1721:
suddenly materialize to examine all of the evidence presented at an AfD and affirm that it supports the article as presently written. If, in the future, an expert shows up who disputes the relevance of these references above, then he or she is certainly welcome to rewrite the article, or take the article back to AfD if appropriate and make a well-reasoned informed case against it. While I hope it is the former that happens, I certainly wouldn't object to the latter. But it isn't fair to keep moving the goalposts, as is being done in this AfD. At first, there were no ghits. Then a bunch of very reliable sources were produced, that may or may not be precisely relevant to the article, as presently written. But those were dismissed as irrelevant on rather dubious chronological grounds.
1624:. The "element of the blind leading the blind" factor is no basis on which to delete an article. The above references easily show that the topic is notable, although as I have already indicated, I agree with Rubin's solution to merge these articles into "fuzzy X" whenever possible. Trovatore also has a good suggestion: just keeping the one main article and redirecting the rest. Whatever happens, though, an AfD where 90% of the commentators have been unable to assess accurately the notability of a subject because of their unfamiliarity with it is clearly problematic, and it is not an ideal place to make these kind of content decisions.
1778:
view—and I am by no means an expert. I disagree that it completely changes the meaning of the article—the article was likely written by a student first encountering these ideas through Liu's book, which the author naturally takes to be the definitive account (it is not, really, but we should be willing to forgive that oversight). At any rate, there are many potential sources that treat this topic from a variety of points of view, so there is definitely room for expansion of the article beyond the views espoused by the
Chinese group.
2035:
invented in 2007, but the references provided date back to the mid-90's, my gut feeling is that this article is not accurately reflecting the sources that were found for it. Just because we can search for "uncertainty theory" and find math articles with "uncertainty theory" in the title doesn't mean that we've found a reference that backs up the material in these articles. I say the articles get deleted, and if someone wants to rewrite the article based on multiple independent
1599:, Liu's Wiley book "Uncertain Programming" came out the next year, and in 2004 there was the first edition of the Springer book "Uncertainty Theory: An Introduction to its Axiomatic Foundations". I agree to the extent that most of the sources above probably don't refer to this precise notion, but it's hard to say this with absolute confidence without checking the details.
1750:? The chronological grounds for dismissing them weren't spurious - the theory was allegedly invented in 2007 (or maybe 2005) but the sources pre-date that by as much as a decade, so they can scarcely be proof of the notability of the theory, can they? What they show is that people have been using the term "uncertainty theory" for a long time but not that "
738:"Uncertainty theory" may be the next best thing since Relativity but so far it seems to have had little impact. I can find very few relevant ghits and almost nobody seems to talk about it apart from its creator, who apparently came up with the idea two years ago. I'm proposing that a set of almost identical stubs, recently created by an
898:. References to a number of reliable independent sources have been added to the article, that clearly demonstrate the notability outside of Knowledge (XXG). (Also, a book in the third edition published by one of the most respected scientific publishers in the world already does establish notability "outside of wikipedia".)
1777:
The latest round of objections centers on the idea that there is some kind of
Uncertainty Theory (with a capital "T"). Although the article had been written from this somewhat naive point of view, the fact is that people have been studying these things for quite some time from a variety of points of
1948:
Thank you all for your advice! i have read all the discussion above. I want to say something.(My
English is poor, so maybe some sentences are hard to understand.) 1)Baoding Liu have studied Uncertainty Theory for many years before 2007, and write some articles above it. However, he found something a
1929:
Thank you for all your advice. I am improving my article with my friends, and I will make the inference clear. If you check the article, you'll find they have been impoved a lot. There is no cheat in all the articles. We want
Uncertainty Theory to be known by more people, so they can do more help to
1910:
The original author or one of his avatars seems to object to Sławomir Biały's changes and has reverted to an even more obscure and POV version of what it was before, with no mention of anyone other than Liu. I think that if it is kept it may have to be protected. I'll remind these dissenting editors
1758:
heory" as per the original version of this article. I see you've now rewritten it in such a way as to relegate Prof Liu to the sidelines. That totally changes the meaning of the article and probably obviates the need for deletion, assuming the original author doesn't change it back. Let's leave it a
1037:
In general I'd agree that something technical should be left to a technical group such as the maths project, but in this case it's pretty clear what the situation is (and btw I have a degree in maths so I understand where you're coming from). No independent sources, very few ghits. You don't have to
987:
The suspicion that this is about promotion of the book seems to be unfounded. All academics want to promote their theory in one way or another, there is nothing wrong with that. The book in question has had 3 editions. The books by this author have been around for a while, and there are no traces of
1820:
I am a bit alarmed at the suggestion of mixing in references to "uncertainty theory" from mathematics papers in general. Liu obviously has a well-elaborated theory; if that theory ought to have an article (which I think it should), then the article should be specifically about that theory, and not
1697:
in which he has published many times was founded three years prior to that. He's also published in many other journals, mostly to do with fuzzy logic. So it seems clear that his theory falls within the general area of uncertainty or fuzziness as a whole, which is of course a subject that he did not
1336:
has made what seems a very sensible suggestion which has some support, but it's based on an educated guess that "uncertainty theory" may be very similar to "fuzzy logic". I'd not object to redirecting all these articles (stubs, really) except that nobody seems sure that it really is another form of
2034:
all or translate them and move them to the
Chinese language wiki. The references provided above prove that something called "Uncertainty Theory" (UT) exists, but it is not clear if UT is clearly defined, nor is it clear if this article is about the "real" UT. Since the article claims that UT was
1720:
I should remind you that the evidence of notability presented at an AfD can be fairly cursory, because AfD is a very blunt instrument. The above references should be ample to convince "mere mortals" that the topic is notable. We don't usually take a default position of "delete" if experts do not
1075:
lists a total of seven books, every one of which is authored by
Baoding Liu. I've done a lot of hunting on the web and can find nothing that's been published on this subject by anyone other than him or his students from the same institution. As I said in the nomination the theory might be notable,
1647:
gives some clear guidance which this afd is following, and simply giving up isn't a terribly good alternative. At this stage in the afd any of the recommended outcomes is possible: tag it, merge it or delete it. The mathematically inclined contributors to the debate seem to be tending towards the
1576:
Most of those citations are to publications that seem to pre-date the alleged invention of the theory by
Baoding Liu. There are many theories that deal with uncertainty, but the question is whether this particular capital-U capital-T Uncertainty Theory is something notable that merits an article.
1595:
I don't know which year you are basing this on, but you can't take the year 2007 mentioned in the article for that. I guess it refers to explosion of "uncertain X" terms that we are observing with the satellite articles. We are dealing with a
Chinese speaker who is struggling with the English
1059:
Have you followed the Amazon link above? 3 Springer books and 1 Wiley book don't look like a complete lack of notability to me, even though they are all by the same author. It's also possible that this is merely a variant of something better known under a different name. I am not particularly
1930:
daily life, just as probability does. Besides, probability is unaccepted to the mathematicians before 1930s, but it is hot in finnance now; and we are sure that uncertainty theory will have a widely use someday. Thank you! Please don't delete my article, they will be improved soon.
1957:
about a week ago, so i am unfamiliar with writing an article, this is why i didn't write references the first time. 4) My friends are improving the articles. However, we are all student, so we don't have much time to do such a job, this is why the articles are improved slowly.
1107:
of some of the satellite articles is warranted. MathSciNet lists 17 matches with "Uncertainty theory" in the title, many of which are independent of Liu's work. I don't have time to format these properly right now, but they do establish notability beyond the
Chinese school.
2011:
all. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place for advertising obscure mathematical theories. All the citations to his work seem to be by himself and his group in China. The page also fails to give any context or explanation of this theory.
1555:
These are just some of the relevant papers on MathSciNet with "Uncertainty theory" in the title. Many more papers can be found with a wider search that includes the abstracts and reviews. I hope this lays to rest any belief that
1745:
very few ghits, so there's no evidence of notability to be found that way. The articles as originally written cited no independent sources. A bunch of independent reliable sources were indeed found but reliable proof of
156:
1965:
is not perfect now, so the method to study it may be different, and someone(unwill to open to other methods)may say others are wrong, just so so. Thank you all! Please don't delete my articles, thank you!--
983:
It may well be that this theory has significant impact within China although it is still hardly known outside. Several experienced members of the maths project are watching the article and will see what
1662:
Well... the references given above can easily be added to the article. Will that "justify the inclusion" of the article? It will certainly render the reasons proposed for deletion totally bogus.
1248:. Only the definition of the fuzzy "measure" seems suitable for the merge; the fuzzy random variables and distribution seem obvious consequences which apply to most forms of fuzzy logic. —
1698:
invent. Without seriously expert intervention we mere mortals have no way of knowing if his theory is considered notable within the fuzzy community (sounds like a fun bunch of people!) -
998:
It's hard to assess notability at this time, because coverage may be mostly in
Chinese. Please leave this matter to the mathematics project, so that we avoid a combination of biting and
117:
1032:. If you're not sure about its notability - and nobody else in that discussion is either - then it's not notable. Why? Because notability requires proof and there is none here.
1006:, so in any case outright deletion (rather than a redirect) wouldn't be appropriate. For redirecting we don't need an AfD, which is why the discussion in the WikiProject did
696:
691:
301:
296:
150:
700:
305:
1370:
that independent sources do not exist. However, as I indicated above, there are independent sources. At the time I did not have time to format them. But here they are:
1013:
Concerning the other articles: These stubs are hardly useful. If they don't get any serious content soon (which seems possible), they need to be turned into redirects to
1345:
of that as required by WP policy, and another strong suspicion that even if it is notable it ought to be merged anyway. On that basis I don't see that it passes muster.
1830:
683:
288:
1953:
in my university, and it often fails. This is why i write the article now(Beijing Time 1:47, time to sleep), as it link fast now. 3)I creat my account in wiki
1539:
Vladimirskiĭ, È. I.; Kiyasbeĭli, Sh. A.; Shishonok, N. A. (1986), "Uncertainty theory in the realization of problems of the reliability of complex systems",
347:
342:
351:
1393:
De Campos, Luis M.; Huete, Juan F.; Moral, Seraf\'\in (2000), "Independence in uncertainty theories and its applications to learning belief networks",
1891:
as it seems the most general title, and let the specialists decide what references belong. There almost certainly should also be an article on Liu.
209:
204:
531:
526:
393:
388:
334:
213:
1060:
interested in this topic, so I am not going to defend the article beyond what I have already said. I left a note in the WPM thread about this AfD.
639:
634:
535:
397:
2039:, then so be it. At this point, the articles appear to need a nearly complete rewrite, so deletion is probably the best thing we can do for UT.
1864:). This does put Liu's work into a larger perspective, not just stuff that "could be related", but things that actually are directly relevant.
643:
485:
480:
196:
90:
85:
518:
489:
439:
434:
380:
94:
626:
443:
754:. There's also a suspicion that one of the main aims of these articles is to promote the author's recent book on the subject, contrary to
472:
255:
250:
77:
426:
259:
1072:
Since they're all by the same author, who's the guy that invented the theory, then they don't count towards establishing notability.
17:
582:
577:
992:
1949:
little wrong in his theory, so he now have been redefining some defination about his theory since 2007. 2)It is slow to link to
586:
242:
171:
2100:- given the complexity of some of the secondary articles I think merging is impossible. It's got to be redirection or nothing.
936:
138:
1010:
lead to this AfD. In case of any conflicts with the article creator we could still propose the article again as a last resort.
569:
1871:
1785:
1728:
1669:
1631:
1567:
1135:
1115:
905:
843:
1408:
Klir, George J. (1997), "Uncertainty theories, measures, and principles: an overview of personal views and contributions",
1378:
Dubois, Didier; Moral, Serafin; Prade, Henri (1998), "Belief change rules in ordinal and numerical uncertainty theories",
1315:
sources, but the number of publications from high-quality publishers makes it hard to believe the topic is not notable. --
687:
292:
1453:
Golubtsov, P. V. (1994), "Fuzzy set theory as an uncertainty theory and decision-making problems in a fuzzy experiment",
2021:
816:
2126:
1643:
I disagree. The point is that articles have to justify their inclusion. There is, if you like, a presumption of guilt.
975:, including books by Baoding Liu that have gone through several editions with the most respected scientific publishers.
36:
1994:. This is a promotional attempt to give undue prominence to a topic by creating a large number of spin off articles.
679:
284:
132:
338:
1541:
Decision-making methods and systems. Applied problems in the analysis of solutions in technical systems (Russian)
2109:
2092:
2055:
2026:
2003:
1974:
1939:
1920:
1902:
1875:
1865:
1848:
1810:
1789:
1779:
1768:
1732:
1722:
1711:
1673:
1663:
1657:
1635:
1625:
1606:
1586:
1571:
1561:
1354:
1324:
1299:
1282:
1255:
1216:
1173:
1139:
1129:
1119:
1109:
1085:
1067:
1054:
1024:
943:
909:
899:
886:
867:
847:
837:
824:
791:. As per nomination. Agree that it seems to be an individual's theory that has not been given prominence in any
781:
767:
731:
673:
616:
200:
59:
2125:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
522:
384:
128:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
981:
630:
980:
In the thread at WikiProject Mathematics I have already mentioned a third-party citation from outside China.
476:
330:
2013:
430:
81:
192:
1252:
1213:
1170:
514:
376:
246:
178:
1397:, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 4, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 391–434,
1382:, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 3, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 311–392,
622:
1826:
1807:
1278:
882:
863:
573:
468:
995:
book, and on first sight it seems to meet the usual standards of this publisher and well worth reading.
958:
422:
1290:
I've just added two more, very much the same as the others, and another editor has added another one.
2105:
2051:
1916:
1764:
1707:
1653:
1603:
1600:
1582:
1350:
1295:
1081:
1064:
1061:
1050:
1021:
1018:
1003:
877:
gain notability outside of wikipedia first, then use those references to demonstrate notability here
763:
669:
612:
238:
1966:
1931:
1999:
1970:
1935:
1844:
1320:
966:
929:
878:
727:
565:
558:
164:
1206:
2064:
1983:
1241:
1202:
1014:
954:
73:
65:
49:
2080:
1991:
1644:
1577:
Despite this afd none of the authors of the articles have added a single independent reference.
1197:, and put a summary of the logic in the appropriate section (which I believe to be somewhere in
144:
2088:
1522:
1492:
1462:
1436:
1333:
1249:
1210:
1167:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
755:
1804:
1274:
859:
808:
1861:
1547:
1532:
1502:
1472:
1446:
1416:
1401:
1386:
751:
739:
2101:
2040:
1912:
1858:
1760:
1703:
1649:
1578:
1544:
1529:
1499:
1469:
1443:
1413:
1398:
1383:
1346:
1291:
1077:
1046:
836:. References to a number of reliable independent sources have been added to the article.
759:
665:
608:
2072:
2036:
1692:
792:
743:
1425:"Interpretations of various uncertainty theories using models of modal logic: a summary"
780:
is the only reference given in these articles. It's been flagged as possible spam - see
1995:
1840:
1839:— the original article was deleted and the existing one was rewritten from scratch). --
1835:
1429:
Fuzzy Sets and Systems. An International Journal in Information Science and Engineering
1316:
922:
723:
2076:
2068:
1803:
the main article at least, notability for it seems plainly to have been demonstrated.
1039:
747:
1898:
999:
2084:
1959:
1687:(I hope). The good professor's first paper was published in 1996 according to his
1424:
989:
717:
660:
603:
552:
506:
460:
414:
368:
322:
276:
230:
111:
1266:
1245:
1198:
1073:
973:
800:
56:
1857:
If you have access, you might want to read the 2009 SIAM review of Liu's book (
1510:
1480:
742:
should be deleted because they are all unreferenced original research, failing
1515:
International Journal of General Systems. Methodology, Applications, Education
1833:(don't be confused by the fact that there currently exists an article called
1702:. Until then they should be treated cautiously and either deleted or merged.
1525:
1495:
1465:
1439:
1597:
1270:
1694:
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
1596:
language. Apparently the Uncertainty Theory Laboratory was founded in 1998
1485:
International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems
1479:
Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; St. Clair, Ute; Harmanec, David (1993),
1423:
Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; Harmanec, David; St. Clair, Ute (1996),
970:
1893:
1002:. The topic warrants at least a short mention in related topics such as
1337:
fuzzy logic. What if it's not? IMHO all we have for sure is a strong
1961:,Dobois do some research in fuzzy theory with different methods. As
1045:
The onus is on the author to prove that the article should be kept.
972:
Altogether they have roughly 100 mostly peer-reviewed publications
1076:
but there's no proof of that and try as I might I can't find any.
1911:
to participate in the afd. This is actually getting quite weird.
1366:
The primary reason adduced for deletion seems to be based on the
2119:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1700:
unless the authors of these articles provide some clear evidence
1151:. "Uncertainty theory" may deserve an article, but the current
1688:
1332:
There's a certain element of the blind leading the blind here.
1311:
the others. It's unfortunate that we don't seem to have truly
1821:
about other possibly-related things that someone has called
962:
1455:
Rossiĭskaya Akademiya Nauk. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii
957:
is notable or not. There has been a nuanced discussion at
795:. The additions to Knowledge (XXG) seem to be more like
1162:
the books are published by Springer that suggests that
713:
709:
705:
656:
652:
648:
599:
595:
591:
548:
544:
540:
502:
498:
494:
456:
452:
448:
410:
406:
402:
364:
360:
356:
318:
314:
310:
272:
268:
264:
226:
222:
218:
107:
103:
99:
163:
1831:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Regular number
1950:
1412:, Math. Res., vol. 99, Akademie Verlag, pp. 27–43,
177:
1410:Uncertainty: models and measures (Lambrecht, 1996)
1759:couple of days and see what other people think.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2129:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1158:shouldn't be a part of it. On the other hand,
1543:, Riga: Rizhsk. Politekhn. Inst., pp. 17–21,
8:
2067:. As others have noted above, the topic is
1481:"On the integration of uncertainty theories"
961:. But this isn't just a personal thing. The
1038:be a rocket scientist to see that it fails
991:I have looked at the online version of the
1265:as this seems to be a similar concept to
1205:, doesn't correspond to an article named
1648:latter two options. That's fair enough.
1511:"O-theory---a hybrid uncertainty theory"
2079:, but having several articles violates
1825:. I'm worried about another mess like
1222:As an alternative, delete and redirect
1201:). Unfortunately, the "main" article,
1741:Nobody is moving the goalposts. There
1246:fuzzy logic#Propositional fuzzy logics
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1209:, so we may have a GFDL problem. —
1199:fuzzy logic#Mathematical fuzzy logic
1128:Agree with Rubin's solution below.
24:
1560:votes are based on "suspicion".
1341:that it could be notable, but no
969:lists 43 members and 7 students.
1395:Abductive reasoning and learning
680:Uncertain Differential Equation
285:Uncertain Differential Equation
1:
2110:22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2093:19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2056:00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2027:17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
2004:11:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
1975:17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1940:16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1921:16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1903:16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
1876:20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1849:20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1811:17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1790:18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1769:17:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1733:14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1712:14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1674:13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1658:13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1636:13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1607:13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1587:13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1572:12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1355:10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1325:06:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1300:23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1283:21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1256:18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1217:18:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1174:17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1166:there thinks it's notable. —
1140:20:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1120:17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1086:17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1068:17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1055:16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1025:16:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
963:Uncertainty Theory Laboratory
944:16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
910:13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
887:15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
868:11:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
848:13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
825:05:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
768:17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
732:11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
674:23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
617:23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
60:14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1951:http://www.en.wikipedia.org
1307:the main article; possibly
988:advertising on Amazon.com.
2146:
1620:I think the AfD should be
959:WT:WPM#Uncertainty theory
561:at 22:04 22 November UTC)
2122:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1244:to point to an item in
331:Uncertainty programming
1622:closed as no consensus
1827:definable real number
1509:Oblow, E. M. (1987),
1240:" exists), and merge
193:Uncertain programming
1343:independent evidence
1004:fuzzy measure theory
515:Uncertain Entailment
377:Uncertain Set Theory
1179:As an alternative,
967:Tsinghua University
623:Uncertain Inference
559:User:Good Olfactory
2065:Uncertainty theory
2063:all of these into
1984:uncertainty theory
1963:uncertainty theory
1889:uncertainty theory
1823:uncertainty theory
1242:uncertainty theory
1203:uncertainty theory
1015:uncertainty theory
955:Uncertainty theory
469:Uncertain Calculus
74:Uncertainty theory
66:Uncertainty theory
50:Uncertainty theory
44:The result was
2054:
1103:, but possibly a
953:I am not sure if
423:Uncertain Process
2137:
2124:
2050:
2048:
2047:
2044:
2024:
2020:
2016:
1868:
1782:
1725:
1666:
1628:
1564:
1550:
1535:
1505:
1475:
1449:
1419:
1404:
1389:
1305:Keep and cleanup
1236:, (where "fuzzy
1183:(without merge)
1132:
1112:
941:
934:
927:
902:
840:
821:
813:
805:
721:
703:
664:
646:
607:
589:
556:
538:
510:
492:
464:
446:
418:
400:
372:
354:
326:
308:
280:
262:
234:
216:
182:
181:
167:
115:
97:
34:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2127:deletion review
2120:
2045:
2042:
2041:
2022:
2018:
2014:
1866:
1780:
1723:
1664:
1626:
1562:
1538:
1508:
1478:
1452:
1422:
1407:
1392:
1377:
1263:Delete/redirect
1130:
1110:
937:
930:
923:
900:
838:
817:
809:
801:
694:
678:
637:
621:
580:
564:
529:
513:
483:
467:
437:
421:
391:
375:
345:
329:
299:
283:
253:
239:Uncertain Logic
237:
207:
191:
124:
88:
72:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2143:
2141:
2132:
2131:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2058:
2029:
2006:
1990:the rest, per
1955:
1954:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1924:
1923:
1905:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1867:Sławomir Biały
1852:
1851:
1836:regular number
1814:
1813:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1781:Sławomir Biały
1772:
1771:
1736:
1735:
1724:Sławomir Biały
1715:
1714:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1665:Sławomir Biały
1640:
1639:
1627:Sławomir Biały
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1590:
1589:
1563:Sławomir Biały
1553:
1552:
1551:
1536:
1506:
1476:
1450:
1420:
1405:
1390:
1372:
1371:
1358:
1357:
1327:
1302:
1285:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1224:uncertain(ty)
1220:
1185:uncertain(ty)
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1131:Sławomir Biały
1123:
1122:
1111:Sławomir Biały
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1043:
1034:
1033:
1011:
996:
985:
977:
976:
947:
946:
915:
914:
913:
912:
901:Sławomir Biały
890:
889:
871:
870:
853:
852:
851:
850:
839:Sławomir Biały
828:
827:
785:
784:
736:
735:
676:
619:
562:
511:
465:
419:
373:
327:
281:
235:
185:
184:
121:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2142:
2130:
2128:
2123:
2117:
2116:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2078:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2059:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2038:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2025:
2017:
2010:
2007:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1982:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1952:
1947:
1946:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1906:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1895:
1890:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1863:
1860:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1816:
1815:
1812:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1696:
1695:
1690:
1686:
1685:Clarification
1683:
1682:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1623:
1619:
1616:
1615:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1559:
1554:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1521:(2): 95–106,
1520:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1451:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1418:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1380:Belief change
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1273:theory etc.
1272:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1228:
1227:
1221:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1189:
1188:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:systemic bias
997:
994:
990:
986:
982:
979:
978:
974:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
949:
948:
945:
942:
940:
935:
933:
928:
926:
920:
917:
916:
911:
907:
903:
897:
894:
893:
892:
891:
888:
884:
880:
876:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
858:
855:
854:
849:
845:
841:
835:
832:
831:
830:
829:
826:
822:
820:
814:
812:
806:
804:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
733:
729:
725:
719:
715:
711:
707:
702:
698:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
675:
671:
667:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
641:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
618:
614:
610:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
584:
579:
575:
571:
567:
566:Uncertain Set
563:
560:
554:
550:
546:
542:
537:
533:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
487:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
353:
349:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
307:
303:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
261:
257:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
215:
211:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
189:
188:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
130:
127:
126:Find sources:
122:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2121:
2118:
2097:
2073:good sources
2060:
2031:
2008:
1987:
1980:
1962:
1956:
1907:
1892:
1888:
1887:-- probably
1884:
1834:
1829:. See also
1822:
1817:
1800:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1742:
1699:
1693:
1684:
1621:
1617:
1557:
1540:
1518:
1514:
1488:
1484:
1461:(3): 47–67,
1458:
1454:
1432:
1428:
1409:
1394:
1379:
1367:
1363:
1342:
1338:
1334:Arthur Rubin
1329:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1287:
1262:
1250:Arthur Rubin
1237:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1223:
1211:Arthur Rubin
1207:fuzzy theory
1193:
1191:
1186:
1184:
1180:
1178:
1168:Arthur Rubin
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1029:
1007:
950:
938:
931:
924:
918:
895:
874:
856:
833:
818:
810:
802:
796:
788:
777:
773:
737:
186:
174:
168:
160:
153:
147:
141:
135:
125:
52:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1958:5)MR2515179
1805:Paul August
1754:ncertainty
1491:(1): 1–18,
1435:(1): 7–14,
1313:independent
1275:Sussexonian
1267:fuzzy logic
951:Wait, what?
860:Taqi Haider
797:advertising
778:orsc.edu.cn
151:free images
1908:Newsflash!
1689:online bio
1149:Delete all
919:Delete all
722:(added by
557:(added by
55:the rest.
1996:Gandalf61
1967:Pingfanlj
1932:Pingfanlj
1841:Trovatore
1526:0308-1079
1496:0218-4885
1466:0555-2923
1440:0165-0114
1368:suspicion
1339:suspicion
1317:Trovatore
1271:fuzzy set
724:Gandalf61
2081:WP:UNDUE
1992:WP:UNDUE
1885:Keep one
1645:WP:FAILN
1618:Comment.
1364:Comment.
1330:Comment:
1181:redirect
1153:"theory"
993:Springer
984:happens.
879:RadioFan
819:contribs
776:the url
118:View log
2098:Comment
2085:Bearian
2075:can be
2069:notable
2037:sources
2023:Windows
1862:2515179
1818:Comment
1548:0979772
1533:0914396
1503:1253850
1473:1299690
1447:1389944
1417:1478002
1402:1927641
1387:1743910
1164:someone
1156:article
1030:Comment
896:Comment
834:Comment
756:WP:SPAM
697:protect
692:history
640:protect
635:history
583:protect
578:history
532:protect
527:history
486:protect
481:history
440:protect
435:history
394:protect
389:history
348:protect
343:history
302:protect
297:history
256:protect
251:history
210:protect
205:history
187:Also:
157:WP refs
145:scholar
91:protect
86:history
2071:, and
2043:Snotty
2032:Delete
2015:Fences
2009:Delete
1988:delete
1691:. The
1253:(talk)
1231:fuzzy
1214:(talk)
1192:fuzzy
1171:(talk)
875:Delete
857:Delete
803:VasuVR
789:Delete
752:WP:VER
701:delete
644:delete
587:delete
536:delete
490:delete
444:delete
398:delete
352:delete
306:delete
260:delete
214:delete
129:Google
95:delete
57:Secret
53:delete
2077:found
2061:Merge
2019:&
1899:talk
1604:Adler
1309:merge
1288:NOTE:
1105:merge
1065:Adler
1022:Adler
793:WP:RS
744:WP:OR
718:views
710:watch
706:links
661:views
653:watch
649:links
604:views
596:watch
592:links
553:views
545:watch
541:links
507:views
499:watch
495:links
461:views
453:watch
449:links
415:views
407:watch
403:links
369:views
361:watch
357:links
323:views
315:watch
311:links
277:views
269:watch
265:links
231:views
223:watch
219:links
172:JSTOR
133:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
2106:talk
2102:andy
2089:talk
2052:talk
2046:Wong
2000:talk
1981:Keep
1971:talk
1936:talk
1917:talk
1913:andy
1872:talk
1845:talk
1801:Keep
1786:talk
1765:talk
1761:andy
1748:what
1729:talk
1708:talk
1704:andy
1670:talk
1654:talk
1650:andy
1632:talk
1601:Hans
1583:talk
1579:andy
1568:talk
1558:keep
1523:ISSN
1493:ISSN
1463:ISSN
1437:ISSN
1351:talk
1347:andy
1321:talk
1296:talk
1292:andy
1279:talk
1136:talk
1116:talk
1100:Keep
1082:talk
1078:andy
1062:Hans
1051:talk
1047:andy
1040:WP:N
1019:Hans
906:talk
883:talk
864:talk
844:talk
811:talk
782:here
774:Note
764:talk
760:andy
750:and
748:WP:N
728:talk
714:logs
688:talk
684:edit
670:talk
666:andy
657:logs
631:talk
627:edit
613:talk
609:andy
600:logs
574:talk
570:edit
549:logs
523:talk
519:edit
503:logs
477:talk
473:edit
457:logs
431:talk
427:edit
411:logs
385:talk
381:edit
365:logs
339:talk
335:edit
319:logs
293:talk
289:edit
273:logs
247:talk
243:edit
227:logs
201:talk
197:edit
165:FENS
139:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
1894:DGG
1743:are
1229:to
1190:to
1008:not
965:at
939:Dat
932:Wuz
925:Wuh
740:spa
179:TWL
116:– (
48:on
2108:)
2091:)
2083:.
2002:)
1986:,
1973:)
1938:)
1919:)
1901:)
1874:)
1859:MR
1847:)
1788:)
1767:)
1731:)
1710:)
1672:)
1656:)
1634:)
1585:)
1570:)
1545:MR
1530:MR
1528:,
1519:13
1517:,
1513:,
1500:MR
1498:,
1487:,
1483:,
1470:MR
1468:,
1459:30
1457:,
1444:MR
1442:,
1433:80
1431:,
1427:,
1414:MR
1399:MR
1384:MR
1353:)
1323:)
1298:)
1281:)
1160:if
1138:)
1118:)
1084:)
1053:)
1017:.
921:.
908:)
885:)
866:)
846:)
823:)
815:,
799:.
766:)
758:.
746:,
730:)
716:|
712:|
708:|
704:|
699:|
695:|
690:|
686:|
672:)
659:|
655:|
651:|
647:|
642:|
638:|
633:|
629:|
615:)
602:|
598:|
594:|
590:|
585:|
581:|
576:|
572:|
551:|
547:|
543:|
539:|
534:|
530:|
525:|
521:|
505:|
501:|
497:|
493:|
488:|
484:|
479:|
475:|
459:|
455:|
451:|
447:|
442:|
438:|
433:|
429:|
413:|
409:|
405:|
401:|
396:|
392:|
387:|
383:|
367:|
363:|
359:|
355:|
350:|
346:|
341:|
337:|
321:|
317:|
313:|
309:|
304:|
300:|
295:|
291:|
275:|
271:|
267:|
263:|
258:|
254:|
249:|
245:|
229:|
225:|
221:|
217:|
212:|
208:|
203:|
199:|
159:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
2104:(
2087:(
1998:(
1969:(
1934:(
1915:(
1897:(
1870:(
1843:(
1808:☎
1784:(
1763:(
1756:T
1752:U
1727:(
1706:(
1668:(
1652:(
1638:.
1630:(
1581:(
1566:(
1489:1
1349:(
1319:(
1294:(
1277:(
1269:/
1238:X
1233:X
1226:X
1194:X
1187:X
1134:(
1114:(
1080:(
1049:(
1042:.
904:(
881:(
862:(
842:(
807:(
762:(
734:)
726:(
720:)
682:(
668:(
663:)
625:(
611:(
606:)
568:(
555:)
517:(
509:)
471:(
463:)
425:(
417:)
379:(
371:)
333:(
325:)
287:(
279:)
241:(
233:)
195:(
183:)
175:·
169:·
161:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
136:·
131:(
123:(
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.