Talk:Narrative inquiry - Knowledge (XXG)

432:

as well. However, in looking at their citations for the methods, they used a variety of sources, several of which are the second author sources preferred by Knowledge (XXG). Thus, your statement that they have insufficient sources is incorrect. Furthermore, as Banaticus specified on his talk page, Knowledge (XXG) does not require them to present ALL positions in the process of developing a page, though it should be noted that their are other methods, which they have done. I am not an expert in Knowledge (XXG), but I am learning quickly and can certainly understand and apply Banaticus's explanations. You and Banaticus clearly disagree on some points of page requirement. In reading through the requirements myself, Banaticus's positions are have better support than yours. Thus, if you edit out content on this page for either of the two reasons above, I will quickly pursue whatever avenues are available to address incorrect application of Knowledge (XXG) regulations during editing. I realize that you have been on Knowledge (XXG) for quite awhile, which means that you should be setting the standard for appropriate application of regulations, not your own variations. Contrary to your previous statements, I do expect my students to be held to Knowledge (XXG) criteria - exactly those criteria. I image you will be quite angry that I am apparently telling you how to edit a student's page; I am not, I am simply specifying what course of action I will take.

481:

contributions that would contribute to a complete page - not be responsible for completing the entire page themselves. In terms of the students moving their work live while still in progress, I quote from the Knowledge (XXG) article on teaching essays: "Many instructors who design Knowledge (XXG) assignments encourage their students to draft their articles away from the public gaze, and to upload them to the encyclopedia's public pages only after they are ready for general scrutiny. Such contributions are often deleted because they do not follow Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. More importantly, we feel that this approach misses one of the greatest benefits of a Knowledge (XXG) assignment: engaging with a community of writers and readers. Having students edit Knowledge (XXG) in real time teaches them how to negotiate with an entire community of fellow readers and editors." This same position is echoed in the article Advice on Using Knowledge (XXG) in College and Universities. Thus, you critique that they should not be moving their work live until it is fully completed is contrary to the goals and specifications of the Knowledge (XXG) Education Outreach. Similarly, looking at the site Advice on Using Knowledge (XXG) in College and Universities, under specification of the Knowledge (XXG) genre the following points are listed:

475:

presentation on utilizing narrative inquiry methods, as derived from Labov & Polkinghorne, to develop understandings of developmental processes, was accepted by the 2011 Narrative Inquiry Conference, associated with the leading peer review journal Narrative Inquiry. This conference has a 30% acceptance rate, so it is quite rigorous. Perhaps our differences in ideas of major sources is due to differences in the topic area in which we apply these methods. In looking through your work, you clearly apply some different approaches, a couple of which I find intriguing. However, I work and am teaching this class in the social sciences, where Polkinghorne is considered foundational, as is Riessman and Atkinson. Thus, working within the field of qualitative social sciences, these are the authors appropriate to cite. I find it interesting that you critique the sources my students are using, but do not reference any articles from the leading peer reviewed journal, Narrative Inquiry; indeed you do not cite any sources by any of the editors or major contributors to that journal.

916:

further information. Having reviewed over the Five Pillars, I am still unclear how they violated this. The students did initially post it as "the" method - sloppy thinking and oversimplification, but that has been changed for awhile and indeed I supported Snowded in this critique. I disagree, and I believe Banaticus disagreed with Snowded's apparent insistence that if they could not present all possible methods, they should present none - he insists that this is not what he is saying, but his comments are difficult to interpret in any other way. Snowded did indeed suggest some other sources, and as you can see on his talk page, I agreed that we will look at them and strive to incorporate them. Personally, I am always interested in learning new approaches and as Snowded and I agreed, part of this issue may be the unfortunate narrowing that occurs in some academic fields. However, this is an introductory course to qualitative research, not a narrative inquiry seminar, so the student's expressed knowledge is not, and can not be expected to be exhaustive.

604:

who are major figures in this field who are not even referenced. They are also published in multiple high reputation journals; we are not limited to one. There are also sources that summarise the field that we should draw on - I have those at home and will look at them at the weekend and make some more amendments then. I've given them references that move outside the range of authors and approaches that you have chosen to teach. I am incidentally more than entitled to the view that you should teach those authors without you complaining of innuendo. I am also of the view that the students have not been properly prepared for this assignment and have made some suggestions as to how this could be improved. The issue is one of balance and weight not citation per se (that has been corrected). There are also some very simple issues that they are failing to address. In particular the fact that they have listed stages of one method, rather than summarising methods. They are also not responding to comments and questions which is not good in wikipedia terms.

993:. I don't know anything about this project, chances are virtually noone at Knowledge (XXG) that regularly edits here has ever heard of it, so you're going to be met with people who have all different opinions on if it is a good idea or not. We always need new contributing editors, but being forced to edit generally isn't a good way to get good editors, I wouldn't think, nor do I think it produces quality articles. I think the issue has been long-ago resolved since all parties have pretty much given up discussing it and moved on? Am I correct, or is there still an ongoing issue the RfC needs to address, or can it be closed? — 686:

those texts during my training. As I state below, in retrospect part of the frustration that I expressed above was the sense of being caught between two conflicting views - one that encourages incorporating Knowledge (XXG) pages construction within classroom assignments and the view by others that the approach is inappropriate. I am not sure what the resolution to this issue is, but I was frustrated by finding my class in the middle of an unanticipated conflict of differences of perspectives of where Knowledge (XXG) is going and what is best for the site.

1263:. As it is, this page seems to suggest that the diction "narrative analysis" should be applied preferentially to a certain kind of approaches (e.g. Bruner), or that these approaches have a predominant importance in the general field of narrative analysis. Both assumption appear to me incorrect. A solution could be to explicitly state the limitations of this account and point to other pages (e.g. Narratology) for a more comprehensive view, or even better to improve the scope of the page by including other approaches. 779:

you check my exchanges with Heather you will see that she and her colleagues admit to not being aware of the names of scholars who appear in the Sage Handbook on Narrative Inquiry. I have also said that when I get access to my books on the subject (I am travelling at the moment) I will make substantial changes. Banaticus is rightly focused on his role as mentor to this particular institution on their use of wikipedia, but we need to be aware that our function is to provide a balanced encyclopaedia. ----

67: 49: 77: 1286:

handbook on action research related to Narrative and attempted in that to create an overall typology to understand difference approaches balancing them between communication, research and knowledge/understanding. While that is a third party source, as the writer I am reluctant to use it as an editor here and there are probably better overviews as that focused on a wider field than just academic work. ----

860:

their students must edit articles on wikipedia. From my experience most college level students don't give a flying fuck about their classes, only enough to pass it, so they're going to do the bare-minimum amount of caring about it. So you're going to get college level essay quality articles out of this, which I don't think helps the encyclopedia if they're writing in technical articles. If they stick to

22: 1086:

it is just confusing. The last part of your interpretation section sounds more like thematic analysis. You also need to clarify the difference between narrative analysis and analysis of narrative, along with the difference between "an experience of time" and "a reference to a historical time. Carefully read through your piece and attempt to increase clarity throughout.

339:

sources, it may be a good idea to add in some more information that you have citations for to add credibility to your wiki article. The article looks good and reads fairly well,however I would make sure to include examples in some sections that are harder to understand so that those new to narrative analysis understand what the text is saying.--

455:

methods. Editors disagree, there are conflict resolution processes when they do. You may agree with Banaticus which is fine but please don't be silly and suggest that I am using my own variations. Like other editors I am attempting to achieve a balanced encyclopaedia and you would do yourself no harm by removing that statement.

567:

of multiple sources. If you feel these points are too lenient, I suggest you take it up with the appropriate Knowledge (XXG) group. To hold my students to criteria other then these, to repeatedly take down their work when it meets these criteria is not in keeping with this page as an education site.

1201:

I have corrected a good number of your criticism Heather Adams and will continue to do so. Your point about adding "fable, story, etc for epistemology such as Marxism" is causing some problems. The table on the page is directly from a text and I have not been able to find support to add the fable and

888:

It seems that this site, my class and my students are getting caught up in an internal issue on Knowledge (XXG) - students building and editing Knowledge (XXG) pages as part of a class project. I was invited to create a course where students would construct and edit Knowledge (XXG) pages for course

603:

I think you need to cool it, especially as I have not made the edits yet and will not until tomorrow. I am not challenging the value of the sourced material they have provided but I am saying its not complete (but not that it has to be fully comprehensive). I have given the names of three authors

572:

In closing, I do not wish to make this a point of conflict, but your innuendo that I am not competent in my field and your suggestion that I not pursue this matter further will not alter my actions. Please abide by the specifications set out in the article above as the students continue to work in a

546:

4) Though Knowledge (XXG) does prize fine writing, clarity, and precision, it values even more what it terms verifiability, that is, the use of high-quality or "reliable" sources. This insistence on sources is largely an understandable response to the fact that anyone can contribute to an article: in

394:

The listed treatment of narrative inquiry is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all possible methods for narrative inquiry. It is, however, a verifiable listing of some methods of narrative inquiry. This section will need to be added to and contributed to by numerous researchers and various fields

1102:

Saying that your first step is constructing a narrative makes no sense - that is exactly the process you are talking about below. You have also left out a couple of preliminary (but very important) steps out - like how do you develop your research question, etc (this distinction may need to go with

1085:

In your introduction and elsewhere, you have some circular definitions, or otherwise unclear presentations. In particular, you need to connect your concluding quote in the intro with the rest of the piece - it just dangles there now and I am not sure what purpose it is supposed to serve, right now

980:

ones. As for students being assigned to edit wikipedia, that's not something that would be relevant to a RfC. It's possible that students in such a project might be treated differently (and not in a good way) than a random new editor showing up if it was known that they're a student assigned to edit

963:

Well the RfC process, which I was directed here by the bot, is a dispute resolution process. Not a process to render opinion on content for the article. The dispute I think I got a grasp on by reading some of the involved parties talk pages and fairly well summed up above by Heather is pretty clear.

864:

or other pointless articles that have a much lower bar than scientific/technical articles then it may not be a problem. So as much as my opinion matters, I think Snowded is far more on the side of Knowledge (XXG) policy than the teacher/student or the project's promoter. Knowledge (XXG) articles and

289:

I found this article to be an enjoyable reading experience. You presented the information in a manner that was not too wordy, but still carries the connotation of authority which is backed by all your references. I would suggest providing an example of narrative analysis under the Practices section.

1092:

You contradict yourself in several places - for example under interpret, your statement about there being no single interpretive truth contradicts the positivist/post-positivist epistemology you discuss right below it. You have similar problems in other parts of that section - correct for accuracy

1011:

I am left with the perception that we have mostly resolved these differences, I am not sure the position of others. The students have taken a break to work on some data collection and analysis - so they can gain great insight into the processes they have only learned about textually. They will be

859:

leeway too if I saw an editor from it doing bad edits on articles I watch, so I can't fault Snowded for his actions, lol.) he may have a little bit of a COI with siding with the teacher/students over this issue. It doesn't help the encyclopedia to have some teacher somewhere make an assignment that

836:

A self-avowed 'expert' has her class invading the article and offering "the" method for narrative when there are many contrary takes on how narrative methods should work. Indeed, the article is reads like a under-grad paper on narrative research methods taught by someone that's read Riessman's 1993

720:

I think the current version is a good synthesis of different methods from different primary scholarly contributors to the topic, and that everything is is all nicely referenced. Snowded maintains that the current version doesn't go into enough depth and should be deleted until a better revision of

566:

To review, each of the student pages meets these three parts of the genre as they are presented and recommend to instructors; use of secondary sources when possible, do not present an argument that one approach or process is better than the others, and verifiability through careful citation and use

506:

2) In this sense, the genre of the encyclopedia article is very different from that of the typical student assignment. It will have no introduction or conclusion; rather, it will have a lead followed by a series of elements that are all descriptive or expository, designed to explain, not convince.-

458:

When you put things into the main space other editors will change things, its part of the rich process that is Knowledge (XXG). Its only a conflict if you make it so: I suggest you don't.. Feel free to pursue them as quickly as you like but please remember I am not one of your students and I do

454:

Knowledge (XXG) does not require all perspectives but it does require something far more representative than this very narrow perspective. You need to think about balance and weight for which there are a range of sources. They have also listed stages of one approach to methods rather than listing

431:

Snowded, we are verging on a serious conflict with this page. Referring back to Banaticus's earlier comments regarding the need for verifiability and later comments on the Sandbox for this page, the students have strove to meet all of those requirements, many of which overlapped with your comments

1285:

Most of the articles on narrative, including the one you reference could do with more third party sourcing and some consolidation. If anything the narratology article is more limited, especially as it uses a neologism as a title and has restricted sourcing. I wrote one of the entries in the Sage

778:

Please get it right. I don't think it should be deleted but I think it needs significant and major changes to balance it against multiple sources. Some of which I have supplied to the students. However they seem to be working only within the narrow compass of what is taught on their course. If

685:

Saylors, unfortunately, the full conversation about this disagreement is not all on this page, but also partially on Snowded's talk page. There you will see that as he and I discussed this issue, I expressed interest in the new sources and my own surprise that I had not been introduced to some of

641:

Snowden is quite right. Type "narrative methods" into google scholar. If you read that top-ranked book you'll see why you are blind to the field if you don't know Czarniawska, Boje, & Gabriel... your implication that what he's drawing your attention to is somehow outside of 'social science' is

915:

In terms of the multiple views in an article, I agree that these are necessary. However, as is common on other pages, the goal was for the students to present a method, clearly labeling it as one of several options, thus adding to the body of knowledge with the intent that others would later add

607:

Neither by the way have I suggested that you don't persue the matter further, I have said you are welcome to but I do suggest you look at the content changes I make and address those within WIkipedia policy first. . I'd prefer your students to make the changes first by the way, but that is up to

338:

Overall this article flows really well, I would however make sure to include in-depth examples as I am unsure how to actually conduct a narrative analysis, table's or even written examples of narrative analysis being used would be very helpful. The criticisms section looks like it could use some

305:

I am a bit confused that the Methods section is no longer available. I believe that this is a necessary portion of this article and as such should be included and discussed. This is the only real issue at this time, and I believe that once the Method section is added back to the article it will

805:

article... there needs to be something more manageable that you'd expect uninvolved and people who likely don't care about this article's subject to understand and render an opinion. What is this talk about a school and class, is this some sorta class project to invade this article? So if your

526:

3) Any contribution that does not obey these conventions will very quickly be under fire for what in Knowledge (XXG) terminology is described variously as original research or flouting the site's neutral point of view policy. - as they have met the two criteria above, it seems that then their

480:

Perhaps there is a miscommunication regarding the goals of Knowledge (XXG) Education Outreach. I was explicitly told that this would be an acceptable project for undergraduate students and first year graduate students working with a new topic area. The emphasis was placed on them making

474:

I have an interdisciplinary qualitative studies graduate certificate, with 6 graduate level classes on working within the qualitative paradigm, along with several published qualitative studies, so I am quite knowledgeable about the field. More specifically related to narrative inquiry, my

248:

Curious why the edit "Narrative inquiry is a form of analysis within qualitative research in the social sciences that dates back to the Chicago School tradition of the early 20th century" was reverted, since it was cited. Actually, we could find citation for this in numerous places.

459:

have subject matter expertise. You might want to address how you can be teaching this subject without covering some of the major sources, Gabriel for example on the top of the two I have already mentioned. Have you really prepared your students for the task you have set them? ----

547:

lieu of expertise or credentials, Knowledge (XXG) relies on verifiability. As a result, however, Knowledge (XXG) articles often have far more citations than is customary in academic writing. - again, my students have cited each point carefully and have used a variety of sources.

1258:

This article completely fails to acknowledge the researches in narrative analysis originated in Europe, and particularly in France, and still very much applied by literary and social researchers worldwide. A very brief account of these researches and methods can be found in

1044:

I'm removing the entirely un-cited portions of the section, which will then leave it to two sentences. One by some one i've never heard of saying some stuff about how he doesn't understand inductive science and then the other by Boje being critical of the critical position.

806:

expecting anyone to render an opinion here you need to boil it down to something someone who knows nothing about this subject, doesn't have any of these references (since most seem to be offline) can understand and render you an opinion on. Just my two cents here. Also who

893:

If you disagree with having students building and revising Knowledge (XXG) pages, you will need to take this up with the administration that is encouraging this process. My frustration in an earlier post is centered around this critique that is outside of my hands to

486:

1) The ideal Knowledge (XXG) article is a well-written distillation of secondary sources on a given topic. It does not advance a thesis or argument. - the students have used several secondary sources, nor do they advance a thesis or argument, so they comply with this

869:

and any project that is basically forcing editors who have almost no interest in the articles they're editing since it's just for a grade is a determent to the project as a whole, kind of surprised if this was some sort of official project?

948:

In sum, I hope to have the students' continue to work on their Knowledge (XXG) pages the rest of this semester. I hope that difficulties on this page can be resolved politely and supportively, as they have on other class pages.

151:

Greetings fellow Wikipedians. This is a good article and could be even beter if the bibliography be moved into in-line references? That way the references support the claims of this text. Anyone willing to make a first attempt?

411:

Its partial at best and uses a limited number of sources. When I have time tomorrow I will hard edit it. In particular it is not a list of methods, but a sequence of events within a limited range of methods.

290:

Your text does a good job of describing what narrative analysis is, but I think that adding a specific example would help the reader better understand this topic. I hope my suggestions are helpful!

369:

Guys, please. The talk page of an article is not for general comments about how you like things, its for improving the page. You need to answer the questions raised. You also need to read

851:

I see.. I read some of the talk page discussions Banaticus had with her, seems the students were not following policy and Snowded was maybe a little strict in enforcing it and broke

232:. If you edits are reversed then you discuss them here, you don't put them in again without agreement. Whether you are working on a class assignment or not is irrelevant. ---- 507:

they have followed these points as well, describing & explaining the various methods of narrative inquiry, not attempting to present one approach as better than another.

1012:

back on the page, responding to critiques by others and myself, continuing in their efforts to improve the page. Hopefully this will proceed in a more harmonious manner.

1227:(cur | prev) 16:26, 29 November 2012‎ 147.226.231.239 (talk)‎ . . (19,942 bytes) (-576)‎ . . (Intro/ Reorganized introduction and took out unnecessary quote) (undo) 801:

So what exactly is going on here, I think it's a bit beyond the scope of an RFC if your expecting us to read tons of sources and determine the current state of the

1233:(cur | prev) 15:16, 29 November 2012‎ 68.51.119.54 (talk)‎ . . (20,756 bytes) (-276)‎ . . (→‎Methods: deleted contradictory statement in interpretation) (undo) 1230:(cur | prev) 15:21, 29 November 2012‎ 68.51.119.54 (talk)‎ . . (20,518 bytes) (-238)‎ . . (→‎Methods: fixed step one and moved quote to interpretation) (undo) 1316: 736:

I'm responding to myself so the RFC bot won't have too much to copy/paste. For more on the various discussions that have taken place here, please see: this

123: 1106:

You have a great chart of different epistemologies, but I suggest you include the area of focus for the fable, story, etc for epistemology such as Marxism.

320:

The "section" was a loose summary of one approach. To be included here the section would need to summarise at least the main methods and approaches. ----

129: 989:. Just being assigned it, the student may not care about the article beyond getting a non-failing grade on it, and C or D quality work isn't 855:

maybe a bit. Since Banaticus seems to be the one running this education thing (something I've never heard of, and something I doubt I'd give

99: 1311: 1128: 1160:

a criticism section is generally not good form, it should be incorperated within the body of the article, not have it's own section. —

1270: 182: 90: 54: 29: 1099:

Check and correct universalizing statements throughout - do not read them for how you intended them, but what they say here.

1060:

Do you think it would be suffice to include this information in the introduction rather than having a criticism section? (

370: 1089:

Whenever possible, you need to cite multiple sources for a single statement. You also need better citation throughout.

741: 737: 166:

Hey, someone said I was vandalizing the page. I'm confused? What do I do. I'm working on it for a class assignment.

157: 1202:

story to the Marxist epistemology yet. Do you have any suggestions as to where I can find a text to back this up? (

890: 753: 353:

I just did a check regarding your references and I think your article and the information in it is well-cited. (

756:, which I think are all the on-wiki places that the Methods section of this article is discussed. In general, 311: 295: 35: 1223:

My apologies, I was under the impression that I was signed in when I made the following changes to the page.

1144: 1124: 1017: 954: 921: 691: 578: 437: 1266: 1116: 170: 153: 1274: 98:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

972:. If there are multiple well know sides, methods, or opinions then they all should be mentioned with 254: 178: 1243: 1207: 1187: 1065: 769: 726: 400: 358: 307: 291: 977: 973: 1140: 1120: 1013: 950: 917: 757: 687: 574: 433: 1157: 969: 1050: 842: 749: 745: 676: 647: 344: 217: 990: 965: 866: 852: 986: 265: 229: 208: 1167: 1000: 877: 819: 250: 200:. Editors should seek consensus for major changes to articles, and all additions must be 174: 66: 48: 1239: 1203: 1183: 1081:

Overall, this is informative and readable. However,it needs a hefty set of reworking

1061: 765: 722: 396: 354: 82: 202: 1305: 861: 1103:

the different approach, indeed you may want to reorganize this section around them).

1287: 1046: 838: 780: 761: 672: 657: 643: 609: 460: 413: 374: 340: 321: 269: 233: 213: 76: 395:

to accomplish a complete listing and all possible methods of narrative inquiry. (

264:

That bit is OK, it was all the other stuff being added in again in disregard of

1162: 995: 891:

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/members/aps-wikipedia-initiative

872: 814: 72: 889:

credit via the American Psychological Society's Knowledge (XXG) initiative.

194:

Hi, Zakdavid18. The editor who reverted your changes explained the problem

1296: 1278: 1247: 1211: 1191: 1173: 1148: 1132: 1069: 1054: 1021: 1006: 958: 925: 883: 846: 825: 789: 773: 730: 695: 680: 666: 651: 618: 582: 469: 441: 422: 404: 362: 348: 330: 315: 299: 278: 258: 242: 221: 186: 161: 95: 964:

The policy that presenting one side of an issue and not the others is

976:

given to the most referenced/used/accepted ones, and least weight to

1096:

For greater balance, you need to develop Brunder and Gee a bit more.

147:

Greetings! Could the bibliography be moved into in-line references?

671:

Hahahahahahaha I thought you would get a chuckle out of that :-D

15: 1260: 527:

articles should not be charged with either of these flaws.

1182:

Would adding the criticism to the introduction suffice? (

721:

all methods (or at least more methods) has been created.

28:

This article has not yet been rated on Knowledge (XXG)'s

812:

is this dispute between, just this class and Snowded? —

196: 373:

on how to format your comments on the talk page. --

94:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 981:the article. It takes a certain kind of person who 760:and myself seem to have the opposite opinion that 128:This article has not yet received a rating on the 754:User talk:Anbingham#The article you're working on 837:and then conducted a little original research. 1254:Theorical preferences and/or missing references 1109:Criticism definitely needs further development. 656:Did you have to link me with Denning :-( ---- 1112:Respond to all critiques of other reviewers 228:See note on your talk page in particular read 8: 573:education site the duration of the semester. 865:editors need to be 100% in compliance with 1264: 43: 21: 19: 738:discussion on my talk page (now archived) 230:this which will explain how things work 45: 1219:Uncredited Edits to Narrative Inquiry 306:increase its quality of information. 7: 206:, as Knowledge (XXG) doesn't accept 88:This article is within the scope of 1317:Unknown-importance science articles 1261:http://en.wikipedia.org/Narratology 746:User talk:Snowded#Narrative Inquiry 108:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science 34:It is of interest to the following 14: 75: 65: 47: 20: 985:to edit and contribute to this 1: 1297:02:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC) 1279:14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC) 1248:16:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 1212:22:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 1192:16:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 1174:23:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1149:22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1133:00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC) 1070:16:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 1022:22:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC) 1007:02:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 959:01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 926:01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 696:01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC) 390:Methods for narrative inquiry 162:00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC) 102:and see a list of open tasks. 1055:09:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 884:16:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC) 847:06:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC) 826:22:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 790:07:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 774:07:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 731:07:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 681:15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 667:11:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 652:10:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC) 619:23:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 583:19:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 470:16:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 442:15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC) 423:23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 405:18:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC) 111:Template:WikiProject Science 1312:Unassessed science articles 742:User talk:Anbingham/sandbox 363:15:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC) 349:13:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 331:21:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 316:21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 300:02:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 279:21:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 259:19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 243:16:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 222:16:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 187:16:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC) 1333: 750:User talk:Snowded#Students 130:project's importance scale 127: 60: 42: 285:Suggestions and Comments 268:which was the issue ---- 968:, which is part of our 987:ever evolving resource 371:WP:INDENT this article 970:core content policies 716:The Methods section 91:WikiProject Science 758:User:Heather Adams 30:content assessment 1295: 1281: 1269:comment added by 1136: 1119:comment added by 788: 665: 617: 468: 421: 382: 329: 277: 241: 209:original research 190: 173:comment added by 154:Harvey the rabbit 144: 143: 140: 139: 136: 135: 1324: 1294: 1292: 1172: 1170: 1165: 1135: 1113: 1077:Instructor Notes 1005: 1003: 998: 882: 880: 875: 824: 822: 817: 787: 785: 664: 662: 616: 614: 467: 465: 420: 418: 381: 379: 328: 326: 276: 274: 240: 238: 189: 167: 116: 115: 114:science articles 112: 109: 106: 85: 80: 79: 69: 62: 61: 51: 44: 25: 24: 23: 16: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1302: 1301: 1288: 1256: 1221: 1168: 1163: 1161: 1114: 1079: 1042: 1001: 996: 994: 878: 873: 871: 820: 815: 813: 781: 718: 658: 610: 461: 414: 392: 375: 322: 287: 270: 234: 168: 149: 113: 110: 107: 104: 103: 81: 74: 12: 11: 5: 1330: 1328: 1320: 1319: 1314: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1255: 1252: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1220: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1177: 1176: 1138: 1137: 1110: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1094: 1090: 1087: 1078: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 829: 828: 799:Outside Person 795: 794: 793: 792: 717: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 605: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 570: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 484: 478: 456: 447: 446: 445: 444: 426: 425: 391: 388: 386: 384: 383: 336: 335: 334: 333: 308:M.devia.psych. 292:M.devia.psych. 286: 283: 282: 281: 246: 245: 225: 224: 148: 145: 142: 141: 138: 137: 134: 133: 126: 120: 119: 117: 100:the discussion 87: 86: 83:Science portal 70: 58: 57: 52: 40: 39: 33: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1329: 1318: 1315: 1313: 1310: 1309: 1307: 1298: 1293: 1291: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1262: 1253: 1251: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1218: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1200: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1159: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1141:Heather Adams 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1121:Heather Adams 1118: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1076: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1039: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1014:Heather Adams 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 999: 992: 988: 984: 979: 975: 971: 967: 962: 961: 960: 956: 952: 951:Heather Adams 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 927: 923: 919: 918:Heather Adams 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 892: 887: 886: 885: 881: 876: 868: 863: 862:Justin Bieber 858: 854: 850: 849: 848: 844: 840: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 827: 823: 818: 811: 810: 804: 800: 797: 796: 791: 786: 784: 777: 776: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 715: 697: 693: 689: 688:Heather Adams 684: 683: 682: 678: 674: 670: 669: 668: 663: 661: 655: 654: 653: 649: 645: 640: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 620: 615: 613: 606: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 584: 580: 576: 575:Heather Adams 571: 569: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 518: 509: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 485: 483: 479: 477: 473: 472: 471: 466: 464: 457: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 443: 439: 435: 434:Heather Adams 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 419: 417: 410: 409: 408: 406: 402: 398: 389: 387: 380: 378: 372: 368: 367: 366: 364: 360: 356: 351: 350: 346: 342: 332: 327: 325: 319: 318: 317: 313: 309: 304: 303: 302: 301: 297: 293: 284: 280: 275: 273: 267: 263: 262: 261: 260: 256: 252: 244: 239: 237: 231: 227: 226: 223: 219: 215: 211: 210: 205: 204: 199: 198: 193: 192: 191: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 164: 163: 159: 155: 146: 131: 125: 122: 121: 118: 101: 97: 93: 92: 84: 78: 73: 71: 68: 64: 63: 59: 56: 53: 50: 46: 41: 37: 31: 27: 18: 17: 1289: 1265:— Preceding 1257: 1237: 1222: 1156:To add, per 1139: 1115:— Preceding 1093:and clarity. 1080: 1043: 991:helpful here 982: 856: 808: 807: 802: 798: 782: 762:User:Snowded 719: 659: 611: 568: 556: 536: 508: 496: 482: 476: 462: 415: 393: 385: 376: 352: 337: 323: 288: 271: 247: 235: 207: 201: 195: 169:— Preceding 165: 150: 89: 36:WikiProjects 1271:89.156.2.92 642:ridiculous 1306:Categories 1040:Criticisms 251:Zakdavid18 214:-- Rrburke 203:verifiable 175:Zakdavid18 1240:Anbingham 1204:Anbingham 1184:Anbingham 1062:Anbingham 766:Banaticus 723:Banaticus 608:them.---- 397:Anbingham 355:Anson1492 1267:unsigned 1158:WP:CRITS 1129:contribs 1117:unsigned 894:resolve. 183:contribs 171:unsigned 1290:Snowded 1047:Saylors 966:WP:NPOV 867:WP:FIVE 853:WP:BITE 839:Saylors 809:exactly 783:Snowded 673:Saylors 660:Snowded 644:Saylors 612:Snowded 463:Snowded 416:Snowded 377:Snowded 341:Nasachs 324:Snowded 272:Snowded 236:Snowded 105:Science 96:Science 55:Science 978:fringe 974:weight 803:entire 752:, and 487:points 266:WP:BRD 32:scale. 1164:raeky 997:raeky 983:wants 874:raeky 816:raeky 764:has. 1275:talk 1244:talk 1208:talk 1188:talk 1145:talk 1125:talk 1066:talk 1051:talk 1018:talk 955:talk 922:talk 843:talk 770:talk 727:talk 692:talk 677:talk 648:talk 579:talk 438:talk 412:---- 401:talk 359:talk 345:talk 312:talk 296:talk 255:talk 218:talk 197:here 179:talk 158:talk 857:any 124:??? 1308:: 1277:) 1250:) 1246:) 1210:) 1190:) 1147:) 1131:) 1127:• 1068:) 1053:) 1020:) 957:) 924:) 870:— 845:) 772:) 748:, 744:, 740:, 729:) 694:) 679:) 650:) 581:) 440:) 407:) 403:) 365:) 361:) 347:) 314:) 298:) 257:) 220:) 212:. 185:) 181:• 160:) 1273:( 1242:( 1238:( 1214:) 1206:( 1194:) 1186:( 1169:t 1143:( 1123:( 1072:) 1064:( 1049:( 1016:( 1002:t 953:( 920:( 879:t 841:( 821:t 768:( 725:( 690:( 675:( 646:( 577:( 436:( 399:( 357:( 343:( 310:( 294:( 253:( 216:( 177:( 156:( 132:. 38::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index