উইকিপিডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি

উইকিপিডিয়া, মুক্ত বিশ্বকোষ থেকে
সরাসরি যাও: পরিভ্রমণ, অনুসন্ধান

নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি বা Neutral point of view (NPOV) হল উইকিমিডিয়া ফাউন্ডেশনের মৌলিক নীতি এবং উইকিপিডিয়ার মূলভিত্তি। উইকিপিডিয়ার একটি মূলনীতি হল যেকোন নিবন্ধ নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি থেকে লিখতে হবে। অর্থাৎ নিবন্ধে বিষয়বস্তু সংক্রান্ত সমস্ত সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ ও গুরুত্বপূর্ণ-সংখ্যালঘিষ্ঠ মতামতের যথাযথ ও পক্ষপাতহীন প্রতিফলন ঘটবে। উইকিপিডিয়ার প্রতিষ্ঠাতা জিমবো ওয়েলস-এর মতে নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি উইকিপিডিয়ার একটি পরম ও আপসহীন (absolute and non-negotiable; [১]) মূলনীতি। নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি সম্বন্ধে নির্দেশনার জন্য টিউটোরিয়াল দেখুন।

যেকোন নিবন্ধ পক্ষপাতহীনভাবে লিখতে হবে এবং সমস্ত সংখ্যাগরিষ্ঠ ও সংখ্যালঘিষ্ঠ মতামতের উপযুক্ত প্রতিফলন ঘটাতে হবে—এটিই হল নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির মূলনীতি। এই মূলনীতিটি সহজেই ভুল বোঝার সম্ভাবনা রয়েছে। কোন নিবন্ধ কেবলমাত্র নির্দিষ্ট একটি পক্ষপাতহীন, নৈর্ব্যক্তিক দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি থেকেই লেখা সম্ভব—এই মূলনীতিটি সেটির দিকে দিকে নির্দেশ করছে না। এর বদলে নীতিটি বলছে: কোন সম্পাদনাসংক্রান্ত সংঘাতে, জড়িত বিভিন্ন পক্ষের মতামতের “উপযুক্ত প্রতিফলন” ঘটাতে হবে, অর্থাৎ নিবন্ধটিতে এমন কোন কিছু লেখা বা ইঙ্গিত দেয়া যাবে না যাতে মনে হয় কেবলমাত্র একটি পক্ষের মতই সঠিক। উইকিপিডিয়ানরা সবাই মিলে পক্ষপাত এড়ানোর চেষ্টা করার সুযোগ পান বলেই উইকিপিডিয়া এতো ভিন্ন।

পক্ষপাতহীনভাবে লেখার জন্য অনুশীলনের প্রয়োজন। যাঁরা নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির শিল্পটি আয়ত্ত করেছেন, তাঁরা এ-সংক্রান্ত টিউটোরিয়াল তৈরিতে সাহায্য করতে পারেন।

উইকিপিডিয়ায় পরিবেশিত তথ্যের প্রকৃতি কেমন হবে, সে ব্যাপারে তিনটি প্রধান নীতি আছে, যাদের একটি হল উইকিপিডিয়া:নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি। এ-সম্পর্কিত অন্য দু'টি প্রধান নীতি হল উইকিপিডিয়া:যাচাইযোগ্যতা এবং উইকিপিডিয়া:কোন মৌলিক গবেষণা নয়। মূলনীতি তিনটি একে অপরের পরিপূরক এবং সে-ভাবেই এগুলোকে জানতে হবে, বিছিন্নভাবে নয়। তাই সম্পাদকদের এই তিনটি মুলনীতি সম্পর্কেই যথাযথ ধারণা অর্জন করতে হবে।

নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির ব্যাখ্যা

নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:YESPOV

নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি হচ্ছে যাচাইকৃত তথ্যসূত্রের ভিত্তিতে, কোনো সাংঘর্ষিক বিষয় নিয়ে, পক্ষপাতদুষ্টতা পরিহার করে লেখা। এর অর্থ, সকল হ্যাঁ-বোধক ও তাৎপর্যপূর্ণ না-বোধক দর্শনগুলো অবশ্যই নিবন্ধে নিরপেক্ষতার সাথে উপস্থাপন করা। যাতে আপনার লেখার কোনো অংশে, কোনো নির্দিষ্ট পক্ষের প্রতি আপনার দুর্বলতা বা পক্ষপাতিত্ত্ব প্রকাশ না পায়।

নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি বিষয়ের প্রতি কোনো সহমর্মিতা যেমন দেখায় না, তেমনি কোনো উৎসাহও প্রদর্শন করে না। আবার এটি কোনো দর্শনকে শক্তি যোগায় না বা বিপক্ষেও যায় না। কিন্তু এটি দর্শনের কোনো "ঘাটতি" প্রদর্শন করবে না, বরং এটি হবে একটি সুনির্দিষ্ট, "নিরপেক্ষভাবে সম্পাদিত", ও নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎসভিত্তিক লেখা; কোনো দর্শনকে বর্জন করা এর উদ্দেশ্য নয়। উইকিপিডিয়ায় এমন প্রচুর নিবন্ধ রয়েছে যার নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস রয়েছে, কিন্তু সেগুলোর বিষয়বস্তুতে নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির প্রতিফলন ঘটে নি। তাই কোনো নিবন্ধের কোনো বিষয় বর্জন করা নিরপেক্ষ দৃষ্টিভঙ্গির নীতি অনুসারে গ্রহণযোগ্য হয় না। নিবন্ধের বিষয়বস্তু অবশ্যই পরিষ্কারভাবে বিবৃত ও উপস্থাপিত হবে। সেই সাথে এটি বিষয়বস্তুর মধ্যে বিতর্কও সৃষ্টি করবে কিন্তু অবদানকারীর লেখা কখনোই কোনো পক্ষকে ইন্ধন যোগাবে না। এছাড়াও নিবন্ধে এই তথ্যগুলো সংযোজিত হতে হবে যে, কে কী বিশ্বাস করে, কেনো করে এবং কাদের বিশ্বাস বেশি জনপ্রিয় বা গ্রহণযোগ্যতা পেয়েছে। আর এ সবই হতে হবে সুনির্দিষ্ট যাচাইকৃত তথ্যসূত্রানুসারে। বিস্তারিত নিবন্ধগুলোতে বেশিরভাগ ক্ষেত্রে প্রতিটি দর্শনের মূল্যায়ন থাকা জরুরী, কিন্তু আবারও মনে রাখবেন, সেক্ষেত্রে অবশ্যই কোনো পক্ষকে সমর্থন করা থেকে আপনাকে বিরত থাকতে হবে।

  • 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 stating facts as opinions. 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 nonjudgmental 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. Do not editorialize.
  • 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.

পক্ষপাত

নিরপেক্ষতার জন্য পক্ষপাতহীন উপস্থাপনা জরুরী। সকল সম্পাদক ও তথ্যসূত্রের পক্ষপাতিত্ত্ব রয়েছে। অর্থাৎ, সকল সম্পাদক ও তথ্যসূত্রের একটি নিজস্ব দর্শন রয়েছে। এখন উদ্দেশ্য হচ্ছে—কীভাবে আমরা তাঁদের মধ্যে সমন্বয় করে একটি নিরপেক্ষ নিবন্ধ তৈরি করবো। পক্ষপাতহীন লেখা সম্পর্কিত সকল বিষয়গুলো সম্পর্কে সত্য ও যু্ক্তিপূর্ণ বিশ্লেষণী ব্যাখ্যার সমন্বয়ে তৈরি হয়। এক্ষেত্রে বিষয়টি নিয়ে বিতর্ক থাকতে পারে, আপোষে মীমাংসিত হবার বিষয় থাকতে পারে, প্রকাশিত প্রমাণও থাকতে পারে। কোনো নির্দিষ্ট দিকে সম্পাদকীয় পক্ষপাত সংশোধন বা মুছে ফেলা হতে পারে।[১]

একটি সহজ সমাধান বিবৃতি

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:ASF

শুধু ফ্যাক্ট বা বাস্তব বিষয় যোগ করুন, এর মাঝে থাকতে পারে কোনো মন্তব্য সম্পর্কিত ফ্যাক্ট- কিন্তু মন্তব্য যোগ করতে যাবেন না। ফ্যাক্ট বা ঘটনা বলতে আমরা বোঝাচ্ছি কিছু তথ্য যা যাচাই করা যাবে। উইকিপিডিয়াতে অধিকাংশ ফ্যাক্ট, সতঃসিদ্ধ ফ্যাক্ট যেমন “মঙ্গল একটি গ্রহ” এবং “প্ল্যাটো একজন দার্শনিক” ইত্যাদি বাদে, অবশ্যই কোনো নির্ভরযোগ্য উৎস থেকে যাচাইযোগ্য হতে হবে।

অপরদিকে মতামত বলতে আমরা বুঝাচ্ছি এমন একটি ব্যাপার যা বিতর্কের যোগ্য। "চুরি করা খারাপ", "বিটলস ইতিহাসের সেরা গায়কদল" এগুলো হলো মতামত। "ডঃ ইউনুস নোবেল পুরস্কার জিতেছেন" এটা হলো একটি ফ্যাক্ট, "তাকে নোবেল পুরস্কার দেয়া ঠিক হয়নি" এটা শুধুই একটা মতামত। উইকিপিডিয়াতে ব্যক্তিগত মতামতের থেকে ফ্যাক্টকে বেশি গুরুত্ব দেয়া হয়।

However, there are bound to be borderline cases (see Undue weight) where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

যখন আমরা মতামত নিয়ে আলোচনা করি তখন অপর কারোর প্রসঙ্গ নিয়ে এসে বলি যে তিনি এরকম মত প্রকাশ করেন। যেমন "বিটলস ইতিহাসের সেরা গায়কদল" না বলে আমরা বলি "রোলিং স্টোন পত্রিকার মতে বিটলস ইতিহাসের সেরা গায়কদল",এবং এর সপক্ষে তথ্যসূত্র যোগ করে দেই। ঠিক এরকম "বাংলাদেশের বেশিভাগ মানুষ মনে করে সাকিব-আল-হাসান বাংলাদেশে সেরা ক্রিকেটার" মতামতটি জরিপ দ্বারা যাচাই করা সম্ভব, "সাকিব সেরা খেলোয়াড়দের তালিকায় ১ নম্বরে আছেন/ছিলেন" এ কথাটিও যোগ করা যেতে পারে কারন এটা ফ্যাক্ট হিসাবে যাচাইযোগ্য। ১ম বাক্যটি একটি ব্যক্তিগত মতামত এবং ২য়টি নিশ্চিত করে যে এমন একটি মতামতের অস্তিত্ব আছে এবং এটা যাচাইযোগ্য।

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. 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.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution".[২] A reliable source supporting a statement 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 articles with a neutral point of view. 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.

নিরপেক্ষতা অর্জন

See উইকিপিডিয়া:NPOV tutorial and উইকিপিডিয়া:Neutral point of view/Examples

নিবন্ধের শিরোনাম

Main policy page: উইকিপিডিয়া:Article titles
Wikipedia is governed by the principle of impartiality.

A Wikipedia article must have one definitive title.[৩] The general restriction against POV forks applies to article titles as well. If a genuine titling controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources. Otherwise, alternative article titles should not be used as means of settling POV disputes among Wikipedia contributors. Also disfavored are double or "segmented" article titles, in the form of: Flat Earth/Round Earth; or Flat Earth (Round Earth).[৪] 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 article 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 neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral 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 as (or in) an article title. Wikipedia takes a descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in such cases, by using the common English language name as found in verifiable reliable sources; proper names for people or events which incorporate non-neutral terms – such as Boston massacre, Tea Pot Dome scandal, Edward the Confessor, Jack the Ripper – are legitimate article titles when they are used by a consensus of the sources.

নিবন্ধের গঠনকাঠামো

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:STRUCTURE
See the guideline উইকিপিডিয়া:Manual of Style for clarification on the issues raised in this section.

Sometimes 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, in some cases the article structure may need attention. 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.[৫] 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 neutral approach can 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 neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.[৬]

অসঙ্গত গুরুত্ব(Undue weight)

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:DUE
WP:UNDUE
WP:Undue weight
WP:WEIGHT
WP:UNDUEWEIGHT
WP:PROMINENCE

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. How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources. An article's coverage of individual events or opinions involving its subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the topic. This is an important consideration when reporting on 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.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, 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 widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth should not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority.

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, it is appropriate to give the viewpoint 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 a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts 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 be able to 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 in order to avoid misleading the reader. উইকিপিডিয়া:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points.

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. 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.

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.

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

Giving "equal validity"

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:GEVAL
WP:VALID

The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would 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 or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.

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, 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

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.

Characterizing opinions of people's work

A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Some Wikipedia 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 note worthy individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For 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 Wikipedia contributors, however, do not.

Words to avoid

Some words carry non-neutral implications. For example, the word claim 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 these words: for example John said, "I did not eat the pie".

Neutrality disputes and handling

Attributing and specifying biased statements

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:SUBSTANTIATE
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation.

For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion; it cannot be included in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about the fact that someone holds an opinion, e.g.: "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 recognized subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true.

A different approach is to specify the statement, by giving underlying details that are undisputed. 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.

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.[২]

Point of view (POV) and content forks

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

A content fork is a usually unintentional creation of multiple articles all treating the same subject. A point of view fork is a deliberate attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already being treated, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both are considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on the same subject are treated in one article.

It is vital to note that this does not rule out separate articles on related but distinct subjects if there is enough information about each subject to justify a separate article. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are all separate. This is fine because these articles deal with merely related but not identical subjects, each of which has been determined to be independently notable. Spin-offs are another case of related but distinct articles: they are not only justified but are a central part of Wikipedia's structure. Whether distinctions between topics are sufficiently large and each topic notable enough to justify separate articles must be decided on a case by case basis.

Making necessary assumptions

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:MNA

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. For 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.

Fringe theories

When discussing fringe views, any mention of them should be proportionate, making clear which is the dominant majority view among reliable sources, and which the minority view. Notable views that are held by a tiny minority may be discussed in articles devoted to them. Examples of these are forms of historical revisionism that reliable sources widely regard as lacking evidence—or actively ignoring it—such as Holocaust denial or claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked.

Pseudoscience

When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific, editors should be careful not to present those views alongside the scientific consensus as though they are equal but opposing views. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the main views.

Topics that may be classified as pseudoscience and added to the pseudoscience category so long as there are reliable sources, include the following:

1. Obviously bogus ideas: Obviously bogus ideas such as Time Cube may be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur.
2. Generally considered pseudoscience: Ideas which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may also be described as pseudoscience if reliable sources concur.

Topics that should not be added to the category, even if there are reliable sources for the claim:

3. Theories with a substantial and respectable following: Articles about established ideas and practices such as psychoanalysis, which some critics allege are pseudoscientific but which also attract an academic following, may contain the view that they are pseudoscientific if it is reliably sourced, but it should not be added to the lead or highlighted unduly, and should not be included without qualification.
4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, which are part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but should they succeed will be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticized because there was no known mechanism for it, and thus the evidence in its favour was dismissed. When the mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

Religion

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 independent 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 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 note worthy 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 words to avoid.

Common objections and clarifications

See উইকিপিডিয়া: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
Balancing different views
  • Writing for the "opponent"
    I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent." I don't want to write for the opponent. My opponents rely on stating as fact many things which I believe 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 Westerners, such as racism, 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?
Other
  • Anglo-American focus
    Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view?

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 আলাপ:Neutral point of view, or bring it up on the Wikipedia-l mailing list. Before asking it, please review the links below.

See also

Policies and essays

Templates

  • General NPOV templates:
    • {{POV}} or {{Bias}}—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-intro}}—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
  • 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-inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

তথ্যসূত্র

  1. For more details, see the Undue Weight section in this policy.
  2. See also: উইকিপিডিয়া:Avoid weasel words, উইকিপিডিয়া:Avoid peacock terms.
  3. Note, however, that redirects may be used to address this technical limitation in situations where non-controversial synonyms and variations in word morphology exist.
  4. See also: Choosing geographic names, উইকিপিডিয়া:Article titles.
  5. 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 উইকিপিডিয়া:Avoid thread mode, উইকিপিডিয়া:Criticism, উইকিপিডিয়া:Pro and con lists, and টেমপ্লেট:Criticism-section.
  6. Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a "debate", and content structured like a "resume". See also: উইকিপিডিয়া:Guide to layout, Formatting criticism, উইকিপিডিয়া:Edit war, WP cleanup templates, and টেমপ্লেট:Lopsided.