Knowledge (XXG) talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52

562:

mentioned by other reliable sources when discussing a film's reception (this may be the case for Metacritic too). That said I think they are a crass, blunt instrument with little finesse and there is a tendency to over-rely on them. They are most useful for recent films, but in the case of older films we should definitely look to more respectable and arguably more informed sources, especially for those films which have been the subject of scholarly writing. For instance, a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't really tell us all that much about the critical standing of Citizen Kane (currently just 6% ahead of the new Star wars film); however, the fact it has topped the Sight and Sound decennial poll of the world's most revered film critics for over half a century probably tells us a great deal more than a "100% fresh" does: it has been long regarded as one of the finest (if not

556:

criteria for which reviews they use and have different grading systems, and also have a weighting protocol for how much each review should "count", so I disagree they are not opinion pieces. They collate data and interpret it in accordance with a methodology they have devised. In a nutshell they perform analysis and draw conclusions based on that analysis. It is not unusal for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to arrive at different conclusions: RT will rate a film "fresh or rotten" (interpreted by us as positive/negative) whereas Metacritic has a three grade system (positive/mixed/negative) so they can arrive at fundamentally different conclusions. Indeed, one of the biggest causes of friction is caused when MC assigns a "mixed" rating and RT contradicts this by virtue of not having one.

1822:

statements from sources she cites to back her edits when the conclusion of the source is the opposite of what she claimed. This person is a terribly disruptive editor and we have to battle her constantly on talk pages and administrator's noticeboards. She completely misrepresents facts, posts false and annoying tags on articles, POV pushes, makes false claims, posts off-topic edits to POV push, rearranges articles to hide facts counter to her POV, reverts good edits for POV reasons, ignores the consensus on Talk, wastes competent editors' time and makes a terrible mess on Knowledge (XXG). I've filed complaints against her in the past. Why does Knowledge (XXG) tolerate this type of behavior?

1806:

think that in a good article, the value of the text is approximately equal to the value of the list of sources, plus source images and charts and such; I think of this as a sort of equipartition theorem. Now sometimes it is necessary to split articles, fob off detailed sections to more specialized articles and such, all WP:summary style stuff. But the sources are the backbone on which everything else is constructed, the treasure which editors should diligently hoard. And when we have sources that say different things, we should be happy, because until we get to that level of partisan detail, we are not presenting the topic in a way that is informative enough to be relevant to the user.

1957:, how should it be compared to other sources writing about other aspects of the film (especially when no sources challenge the white savior identification)? My perception is that WP:DUE's example of the Flat Earth concept does not apply well here since the sociological categorization is not a zero-sum definition. My current take is that a film's article would not devote very much attention to identifying the trope, but the trope could be further explored in the film's listing at the trope's article. However, it does seem difficult to state the so-called "degree" of having the trope. If 3475:, as meant in the context of NPOV, is not what any individual editor or group of editors considers to be neutral; it is the result of applying the NPOV policy and its associated guidelines. This means that it is possible for many of our articles to disagree with what an individual editor believes is neutral. The best way to address this is to a) show that the current state does not align with policy, or b) find additional sources to support a change; and always to work towards a consensus 3376:

constructive in thought, but is actually disruptive in practice. I think that there is a correlation between NPOVism and getting blocked. in my opinion, NPOVist editors are more likely to be blocked than non-NPOVist editors. NPOVist contributions are more likely to be considered disruptive than an edit made by a sockpuppet. NPOVists may even be considered to be the sum of Knowledge (XXG)'s unsung villains. My edits that I made in the name of NPOV have been reverted or condemned for being;

1796:

editor-in-chief in the big glassed office looking out over a sea of typewriters, sagely using their "editorial judgment" to pick and choose what to use from the sea of drivel sent up by their junior associates. But that's not how Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to work. Knowledge (XXG) should be more like a crew of migrant workers picking oranges. So long as an orange isn't obviously rotten, it goes in a sack, and the sack goes in a truck and gets hauled off to market. I don't want to

2921:, "a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned: illegal bias against older job applicants; the magazine’s bias toward art rather than photography; our strong bias in favor of the idea." In other words, bias can also be "based on feelings or opinions rather than facts." Even going back to when many of us were in elementary or middle school, what is or isn't a biased statement was taught. For example, 3228:, "an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment." So again, bias can be based on feelings or opinions rather than facts. I see sources (other than the ones I noted above) commenting on distinguishing between fact and opinion, and on what is or is not a biased statement, but I see no sources arguing from the view you are arguing from. There are no mainstream, contemporary sources on such an issue. 31: 230:

necessarily equal) time. But advocates of the position being described in a particular article would be mentioned first, and then the opposition would be mentioned second. So advocates would get the "first word", and opponents would get the "last word". Some might fear that this would encourage fringe theories to flourish. I don't think this would happen for a few reasons, as long as the policy was carefully crafted.

3301:. An example of a problem that could occur is this: If an argumentative editor in a discussion were to change a guideline or a template, he could then return to the discussion and surprise the other editors by using that change as a tool in his argument. That’s hypothetical, but it’s an example of a reason the guidelines need to be respected and not altered for the sake of some small point on some talk page. 2451:, which is why I deleted it; "But they will not argue over this" is unprovable and irrelevant anyway, since the point is not to stop arguments but to present factual information that lets readers form their own judgments; and the last sentence about opinion surveys is overly wordy and inaccurate ("Most people think" is not a phrase that is likely to ever legitimately occur in Knowledge (XXG)). — 3836: 3323: 2015: 1394: 124: 67: 2635:, and as I wrote above, the substance of policy is not being changed here, only the language used to describe it (updated 00:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)). Speaking of consensus, I suggest you review that policy, since you don't seem to understand what it means to "incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines". — 1562:(sic) actually mean? So many double negatives in there and the sentence has like eight clauses it's hard to even make out what the accusation is. Anyway. The changes were made on the basis of reliable, scholarly sources. EllenCT's preferred version is essentially her own original research and synthesis, based on a cherry picking of a couple unrepresentative sources. 3885: 634:

positive reviews outweighed negative ones. In fact Citizen Kane, which some critics consider the best film ever made, had no negative reviews. But presumably it would score much higher than Star Wars VII in Metacritic if it were rated by them. Star Wars VII has an 81% rating on Metacritic, while Citizen Kane might have 100%.

881:: "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view." 2149:

wider definition of "due weight", one that's dependent on the overall context and on unreported issues. Or that articles can't contain information because other, similar, article don't contain that kind of information. Or that newsworthy topics should be ignored because they're in the news (per an interpretation of

960:"Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction." 2898:

of us who edit this site have have dealt with biased statements. Your issue is a semantics one that I do not see supported by reliable sources. By contrast, there are a number of reliable sources commenting on distinguishing between fact and opinion, and on what is or is not a biased statement. For example,

3760:

leeway for editors to determine some of the weighting as well, if it's useful to covering the topic more completely. And, perhaps there is a source that even comments about the gender disparity in coverage about that tribe in sources, and then this content could be included as well. We must represent

3642:

4.54 billion years old, or that "according to John Doe, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old"? Also, there may be a "greatest football player in the UK" (there certainly is, if the phrase could be unambiguously defined), so it is conceivable that the identity of such a person could be established as a

2897:

You argued, "Articles may be biased and sources may be biased, but a single statement cannot be said to be biased." I do not understand that viewpoint. Sure, you stated "unless it clearly expresses a prejudicial view, such as 'Baseball players are always better looking than hockey players'," but many

2834:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a democracy, and decisions are made through reasoned arguments, not by majority rule. No substantive objections have so far been made that I have not addressed. If there are others, please state them. If there is disagreement with the points I have made, please give reasons for

2148:

I'm having trouble understanding how these rules are applied to facts about a topic. To what extent does the NPOV policy apply to factual events? How do we decide what content to put in an article, other than summarizing the material found in reliable sources? Some editors seem to say that there is a

1905:

contains 70 diffs documenting instances of her misbehavior, with links to many more diffs by several other editors, all of which is the tip of the iceberg. The cited instances include her falsely accusing me of being a paid editor, leveling false accusations against other editors to try and discredit

1821:

Do not believe EllenCT's story about sources. She is an extremely biased and disruptive editor. Her favorite tactic is to discredit sources by calling for "secondary peer reviewed literature" and mislabeling sources she disagrees with "primary", which they aren't. She has been caught cherry picking

1757:

Contentious examples (as in: examples under discussion) are not introduced in guidelines, and even less on policy pages. Policy only uses examples that have proven stability for a decent period of time. Trying to get your preferred example introduced in policy to solve a content issue in mainspace is

1186:

It is designed to provide argument if sb is interpreting due weight as an absolute measure. I am afraid wp guidelines are drifting towards censorship. This is the reason for this suggestion. My goal is not to advocate 'bullcrap' but to advocate balanced approach. This suggestion is strictly about due

777:

of a second voice goes a long way in reducing the appearance of Knowledge (XXG) "endorsing" Metacritic (even if this might swing UNDUE in the other direction, propping up a website that is acknowledged as lesser). However, a recent discussion led to the deprecation of GameRankings as a recommendation

353:

talk pages. These sites are not opinion pieces, with the exception of the Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus statement. We usually cite Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic for our film articles, but we are cautious of citing them for older films (like a classic). I will alert the aforementioned talk pages

249:

Examples that come to mind are the scientific and religious debates. If you allow advocates to speak first, the article on Evolution would take shape first with sources that advocate Evolution. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned). While on

3158:

the statement, by giving factual details that support a given position. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." This allows the reader to draw their own conclusions about John Doe's abilities. Such content must still reflect the balance of

566:

finest) films ever made. There is absolutely no need to defer to a crude aggregator for films which have been the subject of long-standing critical discourse. So my stance on this is that they are reliable but they are crude and lack finesse; they attempt to quantify a film's critical standing where

236:

Lets take the scenario where the opposing position clearly has better sources, are in the majority of the scholarly community, etc, it does not hurt their position simply by mentioning theirs second. It can be clearly mentioned in the article that while this is how "advocates" see this, the majority

3138:

of facts should be presented only with attribution to their source. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and should not be stated in Knowledge (XXG) as a fact. A better sentence would be: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as

2142:

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 the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject

1343:

I was wondering whether the terms 'known for', 'best known for' and 'achieved mainstream success' or, in the case of an actor being cast in film, a major role. My concern is that these terms are not cited, as as such seem to be either bias or poetic license on the part of the contributor. Should we

1284:

Furthermore, I think your comment confuses being anti- with being representative. For example, if article says that theory X is pseudoscience, it is not because wikipedia is anti-X, but because this statement, especially when accompanied by mention of the arguments of proponents of such theory with

962:

This needs clarification. How can Knowledge (XXG) say "there is no contradiction" (without sources) if science contradicts religious mythology? I guess this refers to Christian Bible stories being represented as "History", but Bible stories are presented as the majority/mainstream view (no evidence

667:

That's an interesting point about RottenTomatoes. if RT doesn't veraged them out and just keeps the positive, then we should probably debunk it as a valid source. Additionally, my biggest question about RottenTomatoes is that one RT review may not always share the same RT reviewers even if the same

3777:

Neutrality means that articles reflect what reliable sources consider important. So if they write more about men than women, we should as well. In reality, it is not possible for sources to be unbiased to facts, since they must decide what is important. Saying that women should receive equal or

3615:

is inapt quite completely. Would you prefer to have am example which could not be stretched in that manner? The intent is that opinions should be attributed as opinions to the person holding those opinions. "Jack Wilkers is the greatest movie star of all time" is an opinion. "Bill Snarf said

2685:

In your opinion, you have refuted the arguments. Disagreeing with you does not mean that I have not considered your concerns. Whether or not your concerns are legitimate is another matter, however. As for rules, out of the two of us, you are the one who has repeatedly demonstrated that you need to

2300:

if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change" (emphasis mine). Wider discussion is not strictly necessary. However, I believe that the wording changes I made bring this section into greater agreement with broader Knowledge (XXG) policy and do not materially alter the substance of the

1844:

A withering personal attack like this demands direct documentation by links and examples, not an invitation to try to search where you filed some complaints that apparently did not lead to any actual sanctions. I didn't go very far back in the history of the article, but I found less trouble with

633:

It depends on each case and requires editor judgment. Rotten Tomatoes tells what percentage of reviews were positive, while Metacritic provides the average rating, which are two very different measurements. In the example, both Star Wars VII and Citizen Kane score high on Rotten Tomatoes because

3436:

Knowledge (XXG) has a "neutrality policy" because every encyclopedia must have an editorial policy. Otherwise, editors could never agree on the relative weight to assign different points of view or facts. Having skimmed through your edits, I think you may not understand the policy. It does not

587:

I agree however that judgment is required in their use. Betty Logan is right that they tell us little about Citizen Kane. That is because there are better sources, such as peer reviewed academic studies that explain the weight of critical reception. But we do not have that for the Michael Moore

1805:

sources saying the same thing making them truly redundant, or unless they are so far to the fringe that they truly have no relevance to serious discussion of the topic. And if a source stays in, we need enough text to give the readers a heads-up that it is there and roughly what it is about. I

583:

We should mention them because their ratings are significant. For example on demand movie services frequently use them. They are not opinions about opinions, but facts about opinions, specifically what percentage of reviewers gave positive reviews and the average rating they gave. Using these

1900:

EllenCT is by far the most disruptive, tendentious, aggressively soapboxing editor I've encountered on Knowledge (XXG). She's also thoroughly incompetent, tossing out non sequiturs in a jargon word salad that sometimes convinces those who don't know better that she has some understanding of the

1553:

First, the "deletions" weren't deletions. They were a rewriting of the relevant section as well as a better organization of it, in accordance with talk page consensus AND reliable sources. EllenCT just hasn't been able to accept that (for almost a year now). I have no idea what the rest of her

913:

Can you have a POV fork within an article? Like sometimes at the end of the article there's a section called "Criticism of ARTICLENAME." That seems wrong. That's what this line seems to be referring to. But the POV fork information at the end of the link defines POV forking as always involving

710:

Additionally. Just because reliable sources reference these aggregators, I don't think Knowledge (XXG) should. It doesn't imply that these sources are credible on their own but just attempting to give some form of insight. I also strongly believe that sources may rely on these sites because of

561:

There are several questions that face us: Do we need them? Do they qualify as reliable sources? Under what circumstances should they be used and not used? I certainly think Rotten Tomatoes especially qualifies as "reliable source" under our rules, since it has editorial oversight and is often

555:

My thoughts on this is that aggregators should be used judiciously. First of all, what they attempt to do is quantify opinion and they all have different methodologies for dealing with this. It is not as simple as totting up good and poor reviews; for instance the aggregators have a selection

3682:

Saying something is "evil" is evaluating. It's expressing an opinion. This opinion may be right or wrong (and I do assume that we'll all agree that the opinion "Genocide is evil" is right): It is simply not the task of an encyclopedia to express an opinion. No matter how many people agree on

229:

If this is the wrong place to insert policy suggestions, please let me know. So I've called what I am thinking, "first-word deference". This has to do with balancing the desires of competing groups in controversial topics. In a controversial article, both sides can receive appropriate (not

3375:

Based on the consensus I receive for my NPOVist editing, I believe that not only the edits I make in the name of NPOV are wrong, but that the entire idea of NPOV itself is wrong. I don't think that Knowledge (XXG) editors like me should be putting NPOV into practice, because NPOV may seem

1795:

being taken out. That's not what I define as a rewrite - in a rewrite, we keep the source, but summarize it more accurately, in more detail, or occasionally, even with more brevity, but we keep it. The way I've put this before: I get the feeling some editors think of themselves as the

2405:

cannot in fact be proved by a single example. Articles may be biased and sources may be biased, but a single statement cannot be said to be biased (unless it clearly expresses a prejudicial view, such as "Baseball players are always better looking than hockey players", for instance).

1800:

somebody hanging out in the truck throwing oranges off the side because they think we should try to deliver only the biggest oranges in the county. Now by "oranges" what I mean here really are reliable sources - we shouldn't be taking them out unless we really have a whole bunch of

2263:

Thanks for you ideas, but material changes to policy should go to wider discussion first, possibly including an RfC. Using alternate words for "biased" (eg "subjective", "opinion") may or may not be useful, but you've made larger changes to the wording which should be proposed,

326:, Knowledge (XXG) links directing traffic to other sites, and people's careers being on the line based on one site's score but not another's. I think this page should mention aggregators and how they are covered by the policy, and would like to see more discussion on this topic. 3483:

them. I am not familiar with your editing, so can't make any specific comment; but if the responses you receive are as you say, then it is likely that you are not working in a way which other editors find collaborative. The only thing that you can change about that is you. -

1277:. However, editors must be careful not judge by themselves about the significance of a particular view if not qualified to do so. If there are independent reliable sources appropriately describing a view and its relation to mainstream, then this view should be included with 3409:

I think that NPOVists are way more likely to get blocked than vandals. I think we need to abandon all NPOV policies and guidelines because they encourage disruptive editing that makes a lot of people mad at whoever makes edits intended to make Knowledge (XXG) more neutral.

3722:

If sources are not neutral and lets say they almost-only discuss male members of an African tribe despite women being prominent in that tribe, should Knowledge (XXG) reflect that and almost-only discuss men? Or should we attempt to cover both men and women of that tribe?

567:

perhaps an enyclopedia should be looking to qualify a film's standing. Where it is possible to adequately cover a film's critical standing without using aggregator data we shoul endeavor to do so, but the aggregators are acceptable in a "better than nothing" sort of way.

1633:

page only. Please move your comments to the appropriate noticeboard, unless there is a problem with the NPOV policy as such (none of that is apparent from the comments above, which are only about how to apply NPOV in mainspace: that's what the NPOVN noticeboard is for).

1344:

search out more neutral wording or find references for being 'best known for' something or whether a role for an actor was a 'major' one or afforded the actor "mainstream success"? I don't see how they can be in the articles without referencing. Thoughts? -

648:

I suppose Metacritic and RottenTomatoes are dissimilar enough that listing them both would make sense most of the time, where possible. But what if, say, both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scored movies in the same way? What would we do in cases like this?

767:

weight to only list one aggregator? I ask because at least in the domain I'm familiar with (video games), there's essentially only one review aggregator that serves as an industry standard (Metacritic) and Knowledge (XXG) itself has played no small role as

1526:

Have literature review sections of primary sources previously been used bypass the consensus of the peer reviewed literature reviews? Have these kinds of attempts to undermine the reliable source criteria in support of a fringe group occurred previously?

2955:

Finally, some remarks focusing on the substance of edits, not editors' behavior. Yes, the issue is one of semantics, because choice of vocabulary in a project, such as Knowledge (XXG), that relies on written language, strongly influences the quality of

2914:, "Bias is a tendency to favor one person, group, thing or point of view over another, often in an unfair way. Bias can be a personal opinion or a more public opinion, such as a news story, that only presents facts that support one point of view." And 1654:

considers a primary and a secondary source. I wouldnt go so far as VM to allege synth and OR, but there is certainly cherry-picking going on due to Ellen's misunderstanding of what is/is not a reliable secondary source for wikipedia's purposes.

668:

RT reviewers have given the same review. So i am highly against RottenTomatoes. I honestly think it depends on the medium. FOr films, there could be far more reviews and these aggregator websites will probably pick and choose. Especially RT.

2979:

from 1996 seems an obscure and oddly specialist sort of reference for questions of general English-language usage. Frankly, it's grasping at straws. Was there really no general style guide to refer to? The same goes for the 25-year-old

2133:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable

1273:. Due weight means, among others, that " must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.". Some fringe views may be extremely unpopular and insignificant and mentioning such views could constitute giving them 772:

in this regard, given the presence of a Metacritic link on virtually every video game article since 2005. I've long been a proponent of including GameRankings as comparison, despite its lesser marketshare and mindshare, because the

3414:

It is clearly obvious that any kind of NPOVizing will be considered disruptive to Knowledge (XXG). NPOVism hurts Knowledge (XXG) more than vandalism. This is why I think that NPOV policies should be ignored and abandoned for good.

3215:

You asked, "Where are the mainstream, contemporary sources on this?" That is exactly my question when it comes to your above arguments. Taking sources and distinguishing their definitions based on your viewpoint would be argued as

174:

The Blasta Food India founded by Dinesh Maddineni in 2015 November 30th in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. Here in this they are working very well. Another thing is Blasta Food India is one of the best Start Up company from India.

3584:

Wow, the example they gave was that we are not allowed to say "Genocide is an evil action" in an article. That seems to be an attempt to give legitimacy to the Nazi movement by implying that genocide is not necessarily evil.

2994:

of our solar system. One could argue that that is merely a question of semantics as well. But I certainly wouldn't rely on a junior-high textbook from that era for an article about Pluto in 2016. And I think we can disregard

2367:

I agree that subjectivity and bias are different things, and in fact the policy in question deals more with subjectivity than bias anyway. For instance, the example sentence "John Doe is the best baseball player" is

1123:

My 'attitude', and that of Knowledge (XXG) (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny

3288:

article. Something similar occurred when this same editor began to claim that an in-text attribution was needed in the Ajax (play) article: While making that claim, he then edited (on July 13, 2016) a template

259:

to the advocates I think might help to put out some fires and edit wars that tend to get started. It still allows for the best view to make a reliable encyclopedia, and yet it allows advocates to "speak first".

1649:

From reading the talkpage and looking at the sources concerned in the article (and previously, seriously these are issues that had a clear consensus well into last year), EllenCT appears to not understand what

2396:

is a quality of a particular statement. It is not a euphemism, and in fact my original reasoning of using more "diplomatic" language should have added to it the issue of accuracy: whether a given statement is

933:

I authored this policy originally for Nupedia, and greatly elaborated the policy here for Knowledge (XXG). I still support it 100%. My latest theorizing on this topic can be found in this very long paper:

1522:

peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews which reach conclusions on the questions involved (there is at least one inconclusive secondary source.) I intend to restore almost all of the deletions.

963:

necessary) with the Bible decreed to be a "reliable source" (no evidence necessary), while it is the "critical historical treatment" that is merely mentioned (but must have "notable, reliable sources").

250:

the other hand, the article on Creationism would take shape first with sources that advocate that view. Sources advocating other views would be mentioned secondarily (but they would still be mentioned).

1289:

weight, is representative of total sum of encyclopedic knowledge and in such case neutral. By writing "theory X is pseudoscience" first and later in article discussing arguments of proponents it gives

1867:

VolunteerMarek cleans up all the messes EllenCT leaves behind. I will have to go through my browser history to find the last case I filed against EllenCT. There are plenty of diffs in that case.

996:

type system, essentially stating that scientific and religious claims can never really be in conflict. While perhaps not the most satisfying kludge, it seems to me an understandable compromise.

3293:) in a way that would support his claim on the Ajax (play) talk page. This was again done without any discussion or consensus, and it again resulted in another long discussion on the talk page ( 490:

There would likely be other reviews cited in the article. But what do we do when listing composite scores along side regular review scores? (If I understand your reply correctly.) Is one enough?

2143:

may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

3437:

mean that we are supposed to provide even-handedness between mainstream and fringe views. Nor does it really affect the wording that should be used, which is covered under guidelines such as

1949:

Hello, I am wondering if I could get feedback about due and undue weight as it applies to films and related sociological topics. In this case, there is the white savior trope (as presented at

3643:

fact. That is unlikely but I'm wondering if there are other cases with similar wording where the assertion is not just an opinion. The advantage of "genocide is an evil action" is that being

2294:, "changes that would alter the substance of policy or guidelines should normally be announced on the appropriate talk page first. The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it 317:. There is thus an added layer of complexity. Do we try to get the broadest sample of review scores? Do we ignore aggregators that are themselves not commonly cited in other media? Arguments 592:

critic for example wrote, "The fifth in the series of slapstick comedies about Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) will please his fans but is unlikely to convince anyone else as to it merits."

884:

I propose the following change to ATTRIBUTEPOV: "An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of

1724:

sources to counter a wide consensus in the secondary literature are appropriate here and stand, as does my proposal to include a description of this specific instance as a case study at

2809:. Two editors thus far disagree with you and this is a policy page. You cannot come in and demand that a change be made. Or decide that your argument trumps objections to your changes. 3060:. But Knowledge (XXG)'s neutrality policy doesn't care whether an opinion is favorable or unfavorable – both kinds are not to be stated in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice. That is why I think 1247:

You text could be interpreted as pro-fringe. Knowledge (XXG) is anti-fringe, meaning it describes the fringe theories, but the accents lies upon how the mainstream sees such theories.

454:

I'm asking do we just pick one aggregator? How do we weight aggregators against each other? Is having more aggregators better? This policy page does not talk about aggregators at all.

1233:

Looks like a good article. But does my text really advocate misrepresenting sth? As I see it, my text does not and also it is to be interpreted as complementary to other policies. --

3112:

should therefore have resulted in no change to the substance of the policy at all. Can someone please tell me what exactly is the problem with the wording I used (reproduced below)?

1269:. Knowledge (XXG) is neither pro- nor anti-fringe - it is neutral. Goal of wikipedia is to represent total sum of encyclopedic knowledge. Various views should be represented with 978:

I take this to mean that there's no contradiction between "Matthew and Luke say Jesus was born of a virgin," and "Historians consider the details of Jesus' birth to be mythical."

3170:, for example "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." In this case, "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. Instead, stick to the facts as presented in 867:

An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group

3280:, during which (July 2, 2016) he referred to this guideline, Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view. It apparently did not support particular claims he was making regarding 1416: 814:, and saying that we shouldn't lead them to sites like GameRankings or OpenCritic is not good because we're going to end up supporting someone regardless of what we do. 81: 1849:

and that I was not pleased to see; she didn't seem to object to it being restored when I called her on it though, so I don't see that as a "pushy" deletion, at least.

1682:

are you able to cite a specific example where I incorrectly categorized a primary or secondary source? If not, I ask that you please strike your unfounded accusation.

1565:

Talk page discussion with her has been entirely unproductive. There are numerous other editors who can back up my contention that EllenCT has a serious problem with

1901:

topics she discusses (or even fully comprehends her own sources), a misconception it takes me and others countless hours of painstaking educating to debunk. This

1172:

The point is that your proposal is not carefully worded, and it can be interpreted in diametrically opposed ways (both as opposing and as legitimizing bullcrap).

3756:

covered by some sources even if it's much less coverage than of men of that tribe. There is some consideration to weighting by prominence in source but there is

1428: 2694: 3703:

however adopt their opinion, no matter how well founded it may be, and present it as the encyclopedia's opinion. An encyclopedia doesn't have an opinion. --

2326:

objecting to it. Using "subjective" instead of "biased" is just a euphemism and doesn't clarify anything. Subjectiveness and bias are very different things.

1560:

peer reviewed academic journal literature reviews which reach conclusions on the questions involved (there is at least one inconclusive secondary source.)"

611:

But should we favor one aggregator over another based on the quality of the results, or based on their Internet "presence" or impact within the industry? (

1894:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge (XXG):Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive888&oldid=673837138#Numerous_problems_with_EllenCT

508:

I think it is unnecessary to list individual review scores, since it gives the reviews undue weight. That is the whole point of adding aggregator scores.

910:"The internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight." 3503:

appears to be related to this policy -- is it linked here, and if not why not? (Sorry, I'm not in a position to Ctrl+F the source code at the moment.)

1431:(all of these discussions are ultimately about using infoboxes to identify individuals as members of particular ethnicities, and this relates also to 3171: 3284:, so he edited (on July 13, 2016) this guideline — without any discussion or consensus — so that it then supported what he was trying to do on the 192:

This is not the place to write about a topic or to leave comments about a topic. If you are looking to write an article about something please read

2418:, which states, "Avoid stating opinions (i.e. subjective statements) as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions (ditto) as facts". 1408: 2050:, the word “mean” should be changed to “means”; the use of two verbs does not make anything plural, and “giving” and “avoiding” are not acting as 1706:(part of the WP:NOR policy)? Dump it on the NPOV policy talk page! No really, please take this to an appropriate forum, which imho is not here. -- 1556:" on the grounds that he has found a number of literature review sections in primary research articles which conflict with the consensus of fully 47: 17: 1518:

on the grounds that he has found a number of literature review sections in primary research articles which conflict with the consensus of fully

1906:

them, admitting her partisan editing agenda, blatantly lying, undeniably misrepresenting sources, and general POV pushing, disruptive behavior.

300:

but did not get a lot of feedback, so I thought I would ask again. What are we supposed to do in the case of review score aggregators such as

1991:. As noted, I responded in the section below that one. This is because I wanted my reply to clearly address what is stated in both sections. 240:

Allowing "advocates" to "speak first" ensures that minority views can be mentioned, and still holds in balance the idea of weight of sources.

178: 2535:

It's nice that you found someone with whom you agree, but talk pages are not ballot boxes. Please provide reasons that support your views. –

1586:. In fact, *if* we are going to discuss the subject of secondary sources and literature reviews then that would be the proper venue for it. 1010:

My interpretation is: theology does not trump history and history does not trump theology. By the way, the Bible is generally considered a

1201:

Please also note that the goal of wp is to be total sum of encyclopedic knowledge. However, I understand encyclopedic != any knowledge. --

3704: 3600: 3034:

as "a particular tendency, trend, inclination"/"unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group; prejudice", it defines

2337:

is presented as fact by Knowledge (XXG) because mainstream scientific view says it is. We don't attribute it to a specific scientist.

2062: 243:

Allowing advocates to speak first allows advocates an adequate opportunity to define themselves and their movement in their own words.

3846: 3250: 2415: 2187: 2025: 588:

documentary that was released 5 days ago. Similarly, at the other end of the scale, they may not be helpful for Ernest movies. The

417: 3356: 1455: 100: 3558: 3148: 1104: 778:

when including review aggregators. I fear that this will tip the balance even further toward Metacritic's already strong monopoly.

3432:

This is not a forum for discussing changes to policy, but whether the existing policy is applied correctly in different articles.

1629:

where this discussion should have been initiated. The talk page where the above comments were posted is about the content of the

1158:

if sth is 'bullcrap' I agree it should be discussed as such if mentioned. It is not contradictory to the suggested subsection. --

3665:

Certainly no mainstream source would view genocide as a good thing, but there is a philosophical question whether evil exists.

1902: 3699:

It can also describe the reasoning behind this opinion and quote relevant ethicists on the question of genocide being evil. It

3294: 2494: 1988: 1608:

peer reviewed literature reviews support the removal of those literature reviews does indeed make for unproductive discussion.

877:

as in an appraisal, not specifically via a poll i.e. series of questions. I believe the wording should be on par with that in

369: 3512: 1950: 615:

is being used to justify using more popular aggregators since they are more "weighty" in some of the arguments I linked to.)

3298: 1338: 1074:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2981: 2974: 1328:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3550: 2109:

So, simply, does this non-negotiable policy apply to "criticism sections" or not? And how does one explain such a view?

1789:

the "deletions" weren't deletions. They were a rewriting of the relevant section as well as a better organization of it.

1720:

My questions asking whether there have been instances in the past of people trying to use literature review sections of

2866: 595:

That comment, which is also a fact about opinions, is more helpful than saying it received a 17% Rotten Tomatoes score.

2926: 1961:

is generally more known for elements other than the trope, how should that impact its listing in the trope's article?

3535: 3144: 3129: 2291: 1566: 3040:

simply as "a belief or judgment"/"a personal view," – in other words, not necessarily a pattern of prejudice. Where

938: 3290: 2490: 1981: 1970: 1763: 1711: 1639: 993: 441: 38: 3842: 3253:

about this discussion? Or propose the change there and leave a note here about the discussion taking place there?

3140: 2021: 130: 3783: 3670: 3452: 1591: 1574: 734: 639: 602: 3562: 2862: 1729: 1535: 860: 320: 3570: 3337: 3258: 3190: 2999:, published by "LoveToKnow Corp.", whoever they may be. Where are the mainstream, contemporary sources on this? 2934: 2878: 2840: 2814: 2795: 2758: 2702: 2640: 2586: 2540: 2502: 2456: 2310: 2254: 2215: 2085: 1996: 1349: 983: 919: 425: 405: 359: 182: 3531: 3500: 1266: 224:

Policy suggestion: "First-Word" Deference (to balance the desires of competing groups in controversial topics)

3708: 3896: 3875: 3871: 3818: 3812:

that women are prominent in that hypothetical tribe if there is no coverage about them in reliable sources?

3803: 3787: 3770: 3747: 3743: 3732: 3712: 3674: 3656: 3625: 3604: 3596: 3574: 3542: 3517: 3488: 3456: 3424: 3420: 3365: 3310: 3262: 3194: 2938: 2882: 2844: 2818: 2799: 2762: 2706: 2644: 2590: 2544: 2506: 2460: 2346: 2314: 2277: 2258: 2219: 2170: 2118: 2089: 2070: 2000: 1974: 1931: 1918: 1876: 1858: 1831: 1815: 1767: 1745: 1715: 1691: 1664: 1660: 1643: 1617: 1595: 1578: 1547: 1495: 1464: 1380: 1353: 1302: 1256: 1242: 1228: 1210: 1196: 1181: 1167: 1153: 1116: 1094: 1062: 1027: 1005: 987: 972: 968: 949: 923: 900: 853: 827: 805: 787: 783: 758: 720: 705: 677: 662: 643: 628: 606: 576: 535: 517: 503: 485: 467: 445: 429: 409: 385: 363: 339: 297: 285: 269: 213: 186: 109: 3588: 3276:

A few weeks ago, a discussion occurred with the editor who started this discussion, Coconutporkpie, on the

711:

Knowledge (XXG). I remember how RT wasn't fully trusted and now almost everyone does since it's inclusion.

3631: 2066: 1491: 945: 3217: 2578: 1703: 1557: 1519: 1360: 1046: 3867: 3728: 3353: 2786:

Since no further arguments regarding the actual merit of the changes in question have been made, I have

1759: 1707: 1635: 1452: 1420: 964: 716: 673: 572: 513: 481: 437: 97: 1049:

is closed for business. This is being discussed elsewhere. One outbreak of this foolishness is enough.

134: 568: 509: 477: 3779: 3666: 3448: 3306: 2907: 2861:

after I pointed you to it above. Either way, I have made myself clear on this matter. Your continued

1782: 1587: 1570: 1512: 1505: 1435:). Notifying this policy talk page because NPoV and NOR are the two most frequently raised policies ( 1252: 1224: 1177: 1149: 1023: 935: 635: 598: 209: 3438: 3380: 2150: 2138: 1751: 1721: 1699: 1601: 1364: 1015: 1011: 3799: 3566: 3254: 3186: 2930: 2874: 2836: 2829: 2810: 2791: 2754: 2698: 2636: 2632: 2582: 2536: 2498: 2452: 2306: 2250: 2211: 2081: 1992: 1345: 1298: 1238: 1206: 1192: 1163: 1090: 979: 915: 688:

It's interesting that you say they are "not opinions about opinions, but facts about opinions". So

421: 401: 355: 276:

I found a more relevant location to post this. Posting in Wikipedia_talk:Describing_points_of_view

3634:) is good, but I wonder if it would lead to argument about, for example, scientific facts. Should 3167: 3160: 1600:

Resorting to personal attacks instead of answering questions about whether the review sections of

1482:

Off topic discussion; this talk page is for discussing improvements to the NPV policy page. Go to

878: 841: 689: 612: 473: 3739: 3652: 3592: 3509: 3464: 3416: 1914: 1872: 1827: 1677: 1656: 1219:: autodynamics gets described, but it is never described as true/factual, quite on the contrary. 779: 281: 265: 3878:

i think that you should check the link and make sure there not fake i check one and it was fake

3442: 3341: 2103:"Why does criticism have to meet a higher standard of neutrality than the rest of the article?" 2047: 1725: 1626: 1584: 1531: 1483: 764: 318: 2577:

There's no need to reiterate reasons already supplied by Stickee. You want policy changed? Get

1337:

It was suggested that I bring this question here from AN. That previous discussion can be seen

3766: 3621: 2922: 2899: 2342: 2273: 2166: 2114: 1741: 1687: 1613: 1543: 1487: 1129: 1001: 941: 896: 2983:

Elementary and Junior High/middle School Social Studies Curriculum, Activities, and Materials

2858: 2750: 2687: 2158: 1630: 1262: 346: 197: 85: 3724: 3635: 3616:

that Jacks Wilkers is the greatest movie star of all time" properly attributes the opinion.

3347: 3277: 2330: 2246: 1446: 937:

See also this column, which explains (or oversimplifies) the arguments in the longer paper:

821: 799: 792:

A thing to note is that Metacritic and GameRankings are actually owned by the same company.

752: 712: 699: 669: 656: 622: 529: 497: 461: 379: 333: 91: 82:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:ISMCAPS badly needs to be tightened

3385: 3316:

RfC on expanded use of pull-quote templates with "giant quotation marks" for any quotations

3166:

Avoid the temptation to lend a vague impression of authority to subjective statements with

2911: 2870: 2265: 2129: 1733: 1412: 1290: 1286: 1278: 1274: 1270: 472:

Having a policy which limits critiques to just one aggregator would not be consistent with

193: 3302: 3221: 2976:

Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants

2904:

Environmental Impact Statements: A Practical Guide for Agencies, Citizens, and Consultants

1471: 1248: 1220: 1173: 1145: 1019: 845: 305: 205: 201: 3795: 2915: 2373: 1966: 1530:

In any case, I would like to propose this particular instance as a case study, here at

1376: 1294: 1234: 1202: 1188: 1159: 1112: 1086: 849: 323: 1387:

RfC notice: image montages of individual faces on ethnicity and other demonym articles

584:

sources is consistent with policy since it allows us to explain the weight of opinion.

522:

Okay. That view is probably going to be considered controversial among some projects.

3648: 3525: 3504: 2929:

source, page 341 and onward, that addresses identifying facts and biased statements.

1910: 1868: 1854: 1846: 1839: 1823: 1811: 1506:

Talk:Economic growth#Evisceration of secondary literature in favor of primary sources

1057: 1051: 593: 277: 261: 3538:, which is the same page; the section does not explicitly discuss quotes however. - 3412:

I acknowledge that every single edit I ever made in the name on NPOV was disruptive.

3093: 2857:

I didn't get your ping; not that I needed it anyway. Funny that you should quote to

1261:

1. Fringe != pseudoscience. 2. In my opinion your position is in contradiction with

3762: 3695:"70% of all people are of the opinion that red apples taste better than green ones" 3617: 2486: 2338: 2269: 2162: 2110: 1737: 1683: 1609: 1539: 1432: 1409:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES

1216: 997: 892: 738: 3072:

is still an important issue regarding the overall content of articles and sources.

436:

I don't understand what the question is. Are you asking what aggregators to use?

3225: 3104:

imply that the words are normally understood differently. But assuming that they

3099: 2865:

at this policy page is unacceptable, and if you continue with it, I will request

2381: 3813: 3285: 3281: 2753:

me to a policy talk page that I have been watching and commenting on for years.

2416:

Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view § Explanation of the neutral point of view

1924: 1923:

Agree with Francis Schonken, the policy page is not the forum for this dispute.

1758:

something generally frowned upon. So the long answer to that question is: no. --

816: 794: 747: 694: 651: 617: 524: 492: 456: 374: 328: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3035: 3893: 3539: 3485: 3147:. Be certain that describing the opinions of third parties does not veer into 1424: 730: 301: 1470:

Undue use of primary source literature review sections to delete material in

1429:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes

2334: 2333:, make sure you're not confusing mainstream view with opinion. For example, 2210:

a more precise and diplomatic term here (update 05:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)).

1962: 1372: 1108: 769: 742: 3445:

and proper application of no original research and reliable sources policy.

1583:

And btw, EllenCT has posted a notification about this discussion to WP:RSN

1187:

weight and how it is relative. It does not 'disable' any other policies. --

3467:, I don't believe that we should ignore or abandon WP:NPOV; that would be 2918: 2372:, that is, a judgement "based on feelings or opinions rather than facts", 2247:

Talk:Ajax (play) § regarding the attribution to a particular person alone

1850: 1807: 992:

I agree with Jonathan Tweet. I take this as Knowledge (XXG)'s stab at a

350: 3029: 292:

Review score aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and OpenCritic

3752:

I would say it's ok to include content about women of the tribe if it

3680:

This question really doesn't get the point about encyclopedic writing.

3338:

Template talk:Pull quote#Request for comments on use and documentation

2495:

Template talk:According to whom#In-text attribution for cited material

1989:

Template talk:According to whom#In-text attribution for cited material

1953:). If sociological sources identify the trope in a film, in this case 1887:

Here is a previous complaint filed against EllenCT for her POV issues:

3647:

is definitely an opinion—even if it were a universally held opinion.

2991: 3561:. Among the concerns noted in the move discussion is whether or not 2188:

Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view § Handling neutrality disputes

2106:(This is a general issue, which I have now seen in multiple places) 2987: 2443:

contains other confusing and inaccurate statements, for instance:

2161:, is there any other policy about what should go into an article? 2292:

Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy § Edits to policies and guidelines

1698:

Seems even further from what this page is for: not understanding

2051: 848:" was added this quarter ... is that the link you want? - Dank ( 3611:

Perhaps the example is too simplistic for your view - but your

3559:

Talk:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey#Requested move 20 September 2016

2058:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that …

3830: 3326: 2009: 1397: 118: 70: 25: 3693:(providing proper sources) just as it can say something like 2320:"The change may be implemented if no objection is made to it" 729:

I edited the section title to extend the topic to sites like

3530:, While there doesn't appear to be a link from this page to 2198:

strikes me as a loaded word, being as it is synonymous with

873:

is ambiguous in this case. I believe it is intended to mean

200:. Knowledge (XXG) requires all articles to be backed up by 1554:

statement is talking about or referring to. Like what does

3340:

is relevant to several aspects of this policy, especially

1845:

EllenCT than Marek. Yes, she deleted something about the

3691:"99,8% percent of all people agree that genocide is evil" 3220:

if such a viewpoint were added to our articles. Even the

1750:

The Neutral point of view policy page says nothing about

60:

Discussion on PoV / promotional use of overcapitalization

3139:

Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Such statements must still be

3016:

Some dictionaries (such as Random House, the source for

3249:

We need more opinions on this. Perhaps leave a note at

3109: 2806: 2787: 2691: 2440: 2411: 2302: 2226: 2077: 1893: 1516: 1134: 1081: 397: 393: 3761:

sources but we also don't have to be slavish to them.

3068:

regarding attribution – not in the policy as a whole.

2382:"an inclination of temperament or outlook : prejudice" 2153:). There are many policies about what material should 3430:

I see you have added your question in various fora.

2202:– few people want to admit their own biases. Perhaps 3130:

Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources § In-text attribution

2910:, pages 316-318. If we go to Yourdictionary.com, it 2245:. Full disclosure: a discussion I am involved in at 2229:

to this section related to my comments above. Since

1736:

after I have researched the history of such issues.

1538:, or both. Please share your opinions on the topic. 476:

especially when they draw to different conclusions.

345:

This topic has been addressed more than once at the

1625:Wrong forum afaics: I suppose you were looking for 1515:has been justifying many of the deletions shown at 955:

Religion: "yet note that there is no contradiction"

3134:Statements of opinion, subjective judgements, and 3402:deleting essential, cited or verified information 3092:, I think that Merriam-Webster's definitions for 3892:- It is not clear what changes are requested. - 3471:. I do think that we all need to recognise that 2686:review our policies and guidelines, especially 2225:Pending further input by other editors, I made 1121: 115:Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015 3827:Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016 2237:) is a redundancy, I omitted one reference to 1105:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fringe theories#Protected 2100:In quite a few cases, the question is posed: 810:I do agree that links/hits are going to lead 8: 2392:of favoring one thing over another, whereas 1604:research contrary to the broad consensus of 158:Collapse comments about nonexistent article 2489:. And I also disagree with your changes to 2006:Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2016 372:seems to deal with the topic specifically. 3586: 1754:. So no, the question doesn't belong here. 1477: 416:Oh, I see you already alerted WP:Film and 313:? The problem is these sites are offering 163:The following discussion has been closed. 154: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Neutral point of view 3332:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 2790:pending further substantive discussion. — 1987:Opinions are needed the following matter 1403:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 76:Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere. 3738:Sources are not required to be neutral. 3565:is being given to a recent documentary. 3469:throwing the baby out with the bathwater 2401:should be apparent, but the presence of 1407:Please participate in the discussion at 1293:weight to the mainstream perspective. -- 3124:Attributing and substantiating opinions 2414:addressed this issue and elaborated on 1443:) in relation to the topic of the RfC. 1359:Indeed. I would simply remove them per 198:our notability guidelines for companies 3557:Opinions are needed on the following: 2631:addressed the arguments you mention, 2319: 2057: 1367:in the edit summary. Against a policy 866: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3847:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 2986:. In middle school I was taught that 2026:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view 1419:that resulted in the creation of the 7: 3689:this opinion and say something like 2749:On a side note: There is no need to 1070:The following discussion is closed. 3371:Should NPOV be considered obsolete? 2410:is essentially a state of mind. My 2376:. It does not necessarily indicate 2301:policy in question (update: I have 2241:outright and replaced another with 1427:, and also relates thematically to 237:of scholars see it a different way. 3110:Revision as of 00:04, 15 July 2016 3090:Regarding this particular instance 2869:. I might also escalate things to 1333:Are these terms neutral or biased? 370:Knowledge (XXG):Review aggregators 24: 2249:makes reference to this policy. – 2190:discusses proper attribution for 3883: 3834: 3321: 3028:. But where that source defines 2447:does not mean the same thing as 2303:restored the changes in question 2013: 1392: 1363:, with an additional mention of 1324:The discussion above is closed. 122: 65: 29: 3295:Template talk:According to whom 1945:Sociology, film, and due weight 891:of opinions within the group."— 3778:more coverage is a bias too. 3675:13:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 3657:07:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 3626:06:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 3605:06:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC) 3575:15:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC) 3543:01:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 3536:Knowledge (XXG):Words to watch 3518:01:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC) 3489:05:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC) 2305:pending further discussion). — 1951:white savior narrative in film 692:would not apply in this case? 1: 3457:22:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 3425:22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC) 3405:not improving Knowledge (XXG) 3345: 2788:restored the disputed wording 1444: 1413:vacate the previous consensus 950:16:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 788:18:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 759:04:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 721:11:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 706:05:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 678:04:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 663:00:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 644:00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 629:23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 607:22:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 577:01:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 536:21:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 518:17:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC) 504:16:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 486:04:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 468:01:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC) 446:00:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 430:00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 410:00:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 386:04:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC) 364:00:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC) 340:23:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) 322:have included such things as 286:00:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC) 270:21:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC) 214:05:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC) 187:05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC) 110:22:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC) 89: 3897:12:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC) 3876:12:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC) 3819:17:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC) 3804:17:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC) 3788:02:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) 3771:14:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC) 3713:15:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 3534:exactly; there is a link to 2374:according to Merriam-Webster 2268:and consensus gained first. 1791:However, as I recall, I saw 1732:. I will raise the issue at 1006:17:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 988:15:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 924:15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC) 901:06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC) 3861:to reactivate your request. 3849:has been answered. Set the 3748:11:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC) 3740:Only in death does duty end 3733:09:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC) 3393:prone to grammatical errors 3366:07:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC) 3066:in this particular instance 2927:University Press of America 2208:an equally precise yet more 2157:be in articles. Other than 2040:to reactivate your request. 2028:has been answered. Set the 1657:Only in death does duty end 1511:. My understanding is that 1486:to discuss NPOV disputes -- 973:05:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC) 859:Clarify use of "survey" in 854:17:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC) 828:01:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC) 806:04:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC) 149:to reactivate your request. 137:has been answered. Set the 3913: 3319: 3311:13:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC) 3291:Template:According to whom 3127: 2690:, since you almost always 2491:Template:According to whom 2171:16:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC) 2046:In the second sentence of 1982:Template:According to whom 1390: 1381:18:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1354:18:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 1303:22:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1257:19:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1243:17:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1229:17:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1211:17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1197:17:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1182:17:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1168:16:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1154:16:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1117:16:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1095:16:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1063:22:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 1028:16:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC) 906:POV forking within a page? 63: 3794:Nemo dat quod non habet. 3613:stretching of the example 3551:Murder of JonBenét Ramsey 3263:07:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 3195:05:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC) 3056:of (usually unfavorable) 2939:02:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 2883:01:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 2845:00:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 2819:02:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC) 2800:00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC) 2763:05:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2707:05:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2645:05:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2591:00:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2545:00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2507:23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2461:06:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2347:03:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2315:02:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2278:01:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2259:00:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 2119:14:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 2090:00:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC) 2078:made the requested change 2071:23:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC) 2001:23:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 1975:20:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC) 1919:12:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 1496:13:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) 1079:suggested new subsection 735:Movie Review Query Engine 3251:WP:Village pump (policy) 3159:mainstream opinion (see 2322:That's great, because I 2220:10:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC) 1932:15:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 1877:12:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 1859:11:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 1832:02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 1816:00:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 1768:15:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1746:15:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1716:08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1692:15:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1665:07:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1644:06:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1618:15:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1596:06:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1579:06:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1548:05:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC) 1465:17:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC) 1326:Please do not modify it. 1072:Please do not modify it. 1012:primary religious source 763:Related question: Is it 418:WP:Village pump (policy) 166:Please do not modify it. 3549:Move discussion at the 3495:Is the MOS linked here? 3154:Another approach is to 2441:existing policy wording 2194:statements of opinion. 1903:linked evidence section 1411:. It is a proposal to 315:opinions about opinions 298:brought this up in 2009 3020:s content) may equate 1909: 1139: 1038:Narrow domain articles 84:may be of interest to 3399:changing the meanings 2908:John Wiley & Sons 1897: 1421:MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES 1417:the February 2016 RfC 196:. Also, please read 42:of past discussions. 3685:An encyclopedia can 3161:Due and undue weight 2096:"Criticism" and NPOV 1513:User:Volunteer Marek 354:to this discussion. 310:edit: and OpenCritic 255:This idea of giving 3638:say that the Earth 3479:other editors, not 3299:”gaming the system” 3044:is synonymous with 2973:Regarding sources, 2835:the disagreement. — 914:creating articles. 846:extraordinary claim 840:Hi guys, doing the 3433: 3143:and appropriately 2997:yourdictionary.com 2867:WP:Full protection 2331:your specific case 2329:To give advice on 2231:subjective opinion 2209: 1980:Wording issues at 1073: 1014:, therefore not a 272: 252: 246: 231: 194:your first article 3865: 3864: 3630:Maybe your edit ( 3607: 3591:comment added by 3515: 3431: 3224:source you cited 3149:original research 2345: 2276: 2207: 2044: 2043: 1941: 1940: 1935: 1567:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 1071: 1061: 929:"Why Neutrality?" 254: 247: 233: 228: 221: 220: 153: 152: 135:Blasta Food India 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3904: 3891: 3887: 3886: 3856: 3852: 3838: 3837: 3831: 3636:Age of the Earth 3529: 3508: 3364: 3333: 3325: 3324: 3278:Talk:Ajax (play) 3172:reliable sources 3052:is a particular 2833: 2341: 2272: 2124:Due/undue weight 2035: 2031: 2017: 2016: 2010: 1929: 1927: 1843: 1786: 1760:Francis Schonken 1708:Francis Schonken 1681: 1636:Francis Schonken 1484:NPOV Noticeboard 1478: 1463: 1404: 1396: 1395: 1137: 1136: 1084: 1055: 836:Quarterly Update 826: 824: 819: 804: 802: 797: 757: 755: 750: 704: 702: 697: 661: 659: 654: 627: 625: 620: 534: 532: 527: 502: 500: 495: 466: 464: 459: 438:NinjaRobotPirate 384: 382: 377: 338: 336: 331: 202:reliable sources 168: 155: 144: 140: 126: 125: 119: 108: 77: 69: 68: 33: 32: 26: 3912: 3911: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3884: 3882: 3854: 3850: 3835: 3829: 3720: 3582: 3563:WP:Undue weight 3555: 3523: 3497: 3373: 3362: 3334: 3331: 3329: 3322: 3318: 3222:Merriam-Webster 3176: 3136:interpretations 3132: 3108:synonymous, my 3018:dictionary.com' 2863:WP:Edit warring 2827: 2627:I have already 2493:. Addressed at 2412:wording changes 2185: 2126: 2098: 2033: 2029: 2014: 2008: 1985: 1947: 1942: 1925: 1837: 1783:Volunteer Marek 1780: 1730:WP:SYSTEMICBIAS 1675: 1588:Volunteer Marek 1571:Volunteer Marek 1536:WP:SYSTEMICBIAS 1498: 1475: 1472:Economic growth 1461: 1405: 1402: 1400: 1393: 1389: 1371:a guideline. - 1335: 1330: 1329: 1215:As a model see 1138: 1133: 1128: 1080: 1076: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1040: 1016:reliable source 957: 931: 908: 864: 861:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 838: 822: 817: 815: 800: 795: 793: 753: 748: 746: 700: 695: 693: 657: 652: 650: 623: 618: 616: 530: 525: 523: 498: 493: 491: 462: 457: 455: 380: 375: 373: 334: 329: 327: 306:Rotten Tomatoes 294: 226: 179:113.193.114.193 164: 142: 138: 123: 117: 106: 80:The discussion 78: 75: 73: 66: 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3910: 3908: 3900: 3899: 3863: 3862: 3839: 3828: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3808:And how do we 3791: 3790: 3774: 3773: 3750: 3719: 3716: 3698: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3677: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3581: 3578: 3567:Flyer22 Reborn 3554: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3532:WP:SCAREQUOTES 3501:WP:SCAREQUOTES 3499:The guideline 3496: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3460: 3459: 3446: 3434: 3407: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3397: 3396:nonsense-laden 3394: 3391: 3390:prone to typos 3388: 3383: 3372: 3369: 3360: 3320: 3317: 3314: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3255:Flyer22 Reborn 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3187:Coconutporkpie 3168:"weasel words" 3157: 3137: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3107: 3091: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3067: 3064:is misleading 3055: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956:communication. 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2931:Flyer22 Reborn 2916:Dictionary.com 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2875:Flyer22 Reborn 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2837:Coconutporkpie 2830:Flyer22 Reborn 2822: 2821: 2811:Flyer22 Reborn 2792:Coconutporkpie 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2755:Flyer22 Reborn 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2699:Flyer22 Reborn 2692:interpret them 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2637:Coconutporkpie 2633:Flyer22 Reborn 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2583:Flyer22 Reborn 2560: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2537:Coconutporkpie 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2499:Flyer22 Reborn 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2453:Coconutporkpie 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2327: 2307:Coconutporkpie 2298: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2251:Coconutporkpie 2235:biased opinion 2212:Coconutporkpie 2184: 2174: 2146: 2145: 2136: 2125: 2122: 2097: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2082:Coconutporkpie 2042: 2041: 2018: 2007: 2004: 1993:Flyer22 Reborn 1984: 1978: 1946: 1943: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1862: 1861: 1819: 1818: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1755: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1668: 1667: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1581: 1563: 1504:Please review 1500: 1499: 1481: 1476: 1474: 1468: 1459: 1391: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1346:Jack Sebastian 1342: 1334: 1331: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1282: 1267:wp:notcensored 1199: 1126: 1120: 1119: 1077: 1068: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1039: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 980:Jonathan Tweet 956: 953: 930: 927: 916:Jonathan Tweet 907: 904: 863: 857: 837: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 808: 761: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 596: 585: 580: 579: 558: 557: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 449: 448: 433: 432: 422:Flyer22 Reborn 413: 412: 402:Flyer22 Reborn 390: 389: 388: 356:Flyer22 Reborn 293: 290: 289: 288: 245: 244: 241: 238: 225: 222: 219: 218: 217: 216: 170: 169: 160: 159: 151: 150: 127: 116: 113: 104: 64: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3909: 3898: 3895: 3890: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3868:Grant brianna 3860: 3857:parameter to 3848: 3844: 3840: 3833: 3832: 3826: 3820: 3817: 3816: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3776: 3775: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3717: 3715: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3705:84.190.89.111 3702: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3664: 3663: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3593:Enormous-fart 3590: 3579: 3577: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3541: 3537: 3533: 3527: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3514: 3511: 3506: 3502: 3494: 3490: 3487: 3482: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465:Turkeybutt JC 3462: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3447: 3444: 3440: 3435: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3422: 3418: 3413: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3389: 3387: 3384: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3370: 3368: 3367: 3358: 3355: 3352: 3350: 3343: 3339: 3328: 3315: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3175: 3173: 3169: 3164: 3162: 3155: 3152: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3125: 3111: 3105: 3103: 3102: 3097: 3096: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3071: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3053: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3033: 3032: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2998: 2993: 2990:is the ninth 2989: 2985: 2984: 2978: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2906:source, from 2905: 2901: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2831: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2807:have reverted 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2708: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2693: 2689: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2485:I agree with 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2462: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2404: 2400: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2348: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2299: 2296: 2293: 2290:According to 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2279: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2144: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2131: 2128: 2127: 2123: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2107: 2104: 2101: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2055: 2053: 2049: 2039: 2036:parameter to 2027: 2023: 2019: 2012: 2011: 2005: 2003: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1983: 1979: 1977: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1944: 1934: 1933: 1928: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1896: 1895: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847:Kuznets curve 1841: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1799: 1794: 1790: 1787:You say that 1784: 1779: 1778: 1769: 1765: 1761: 1756: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1679: 1678:Only in death 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1632: 1628: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1582: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1559: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1507: 1502: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1480: 1479: 1473: 1469: 1467: 1466: 1457: 1454: 1451: 1449: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1423:provision at 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1399: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1340: 1332: 1327: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1131: 1125: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1083: 1082:narrow domain 1075: 1064: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1048: 1037: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 990: 989: 985: 981: 977: 976: 975: 974: 970: 966: 965:Keith McClary 961: 954: 952: 951: 947: 943: 939: 936: 928: 926: 925: 921: 917: 911: 905: 903: 902: 898: 894: 890: 887: 882: 880: 876: 872: 868: 862: 858: 856: 855: 851: 847: 843: 835: 829: 825: 820: 813: 809: 807: 803: 798: 791: 790: 789: 785: 781: 780:Axem Titanium 776: 775:mere presence 771: 766: 762: 760: 756: 751: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 722: 718: 714: 709: 708: 707: 703: 698: 691: 687: 679: 675: 671: 666: 665: 664: 660: 655: 647: 646: 645: 641: 637: 632: 631: 630: 626: 621: 614: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 597: 594: 591: 586: 582: 581: 578: 574: 570: 565: 560: 559: 554: 551: 550: 537: 533: 528: 521: 520: 519: 515: 511: 507: 506: 505: 501: 496: 489: 488: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 470: 469: 465: 460: 453: 452: 451: 450: 447: 443: 439: 435: 434: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 414: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 378: 371: 367: 366: 365: 361: 357: 352: 348: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 332: 325: 321: 319: 316: 312: 311: 307: 303: 299: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 274: 273: 271: 267: 263: 258: 251: 242: 239: 235: 234: 232: 223: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 189: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 171: 167: 162: 161: 157: 156: 148: 145:parameter to 136: 132: 128: 121: 120: 114: 112: 111: 102: 99: 96: 94: 87: 83: 72: 59: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3888: 3866: 3858: 3843:edit request 3814: 3809: 3757: 3753: 3721: 3718:Hypothetical 3700: 3694: 3690: 3686: 3679: 3644: 3639: 3612: 3587:— Preceding 3583: 3556: 3498: 3480: 3476: 3473:"neutrality" 3472: 3468: 3411: 3408: 3374: 3348: 3335: 3297:). This is 3275: 3218:WP:Synthesis 3165: 3156:substantiate 3153: 3133: 3123: 3122: 3100: 3094: 3069: 3061: 3057: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3036: 3030: 3025: 3021: 3017: 2996: 2982: 2975: 2903: 2785: 2695:too strictly 2628: 2579:WP:Consensus 2449:substantiate 2448: 2444: 2407: 2402: 2398: 2394:subjectivity 2393: 2389: 2388:refers to a 2385: 2377: 2369: 2323: 2295: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227:some changes 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2180: 2176: 2154: 2147: 2141: 2132: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2063:67.14.236.50 2061: 2056: 2045: 2037: 2022:edit request 1986: 1958: 1954: 1948: 1930: 1899: 1898: 1892: 1820: 1802: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1704:WP:SECONDARY 1651: 1624: 1605: 1558:WP:SECONDARY 1555: 1529: 1525: 1520:WP:SECONDARY 1508: 1503: 1447: 1440: 1436: 1433:MOS:IDENTITY 1406: 1368: 1361:wp:UNSOURCED 1336: 1325: 1275:undue weight 1217:Autodynamics 1130:AndyTheGrump 1122: 1100: 1078: 1069: 1050: 1047:WP:FORUMSHOP 959: 958: 942:Larry Sanger 932: 912: 909: 888: 885: 883: 874: 870: 865: 850:push to talk 839: 811: 774: 739:GameRankings 589: 563: 552: 314: 309: 308: 295: 256: 253: 248: 227: 177: 173: 165: 146: 131:edit request 92: 79: 55: 43: 37: 3725:Pwolit iets 3386:incompetent 3349:SMcCandlish 3336:The RfC at 3286:Ajax (play) 3282:Ajax (play) 2380:, that is, 1448:SMcCandlish 1415:reached in 1103:: see also 889:an analysis 713:Lucia Black 670:Lucia Black 569:Betty Logan 510:Betty Logan 478:Betty Logan 324:Alexa ranks 93:SMcCandlish 36:This is an 3851:|answered= 3439:WP:PEACOCK 3417:Turkeybutt 3381:disruptive 3303:Clockchime 3163:, above). 3141:verifiable 3128:See also: 2399:subjective 2370:subjective 2204:subjective 2200:prejudiced 2183:statements 2181:subjective 2151:WP:BALASPS 2139:WP:BALASPS 2030:|answered= 1959:The Matrix 1955:The Matrix 1803:equivalent 1752:WP:PRIMARY 1722:WP:PRIMARY 1700:WP:PRIMARY 1602:WP:PRIMARY 1425:MOS:IMAGES 1365:wp:PEACOCK 1271:due weight 1249:Tgeorgescu 1221:Tgeorgescu 1174:Tgeorgescu 1146:Tgeorgescu 1144:Quoted by 1124:letters... 1020:Tgeorgescu 869:: I think 731:OpenCritic 368:The essay 302:Metacritic 206:Stabila711 139:|answered= 88:regulars. 3796:Elizium23 3505:Hijiri 88 3050:prejudice 3046:prejudice 2335:Evolution 2266:discussed 2206:would be 1652:wikipedia 1606:bona fide 1295:Asterixf2 1235:Asterixf2 1203:Asterixf2 1189:Asterixf2 1160:Asterixf2 1087:Asterixf2 886:a survey 879:WP:WEASEL 842:WP:Update 812:somewhere 770:kingmaker 743:MobyGames 690:WP:WEIGHT 613:WP:WEIGHT 474:WP:WEIGHT 257:deference 3889:Not done 3815:The Yeti 3687:describe 3649:Johnuniq 3601:contribs 3589:unsigned 3580:Genocide 3526:Hijiri88 3443:WP:LABEL 3342:WP:UNDUE 2581:for it. 2134:sources. 2052:gerund|s 2048:WP:UNDUE 1911:Phmoreno 1869:Phmoreno 1840:Phmoreno 1824:Phmoreno 1726:WP:UNDUE 1627:WP:NPOVN 1532:WP:UNDUE 765:WP:UNDUE 392:Alerted 351:MOS:Film 278:Motmajor 262:Motmajor 3763:SageRad 3618:Collect 3553:article 3481:against 3095:opinion 3058:opinion 3037:opinion 3026:opinion 2859:WP:Buro 2751:WP:Ping 2688:WP:Buro 2629:refuted 2487:Stickee 2445:specify 2390:pattern 2339:Stickee 2270:Stickee 2243:opinion 2163:Felsic2 2159:WP:NPOV 2111:Collect 1971:contrib 1793:sources 1738:EllenCT 1728:and/or 1684:EllenCT 1631:WP:NPOV 1610:EllenCT 1540:EllenCT 1509:et seq. 1281:weight. 1263:wp:npov 998:Dumuzid 893:Bagumba 745:, etc. 590:Variety 553:Comment 347:WP:Film 86:WP:NPOV 39:archive 3701:cannot 3226:states 2992:planet 2919:states 2912:states 2871:WP:ANI 2805:And I 2343:(talk) 2274:(talk) 2233:(like 2196:Biased 2192:biased 2177:Biased 2130:WP:DUE 1926:Morphh 1734:WP:RSN 1291:wp:due 1287:wp:due 1279:wp:due 875:survey 871:survey 818:SharkD 796:SharkD 749:SharkD 696:SharkD 653:SharkD 619:SharkD 526:SharkD 494:SharkD 458:SharkD 376:SharkD 330:SharkD 3894:Ryk72 3855:|ans= 3841:This 3540:Ryk72 3486:Ryk72 3145:cited 3024:with 2988:Pluto 2925:1991 2902:1996 2034:|ans= 2020:This 1534:, at 1058:Help! 823:Talk 801:Talk 754:Talk 701:Talk 658:Talk 624:Talk 531:Talk 499:Talk 463:Talk 381:Talk 335:Talk 204:. -- 143:|ans= 129:This 16:< 3872:talk 3810:know 3800:talk 3784:talk 3767:talk 3758:some 3744:talk 3729:talk 3709:talk 3671:talk 3653:talk 3645:evil 3632:diff 3622:talk 3597:talk 3571:talk 3477:with 3453:talk 3441:and 3421:talk 3307:talk 3259:talk 3191:talk 3101:bias 3098:and 3070:Bias 3062:bias 3054:kind 3042:bias 3031:bias 3022:bias 2935:talk 2923:this 2900:this 2879:talk 2841:talk 2815:talk 2796:talk 2759:talk 2703:talk 2641:talk 2587:talk 2541:talk 2503:talk 2457:talk 2439:The 2408:Bias 2403:bias 2386:Bias 2378:bias 2311:talk 2255:talk 2239:bias 2216:talk 2179:vs. 2167:talk 2115:talk 2086:talk 2067:talk 1997:talk 1967:talk 1963:Erik 1915:talk 1873:talk 1855:talk 1828:talk 1812:talk 1764:talk 1742:talk 1712:talk 1688:talk 1661:talk 1640:talk 1614:talk 1592:talk 1575:talk 1544:talk 1492:talk 1377:talk 1373:DVdm 1350:talk 1339:here 1299:talk 1265:and 1253:talk 1239:talk 1225:talk 1207:talk 1193:talk 1178:talk 1164:talk 1150:talk 1113:talk 1109:DVdm 1107:. - 1101:Note 1091:talk 1085:. -- 1045:The 1024:talk 1002:talk 994:NOMA 984:talk 969:talk 946:talk 920:talk 897:talk 784:talk 717:talk 674:talk 640:talk 603:talk 573:talk 514:talk 482:talk 442:talk 426:talk 406:talk 398:here 396:and 394:here 360:talk 349:and 304:and 282:talk 266:talk 210:talk 183:talk 3853:or 3845:to 3780:TFD 3683:it. 3667:TFD 3463:Hi 3449:TFD 3363:ⱷ≼ 3359:≽ⱷ҅ 3327:FYI 3106:are 2155:not 2080:. — 2032:or 2024:to 1973:) 1851:Wnt 1808:Wnt 1798:see 1462:ⱷ≼ 1458:≽ⱷ҅ 1441:con 1439:or 1437:pro 1398:FYI 1369:and 1052:Guy 844:. " 636:TFD 599:TFD 564:the 141:or 133:to 107:ⱷ≼ 103:≽ⱷ҅ 71:FYI 3874:) 3859:no 3802:) 3786:) 3769:) 3754:is 3746:) 3731:) 3711:) 3673:) 3655:) 3640:is 3624:) 3603:) 3599:• 3573:) 3516:) 3513:やや 3455:) 3423:) 3415:-- 3346:— 3344:. 3330:– 3309:) 3261:) 3193:) 3174:. 3151:. 3048:, 2937:) 2881:) 2873:. 2843:) 2817:) 2798:) 2761:) 2705:) 2697:. 2643:) 2589:) 2543:) 2505:) 2497:. 2459:) 2384:. 2324:am 2313:) 2297:or 2257:) 2218:) 2169:) 2117:) 2088:) 2076:I 2069:) 2054:. 2038:no 1999:) 1969:| 1917:) 1875:) 1857:) 1830:) 1814:) 1766:) 1744:) 1714:) 1690:) 1663:) 1642:) 1634:-- 1616:) 1594:) 1577:) 1546:) 1494:) 1488:LK 1445:— 1401:– 1379:) 1352:) 1341:. 1301:) 1255:) 1241:) 1227:) 1209:) 1195:) 1180:) 1166:) 1152:) 1132:, 1127:— 1115:) 1093:) 1026:) 1018:. 1004:) 986:) 971:) 948:) 940:-- 922:) 899:) 852:) 786:) 741:, 737:, 733:, 719:) 676:) 642:) 605:) 575:) 516:) 484:) 444:) 428:) 420:. 408:) 400:. 362:) 296:I 284:) 268:) 212:) 185:) 147:no 90:— 74:– 3870:( 3798:( 3782:( 3765:( 3742:( 3727:( 3707:( 3697:. 3669:( 3651:( 3620:( 3595:( 3569:( 3528:: 3524:@ 3510:聖 3507:( 3451:( 3419:( 3361:ᴥ 3357:¢ 3354:☏ 3351:☺ 3305:( 3289:( 3257:( 3189:( 3185:— 2933:( 2877:( 2839:( 2832:: 2828:@ 2813:( 2794:( 2757:( 2701:( 2639:( 2585:( 2539:( 2501:( 2455:( 2309:( 2253:( 2214:( 2165:( 2113:( 2084:( 2065:( 1995:( 1965:( 1913:( 1871:( 1853:( 1842:: 1838:@ 1826:( 1810:( 1785:: 1781:@ 1762:( 1740:( 1710:( 1702:/ 1686:( 1680:: 1676:@ 1659:( 1638:( 1612:( 1590:( 1573:( 1569:. 1542:( 1490:( 1460:ᴥ 1456:¢ 1453:☏ 1450:☺ 1375:( 1348:( 1297:( 1251:( 1237:( 1223:( 1205:( 1191:( 1176:( 1162:( 1148:( 1111:( 1089:( 1060:) 1056:( 1022:( 1000:( 982:( 967:( 944:( 918:( 895:( 782:( 715:( 672:( 638:( 601:( 571:( 512:( 480:( 440:( 424:( 404:( 358:( 280:( 264:( 208:( 181:( 105:ᴥ 101:¢ 98:☏ 95:☺ 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 52 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index