock puppetry
Behavioural guidelines
Assume good faith
Conflict of interest
Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
Etiquette
Gaming the system
Please do not bite the newcomers
Editing guidelines
Article size
Be bold
Hatnotes
Signatures
Talk page guidelines
Subpages
User pages
WikiProjects
Style conventions
Manual of Style
Dates and numbers
Layout
Lead section
Lists
Linking
Classification guidelines
Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Categorization
Template namespace
Wikimedia Foundation
Licensing and copyright
List of policies
Book
Category: Policies
Guidelines
"ରୁ ଅଣାଯାଇଅଛି
ଶ୍ରେଣୀସମୂହ
Wikipedia policy
Wikipedia neutral point of view
Wikipedia content policy
Hidden category:
Wikipedia shortcut box first parameter needs fixing
ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ
ନିରପେକ୍ଷ ଦୃଷ୍ଟିକୋଣ
ନୂଆ ଯୋଡ଼ନ୍ତୁ
US