Knowledge talk:Attribution

271:

religious topic where secular scholars disagree with relgious claims. It's important to say something to avoid saying things like "some say C but others say Y", and instead say something like like "Bob Smith, a professor of archeology and Sumerian specialist at the University of A, says 'X', or "John Jones, a theologian and professor of bible at the B Theological Seminary, says 'Y'". It would be nice if there were a quick, simple policy link that would explain why attribution is important in covering controversial subjects and diverse opinions neutrally. This page used to be the one I used. The title is valuable and represents a simple but important idea. As a result, the page's conversion to an essay represents something of a loss. Best, --

942:

if this essay were fixed so that it perfectly reflected policy, a change to the policy page would have to be reflected here, which if it is to be taken as a summary would lead to just a much debate here as in the policy pages. For example if you disagree with me and think that "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." perfectly reflect policy, then the fact that we disagree on this point only goes to show that having this at any different status from essay or historic or whatever, just means that this another area of potential disagreement. --

1664:(1)I can see how someone might infer what you have suggested, but that is not what it says. It is better that they ignore this page than mistakenly think it is part of the canon of Knowledge policies and guidelines and worse still think it has some form of consensual status. (2) I support the tag essay although it is not my first choice because it was a compromise, and I do not see that a new consensus has emerge for a change, so until a new consensus emerges I think it should remain tagged as an essay. -- 87: 807:

it is better to leave it be or it just opens up another area for people to edit war over and to find inconsistencies with policy. SV I notice that instead of answering my questions you answer with a statement that included "so I don't understand the obsession about changing it" which suggests that it is only those who disagree with you have an "obsession about changing it". It was you who after a period of

1191:

labeled as a summary because its accuracy may be questionable. Crum says he reviewed it and saw no "significant discrepancies", but anyone can say such a thing. At the least there needs to be a disclaimer that this page may not track entirely with the policy pages. Knowing Knowledge, its decentralized system allows things which are supposed to track to very easily diverge.

3523: 426:

where attribute means in-text attribution. Better to retitle this page to something which indicates that it is a summary of core policies or something, as that's what it really is, then to use a word which has a particular meaning as a synonym for verifiable or reliably sourced. Unfortunately, I have no good title ideas.

869:

since deciding what to ommit can seriously alter the interpretation. The reason this became an issue recently was that this page was being cited elsewhere as a way to create "policy" without the rigorous process of attaining consensus. This is why it is important that we follow the format described at

3012:

As I noted when you raised this issue before, the ATT page header says: "Please defer to Knowledge:Verifiability and Knowledge:No original research in case of inconsistency between those pages and this one." This ensures that even if some inconsistency creeps in, the official policies will override.

2681:

It has never been an accurate summary, that is one of the reasons it has never gain a consensus. From what you are saying it looks as if the custom box at the to needs to be augmented so that there is no confusion that this is now or has ever been gained consensus as an accurate summary of V and NOR.

1870:

I'd like to make clear for the record that the plan after the poll was to make this page policy because we did get a majority, even after a wiki-wide poll, which no one expected. The idea discussed with Jimbo was that I should set up a working party to decide how to implement it, while being careful

425:

Thus, when people talk about attributing something on Knowledge, they generally are thought to mean attributing an opinion in-text rather than presenting it as fact. I think that this page (WP:ATTRIBUTION) uses the word attribute in a confusing way, particularly given the existing jargon in Knowledge

941:

It is easy to do for example "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." primary sources may make other sorts of claims such as "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life.", but that is not the point, even

811:

when this was headed with a standard essay template who changed it from essay to a rejected status, without any form of consultation what so ever. I have asked you to show me where you think that the archives show a consensus that supports you view that it has a special status. Please show me. Here

806:

and I have not seen that there is a consensus to move from that compromise. The whole point SV is this does not "faithfully reflects two core content policies" it never has and when I tried to make it do so, you reverted those edits. Rather than having to keep it up to date with the content policies

718:

You can't call something an essay that faithfully reflects two core content policies, and that a large number of editors contributed to over many months (and which was policy for a few weeks, remember). That's not how the word "essay" is used on WP. The current tag is completely accurate, so I don't

699:

for BB's compromise solution which was the compromise which we came to and which prevailed until you unilaterally changed the banner form Essay to another one which was never agreed to other than as a temporary fix, I can find the exact discussion on this in the archive if you wish but I presume you

1879:

only happened because we inadvisedly stuck a "superseded" tag on the NOR page, which when Jimbo saw it made him think NOR had been abandoned. During the following truly insane discussion and poll, a lot of people didn't understand what was being proposed, and those of us trying to explain were half

1340:

in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger, with 102 neutral or suggesting compromises, which was not a sufficient majority. Since then, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page has held the status of a cannonical summary of the two policies. In the event of disagreement

740:

The debate regarding what to do with this page (how to conduct the big poll, to be specific) was one of the most stressful experiences that I've had at Knowledge, and to note that SlimVirgin and I didn't exactly get along swimmingly would be an understatement. But I must say that I was taken aback

1926:

If it is marked as a (live) summary then it has to kept up to date, and that probably means as many debates over its content as those on the pages it summarises. Just look how much time we are wasting deciding on its status let alone the content to the page. Lets put it back to the essay status it

868:

Ryan, it really does matter. Creating a "summary" implies that it accurately summarizes policy, which it may or may not, but requires constant energy to maintain the accuracy and update changes to policy. Summaries of critical documents including rules, professional opinions, etc. are very tricky,

1874:

That didn't happen because I couldn't stand the pettiness and I walked away from it. It saddens me to see the same attitude continuing over what to call it. This is not historical because its contents are currently policy; and it's not an essay because of the degree of consensus it attracted, the

1605:

1. Why do you expect a typical reader to know that the concepts remain active on other pages? If one sees them on this page below the statement "This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time.", the logical assumption is that the concepts

599:

SV after over a year and after a very long discussion you only just realized that since 23 July 2008 it had been marked as an essay. That was a compromise thrashed out by a lot of editors over a period of a year. I do not think you should have changed it without seeking a wider consensus than you

2997:

It was agreed to have a working group to look at it. But the working group never reported back so after a lot of back and forth, for a year and a half it was marked as an essay as a compromise. towards the end of last year SV altered its status, and more recently after another debate the current

575:

Here we go again folks... (see the archives for previous itterations of this debate... essentially they come down to: "This page is a summary of policy"... "No, it's nothing more than an essay"... "No, its a summary"... "essay"... "Summary!"... "Essay!"... "Duck season!"... "Rabbit season!")...

2087:

is like much of Knowledge space: the flat statement of a generalization, usually but not always true. How many attempts have been made to gauge consensus for deletionism or inclusionism? We all know the tesults: Neither pure position has consensus; both have advocates. Yet there are many essays

1528:

to implement something. The rejected template says: "Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time." Also David it does not say the the concepts have been rejected (they are present in other policies) it just say "This is a failed proposal". It is damaging to the

1190:

I'm sympathetic to Philip and Kevin. Of the relatively small population of Knowledge which are even aware of this page, it is obviously extremely controversial. It doesn't seem like we have the energy and time to keep this "summary" up to date and verify its accuracy. Therefore, it shouldn't be

270:

In the past, I've used "attribution" to refer to the very simple idea that folks adding content should attribute claims, particularly opinions, not just for sourcing purposes them but to identify whose opinion is involved and provide some context to help evaluate it. Thus, in a dispute on some

2926:

This was a special case. It was not a new policy — it was a merge of two existing policies into one, for simplification. It did get a majority, but not the super-majority required for the change to the new version. It was then agreed, with Jimbo's blessing, to retain this page as a "canonical

660:

Crum375: It was marked as an essay for well over a year after extensive discussions and only reverted by SV a few months ago without any wider consultation other than a statement here. So where is the consensus you claim exists expressed in an section on this talk page or in its archives? --

2662:

The concept has everything to do with this page. This page is a summary of V and NOR — two of the three core content policies. Both these policies are built around the concept of attribution, as shown in their nutshells, which I quoted above. Although the majority gained for this page as a

1905:

I did not take part in the poll over whether this should be policy or not, so I did not "win" anything (and I don't think that such terms help to build a consensus). I was in favour of the concept, but not the specific wording or the initial procedure that was used to implement it, so I

1216:) is clarify that in case of conflict, the relevant policy takes precedence. I see no problem in doing the same here: adding a note that since this page is a summary of the two parent policies, in case of conflict please consult the policies (and update the summary as needed). 741:

when I saw that the page had been labeled an "essay" (by which point I was too exhausted to argue, as I imagine was the case for many others). I strongly agree that it simply doesn't make sense to call it that. I favor tagging the page as a summary or similar, but even the

70:

in April 2007, the community voted 424 to 354 in favor of the merger (with 102 neutral or suggesting other compromises), which was not a sufficient majority. After this, at the suggestion of Jimbo Wales, the page held a unique quasi-official status as a "canonical summary".

1479:

Even the word "rejected" is misleading here, since there was a clear majority in favor, though not sufficient to meet the needed threshold. And as David says, even those who opposed didn't necessarily object to the concepts themselves, since it was mostly a format issue.

1887:

I appeal to Philip Baird Shearer to let his three-year campaign against this end. You won. It isn't policy. Instead we're stuck with two core policies that should be combined, because they only make sense when they're read together. But that's Knowledge for you.

980:

As SlimVirgin noted, this is a former policy. If it isn't an accurate summary or is unfeasible to maintain as such, it should be labeled "historical." It absolutely isn't a text for which "no formal attempt to gauge consensus has been made" (a quotation from

2645:

But that concept has nothing to do with this page or the name of this page, This page is a failed policy page. If you do not know that then I suggest we put one of the more explicit headers back onto this page so that there is no confusion over this issue. --

1035:

But it's not historical. It does summarize those two policies. This was agreed at the time with Jimbo, that this would be describe as a summary, a canonical account. I find it bizarre that Philip is still discussing this after however many years it has been.

2446:. This page is not historical, but is a summary of two of our core content policies, and "attribution" is a key concept regarding sourcing on Knowledge. It was recently decided to work on this page further, and repropose it to the community as policy. 1744:

tag (explaining that the proposal to merge the various other pages failed) would be okay too. But simply slapping on the default text ("This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time.") is

1529:

project, because it is confusing to a reader who does not know the history of this page, to give an indication that this is in anyway part of the canon of Knowledge policies and guidelines. Given the length of time that has passed I would prefer

3200:

Here's something interesting to think about: how do we determine if a published source is reliable? Do such sources tend to be considered reliable if they publish true things? If so, isn't truth still an influence on inclusion threshhold?

2544: 1293:

Both its history and its content are pretty unusual amongst project pages. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to replace its tag (summary, essay, what have you) with a description of how the page came to be, what it was, and what it

1090:

I agree. I have just read it again, and don't see any significant discrepancy from the policies it summarizes. If there is consensus here that something needs to be fixed, then we should fix it, not toss out a very useful summary.

3247:

Question: given (1) the existing signatures of all participating editors and (2) the specific notation of the transclusion and hyperlink to the original talk page discussion, does the transclusion constitute a violation of either

3241:"The foregoing discussion regarding this template was started on another talk page (see link here), and transcluded to this talk page on __________, 2015, in order to give all concerned editors the opportunity to participate." 2529:. All material in article space must be attributable to reliable sources, and anything challenged, likely to be challenged, or quoted, requires inline attribution. All other uses of the term "attribution" are secondary. 2623:. Copyrights, although important, are secondary to the need for attribution of everything we write in article space. The V nutshell says: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be 1154:

I gave an example above. But please read what I wrote about keeping it up to date (and is also expressed by ImperfectlyInformed below). I really no want to wast time on this dodo. I thought it was dead and buried. --

553:

I only just noticed someone had put an essay tag on it. It's not an essay, but a summary of two of the key policies, so I've restored the wording we created for it. I'll look around for the paragraph you mention.

2459:

I've nothing against this being re-proposed as a policy, but I would suggest a less ambiguous name. "Attribution" on-wiki is more commonly understood to mean attributing edits in terms of licensing requirements.

675:

For heaven's sake, Philip, please don't start this again. It's not an essay. It's a combination of two policies written by large numbers of people. Please just leave it tagged as such, as was agreed at the time.

2582:. As I noted above, the term "attribution" on Knowledge is primarily used to refer to the citing of reliable sources to support material in article space. All other uses of the term "attribution" are secondary. 3096:. "Attribution" among researchers, editors, and writers does indeed refer to sourcing. The current name is certainly appropriate and applicable. I see no pressing need or overriding consensus to change it. -- 2103:

There is a non-trivial distinction between something written to express an opinion (with knowledge that the general concept has been discussed) and something written to serve as an official set of actionable

3383:

The edit summary does not provide rationale for that part of the edit, particularly the change from 'reliable' to 'mainstream'. Perhaps I missed it, but I see no reference to that change in archives here.

1827:

Agreed. But rather than combining the default tags and a separate introduction, I'll create a custom tag that covers the same ground. We might not agree on a standard tag to use, but I think that we

2062:"Infinite pages of WP space"? I'm referring to the one linked via the wording that you just quoted. The information contained therein describes the widely understood nature of Knowledge essays. 1875:

amount of work a large number of editors put into it, and the fact that it was policy for a short time. It is unique. It would be policy today had it not been for an intervention from Jimbo. And

77:

is intended to be a cohesive version of the core content policies with which the Knowledge community is already familiar, discussing how these core policies work together and support each other.

2667:

was not large enough to be considered a "consensus", there is ample consensus to keep it as a summary of these two policies, and since attribution is what they are all about, so is this page.

2475:

Xeno, for content contributors, "attribution" refers to sourcing. I don't know what else we could call this if not Knowledge:Attribution, as the point of the page is to highlight that aspect.

3027:

As I said above "As I said 'See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate.'" --

656:

02:18, 21 March 2010 Crum375 (rvt -- this is not an essay; it is a summary of core policies, supported by a majority of editors; please do not change its status without a broad consensus)

1891:

There doesn't have to be a tag or a template for every single thing in the world. Please allow the top of the page to describe what it is with words that don't involve squiggly brackets.

3161:

because eventually we are going to realise that this pages explains things to newcomers better that WP:V and WP:NOR do separately, and Knowledge:Attribution is the best name for it. --

3399:

Who cares now 12 years later? This is a dead project. For it to be properly maintained, it must be kept in sync with current policies. Certainly since 2007 our policies changed A LOT.

2030:

This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion.

2032:

And every word of that would be true of this page. (Would adding that an attempt has been made and the result was not consensus help anybody? Those who care know that already.)

1812:

and a brief introduction. Other combinations will also cover the ground, and I don't really care which of them we do; but a dispute over tags seems one of the worst solutions.

3535: 2824:

As I said "See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate." --

2543:

You may think that, but then you are heavily involved in editing the policy pages. For others they may notice at the bottom of every Knowledge page is the following link

2240:

which used to occupy that space; it was proposed, accepted, much considered, rejected, made into an essay, accepted briefly, and rejected. Where it is now, I do not know.

2253:

would be acceptable for this page. I know ATT's origins, but there is no consensus that it should merge or supersede policy; and much dissent on specific provisions.

2730:

I participated in that discussion and don't recall a single example. Since you made the claim again above, would you mind just pointing out one example for us here?

2065:

Whether active or historical/failed, this is a former/defunct policy. (Whether it's a butterfly or a moth, labeling it a hornet is not a sensible "compromise.") —

1264: 219: 2206:. I created that template, so I obviously am aware that many essays expound upon policies and guidelines. By "derived," I was referring to the situation in which 2627:

to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And the NOR nut says: "Knowledge does not publish original thought: all material in Knowledge must be

1432:

tag. The proposal to have the page supersede the pages from which it was derived was rejected, but the likely interpretation on the part of someone seeing the

3476:

The diff shows that in practice this page is not maintained so it is not going to be an accurate summary of the to content policies it was supposed to replace.

2716:

See my comments the archives, and my edits in edit history. It is more trouble than it is worth arguing about how to make it accurate and keep it accurate. --

451:

Can we in addition to attributing authors discuss the quality of a source, ex. whether it discusses an issue in detail or just in passing? I raised the issue

2880:

I agree. When a policy proposal fails to gain consensus, we mark it rejected. There's no need for a failed proposal to take up valuable policy shortcuts.

452: 1202: 437: 364: 2186: 236: 229: 99: 3141: 3115:—As an FAC reviewer I have used this page as a resource. While it needs a bit of work, it should stay as is. It contains advice on key issues. 3232:"This ongoing discussion is transcluded from Talk:__________. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to this discussion. 2745: 1260: 817: 813: 696: 615: 214: 201: 196: 191: 184: 179: 174: 167: 162: 157: 1762:

tag is inappropriate. If past consensus was misguided (and I await your explanation of how it wasn't), it makes no sense to cling to it. —

150: 145: 140: 133: 128: 123: 116: 111: 106: 3310:

I just realized that I have been citing this page as the reason to keep edit histories of merged from/redirected pages, but I cannot find

2293:

is inappropriate (because it might mislead readers to believe that the actual concepts were rejected), but if there is not consensus that

2323:

tag is intended for pages that expound upon policies/guidelines, not ones that attempt to summarize them (essentially the opposite). —

3531: 3515: 3137: 2382: 3195:

The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true.

870: 289:

But there's a way: most of the language here was consensus. If you like something, propose it, or something which approaches it, at

3464: 1081:

If it's an accurate summary, I agree that it should be tagged as such. The one thing that I'm certain it isn't is an essay. —

224: 3480:

In fact one of the reasons it failed to replace V and NPOV was because it was not a "cohesive summary" and never has been. --

3283: 3032: 3003: 2829: 2753: 2721: 2687: 2651: 2556: 1932: 1669: 1564: 1389: 1329: 1272: 1160: 947: 898: 825: 705: 666: 643: 605: 55: 2810:

I read it. I still can't see any example why ATT is not a good summary of NOR and V. Can you mention just one such example?

1880:

exhausted, half demented, and couldn't get the message across. And so the day was lost. What happened really was a case of "

1198: 433: 360: 3220:

Feedback of knowledgeable editors is sought regarding the transclusion of one talk page discussion to another, wherein

2551:

not to this page (see the sentence: "Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author". --

1881: 3223:(1) all talk page comments have been previously signed and dated by those editors participating in the discussion; and 3182:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2355:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1993:

Please explain how it's accurate to claim that "no formal attempt to gauge consensus has been made" (a quotation from

1721:

It isn't a problem if someone ignores this page. The problem is that they would ignore the concepts contained therein.

751:

tag (or a variant explaining the situation) would be less misleading than conveying that the content was written as an

2417: 2378: 1921:

or some similar some editors are confused and link to this page from policy and guidelines pages as if it were policy.

848:

In July 2008 when this was put to bed. Kevin Murray summed up my position on this issue and I still think it is true:

1994: 1337: 982: 752: 67: 59: 3028: 2999: 2825: 2749: 2717: 2683: 2647: 2552: 1928: 1665: 1560: 1385: 1384:: "This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time." -- 1268: 1156: 943: 907:

Philip, would you mind pointing out where this summary fails to reflect the core policies it summarizes? Thanks,

894: 821: 701: 662: 639: 601: 2506:

Gigs, I don't even know where to begin with that comment. That's what verifiability means onWP, and always has.

1848:. More informative and fitting than any of "essay", "failed", "historical", or other options so far proposed.-- 246: 3546: 2193: 2153: 2152:

On the other hand, many essays contain content "derived primarily from active policies/guidelines"; some, like

1267:

reporting back. It never happened, so under what justification do you claim a special status for this page? --

1192: 427: 354: 2182:

is an active page backed by consensus. But it was proposed (and briefly implemented) as an actionable policy.

873:

and not subvert them to find the more cozy and polite avenue. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

3279: 2548: 1325: 51: 3457:

So I have removed the sentence from the nutshell that was added some time between those edits that stated "

1971:

is an incomplete description of this page, but it is accurate: some (even many) editors do agree with it.

1853: 1299: 1239: 508: 395: 391: 383: 276: 1953:

as amendments to existing policy. This page is not a current summary, but it could be a very useful mine.

3503: 3425: 3415: 3264: 2374: 2365: 2294: 2207: 2179: 2108: 1333: 535: 43: 3428:. For historical purposes, I'm trying to track down the rationale. Any help would be appreciated. thx, 3499: 3411: 3538:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3278:

This is definitely not the place to post this. This is the talk page for a failed proposal to merge

2574:

This page is a summary of two of the core sourcing policies which describe the need for attribution,

2258: 2161: 2138:

But, whatever this is, it's not a set of actionable rules, and it is not consensus (although, again,

2093: 2037: 1976: 1817: 1212:

All guidelines on Knowledge must track their governing policies, and what we do in those cases (e.g.

302: 3314:

in this page that information is located. Is this information here anywhere, or us on another page?

2702:": Would you mind pointing out one item in WP:ATT which doesn't properly summarize WP:V and WP:NOR? 3541: 3433: 3389: 3350: 3325: 3166: 3013:

And if you can't find a single inconsistency at the moment as example, I guess that's a good sign.

2620: 2396:(originally written at 18:23, 30 March 2010, resigned after it was made into a formal move request) 2317: 2247: 2200: 1796: 1728: 1543: 992: 780: 745: 622: 500: 492: 399: 346: 2521:

Not at all. "Attribution" on wiki primarily means the citing of material to reliable sources, per

1559:

was the last consensus compromise I am willing to support keeping that at the top of the page. --

3149: 2145:

Many essays have indeed been policies or guidelines; the only example I can think of off-hand is

1324:

We could write at the top of the article: "In February 2007, after several months of discussion,

985:). In fact, it was the subject of one of Knowledge's most extensive attempts to gauge consensus. 585: 480: 252: 17: 3402:

Anyway, do you see anything wrong with this change? IMO it is OK. Current events are a red flag

3372:" to "surprising or apparently important reports of historical events not covered by mainstream 2596:

Really? Can you verify that somehow? What I can verify is that the word "Attribution" - in the

2402:

I agree. Attribution generally refers to the copyright concept around here, not to citations.

3368:

changed "surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable

3256: 3249: 3018: 2988: 2960: 2932: 2815: 2735: 2707: 2672: 2636: 2587: 2534: 2237: 1849: 1533: 1485: 1436: 1378: 1295: 1235: 1221: 1096: 912: 790: 632: 504: 462: 332: 272: 63: 2492:, when SlimVirgin herself changed WP:V to emphasize attribution rather than verifiability. 2149:, since abandoned. It is true that this tends to be a transitional state; but it need not be. 3260: 3255:

Please note: I a simultaneously posting this request for feedback here and the talk page of

3140:

is fine at its current name. I worked on rescoping/renaming it for a few days a while back (

2361: 2146: 531: 519: 248: 86: 24: 1259:

you have been pushing for this page to have a special status for years why? SV please read

3206: 3123: 2507: 2476: 2447: 2324: 2301: 2287: 2254: 2223: 2211: 2157: 2126: 2089: 2084: 2066: 2033: 1998: 1972: 1892: 1832: 1813: 1806: 1763: 1738: 1620: 1443: 1342: 1082: 1037: 999: 756: 720: 677: 614:

As you seem to have been absent for the second half of the conversations now archived see

555: 298: 2125:

policies)? Do any comprise content derived primarily from active policies/guidelines? —

1718:

1. You "can see how someone might infer what have suggested," and you're okay with that?

1263:

the status of this page being anything other than an essay or historical depended on the

475:

This sounds like a way to "discredit" sources... which is a subtle form of POV pushing.

3429: 3385: 3377: 3340: 3315: 3162: 3103: 3084: 3079:

since we are doing the bolded vote thing, if it wasn't clear already from my comments.

2974: 2946: 2885: 2612: 2497: 2468: 2432: 2407: 2393: 2115: 2022: 1965: 1915: 1756: 1613: 1553: 1426: 800: 527: 523: 403: 316: 3485: 3454:

between Revision as of 22:15, 25 March 2010 and Revision as of 09:27, 20 June 2019.

3336: 3291: 3145: 2579: 2526: 581: 476: 74: 3473:

Because this talk page clearly show that there was no consensus for such a statement

812:

is the archive sections were it was agreed to make the page as an essay: Archive 18

3014: 2984: 2956: 2928: 2811: 2731: 2703: 2668: 2632: 2583: 2530: 1946: 1524:

I should invite Kim to respond you Crum375 ;-) "rejected" does not say a consensus

1481: 1256: 1217: 1213: 1092: 908: 458: 398:. From looking at the history of these shortcuts it's not clear how or even if the 328: 324: 294: 3424:

AFAICS, this was where 'mainstream' was introduced on the way to its inclusion in

286:

I agree... but unfortunately several others did not. 00:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

250: 3553: 3527: 3507: 3489: 3437: 3419: 3393: 3354: 3329: 3295: 3268: 3210: 3170: 3153: 3128: 3107: 3088: 3036: 3022: 3007: 2992: 2978: 2964: 2950: 2936: 2889: 2833: 2819: 2757: 2739: 2725: 2711: 2691: 2676: 2655: 2640: 2631:

to a reliable, published source". This is the key to our sourcing requirements.

2614: 2601: 2591: 2575: 2560: 2538: 2522: 2514: 2501: 2483: 2470: 2454: 2434: 2411: 2369: 2327: 2262: 2214: 2210:

was compiled from other pages with the intention of merging/superseding them. —

2165: 2129: 2097: 2069: 2041: 2001: 1980: 1950: 1936: 1899: 1857: 1835: 1821: 1766: 1673: 1623: 1568: 1489: 1446: 1393: 1349: 1303: 1276: 1243: 1225: 1206: 1164: 1109: 1100: 1085: 1044: 1002: 951: 916: 902: 829: 759: 727: 709: 684: 670: 647: 609: 589: 562: 539: 512: 484: 469: 441: 368: 350: 336: 320: 306: 290: 280: 755:(something for which "no formal attempt to gauge consensus has been made"). — 3373: 3369: 3202: 3142:

WT:Copying within Knowledge#Article history cleanup, future Revision deletions

3116: 2545:

Knowledge:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

1831:

agree that it makes sense to include a straightforward explanation instead. —

1106: 1619:

tag is inappropriate. It's unhelpful to blindly abide by a past decision. —

3407: 3098: 3080: 2970: 2942: 2881: 2605: 2493: 2461: 2425: 2403: 2386: 1927:

had (as a compromise wording) for fifteen months and let it slumber on. --

3481: 3287: 2142:

of it are). It is the opinion of several editors, controverted by others.

3522: 1941:

This page is not consensus as a whole; it is unlikely ever to be. Large

2600:

sense - appears at the bottom of every single Knowledge page. See also

402:

shortcut ever went to that paragraph. But the title to that section of

3226:(2) the following notation is included in the transcluded discussion: 690:

Please show me where in these talk archives it was agreed at the time.

618:

for BB's compromise solution which I for one was not keen on I wanted

2927:

summary" of the policies, to help newcomers understand them better.

1945:

of it are consensus, are well-phrased, and should be recommended to

3252:

or WP:ATTRIB? Thank you, in advance, for any feedback provided.

1341:

between this page and the policies, the policies take precedence."

2156:

are designed that way, to serve as a summary of the policy pages.

3178:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.

2018:

I didn't say anything about the infinite pages of WP space; what

2488:

It looks like "attribution" has only been a "key concept" since

3526:

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

3361:

Where was the rationale for this change specifically discussed?

1724:

Please keep in mind that I'm fine with a custom variant of the

998:

tag (or a custom variant explaining the situation), so am I. —

353:. What the heck happened, and where did that old paragraph go? 3536:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 7#Knowledge:A

1422:

That would be even more misleading than the highly misleading

253: 80: 378:

lower down this page for a further discussion on this issue.

2189:

is tagged as a guideline. To what essay are you referring?

1105:

Agree. PBS, why do you not think this summary is accurate?

3216:

Talk page transclusion: is it a COPYVIO or ATTRIB problem?

2297:

is an active summary, I'm fine with a custom tag based on

638:, but I could live with it if it put this page to bed. -- 2283:

1. As stated above, I agree that the standard wording of

697:

Knowledge talk:Attribution/Archive 18#What about "Essay"?

616:

Knowledge talk:Attribution/Archive 18#What about "Essay"?

3451: 3365: 2489: 2360:

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. --

1845: 808: 411: 407: 345:

I also agree with Shirahadasha. I just discovered that

30: 2349:

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal.

349:

redirects to essentially a less well-written copy of

42:

In February 2007, after four months of discussion at

3498:. This is a historical page and let it be as such. 2232:2. Ah, I see there has been some rearrangement. I 2121:tag were formally proposed as policies (let alone 2088:explaining both positions, and shades in between. 1911:The archives show that without a clear label like 3380:". thx, Humanengr 15:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 1442:tag is that the actual concepts were rejected. — 1609:2. You haven't addressed my point about why the 1549:as it was policy for a very short time) but as 857: 420:in-text attribution of controversial statements 2307:explaining the page's unusual nature/history. 311:I suspect that Shirahadasha's desired use of 8: 2310:2. I'm unfamiliar with the page in question. 719:understand the obsession about changing it. 2748:-- One that you did not participate in. -- 2983:Mostly this talk page. Read the archives. 1752:haven't addressed my point about why the 390:The paragraph Shirahadasha is looking is 2187:Knowledge:Naming conventions (Macedonia) 1374:Or we can be more honest and mark it as 600:did. I have put it back to an essay. -- 528:Journal of Combinatorial Theory-Series A 2083:Upon consideration, the quotation from 816:and immediately following that section 447:Can we discuss the quality of a source? 3467:, a discussion how they work together. 375: 2746:Knowledge talk:Attribution/Archive 15 2700:It has never been an accurate summary 1871:to preserve the status of NOR and V. 459:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 406:, "Attributing..." has existed since 7: 3459:As a result, this page is kept as a 3450:This page is not maintained see the 1882:all for the want of a horseshoe nail 414:uses the word attribute frequently, 3286:which did not gain a consensus. -- 526:, so it must be more reliable than 230:Role of truth in Knowledge policies 2383:Knowledge:Copying within Knowledge 503:be regarded as a reliable source? 14: 796:but the consensus compromise was 386:) compared to this page; retitle? 3534:. This discussion will occur at 3521: 2418:Knowledge:Attributing statements 2379:Knowledge:Attributing statements 2236:the guideline much discussed at 1606:were proposed here and rejected. 85: 2416:Made a formal requested move: " 1336:, which became policy. After a 3438:02:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC) 3420:02:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC) 3394:22:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC) 3284:Knowledge:No original research 1734:tag. A custom variant of the 307:18:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 56:Knowledge:No original research 1: 3296:11:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 3269:10:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC) 590:15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 563:09:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 442:05:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC) 369:08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 337:12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC) 237:Archive index (bot-generated) 50:agreed on a means of merging 3138:WP:Copying within Knowledge 2398:15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2229:, which seems...incomplete. 695:As I said above please see 281:23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) 3569: 3355:19:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 3330:19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) 3129:02:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 3108:22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 3089:19:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 3023:00:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC) 3008:22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2993:01:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2979:01:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2965:01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2951:01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2937:01:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2890:00:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2834:22:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2820:22:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2758:21:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2740:00:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2726:00:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2712:00:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2692:23:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2677:22:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2656:22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2641:21:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2615:19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2592:19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2561:00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 2539:19:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2515:21:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2502:19:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2484:22:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2471:18:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2455:16:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2435:15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2412:14:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 2328:22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 2263:20:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 2215:15:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 2166:05:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 2130:19:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 2098:17:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 2070:16:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 2042:15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 2002:23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1995:Knowledge:Knowledge essays 1981:22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1937:10:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1900:18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1858:04:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC) 1836:22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 1822:21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC) 1767:00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 1674:00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 1624:23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1569:22:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1490:15:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1447:14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1394:10:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC) 1350:18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1304:07:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1277:06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1244:05:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1226:03:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1207:03:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1165:06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1110:02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1101:02:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1086:02:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1045:02:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 1003:01:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 983:Knowledge:Knowledge essays 952:01:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 917:00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 903:00:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 871:WP:Policies and guidelines 830:00:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 760:12:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 728:11:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 710:11:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 685:10:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 671:06:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 648:02:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 610:02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 576:seriously, does it really 540:23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 524:thumbs up for this journal 513:23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 485:16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 470:16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 455:. Comments appreciated. -- 60:Knowledge:Reliable sources 58:, while also streamlining 48:Knowledge talk:Attribution 15: 3508:20:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC) 3490:09:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC) 2604:. Note the first entry. – 2219:1 That's an argument for 2111:, what pages bearing the 988:So if you're okay with a 46:, a number of editors at 3554:17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC) 3516:Redirects for discussion 3514:"Knowledge:A" listed at 3211:00:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 3180:Please do not modify it. 2370:19:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) 2352:Please do not modify it. 2194:Knowledge:Official names 3530:and has thus listed it 3446:Not an accurate summary 3280:Knowledge:Verifiability 3171:11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 3154:04:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) 3037:12:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC) 2549:Attribution (copyright) 2385:should be moved here. – 2178:1. I don't assert that 652:From the edit history: 225:Poll on proposed merger 52:Knowledge:Verifiability 884: 814:What about an "Essay"? 62:into a simpler FAQ at 39:Editors, please note: 3465:core content policies 2375:Knowledge:Attribution 2295:Knowledge:Attribution 2208:Knowledge:Attribution 2180:Knowledge:Attribution 2109:Knowledge:Attribution 1844:Big thumbs up on the 776:I am willing to have 382:Attributing in-text ( 44:Knowledge:Attribution 3463:of these two of our 2998:banner was added. -- 1330:No original research 319:and balance than to 220:Community discussion 1261:/Archive 18#Status? 501:Rejecta Mathematica 493:Rejecta Mathematica 315:is more related to 3306:I can find this... 2547:and that links to 495:a reliable source? 412:original NPOV page 408:at least July 2006 2941:Agreed by whom? 2513: 2482: 2453: 2420:" can house this 2397: 2261: 2164: 2154:WP:Official names 2096: 2040: 1979: 1898: 1820: 1348: 1043: 726: 683: 561: 546:Status March 2010 376:Status March 2010 305: 259: 258: 207: 206: 3560: 3552: 3549: 3544: 3525: 3468: 3461:cohesive summary 3347: 3322: 3144:), but gave up. 3126: 3121: 2744:See for example 2610: 2512: 2510: 2481: 2479: 2466: 2452: 2450: 2430: 2395: 2391: 2354: 2342:Vacate this page 2322: 2316: 2306: 2300: 2292: 2286: 2257: 2252: 2246: 2228: 2222: 2205: 2199: 2160: 2120: 2114: 2092: 2036: 2027: 2021: 1975: 1970: 1964: 1920: 1914: 1897: 1895: 1816: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1795: 1761: 1755: 1743: 1737: 1733: 1727: 1618: 1612: 1558: 1552: 1548: 1542: 1538: 1532: 1441: 1435: 1431: 1425: 1383: 1377: 1347: 1345: 1328:was merged with 1195: 1042: 1040: 997: 991: 809:nearly 16 months 805: 799: 795: 789: 785: 779: 750: 744: 725: 723: 682: 680: 637: 631: 627: 621: 560: 558: 520:Doron Zeilberger 467: 465: 430: 374:See the section 357: 301: 254: 103: 102: 89: 81: 33: 3568: 3567: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3547: 3542: 3539: 3519: 3458: 3448: 3363: 3341: 3316: 3308: 3218: 3191: 3186: 3136:, I think that 3124: 3117: 2955:The community. 2606: 2508: 2477: 2462: 2448: 2426: 2387: 2381:— I think that 2350: 2344: 2320: 2314: 2304: 2298: 2290: 2284: 2255:Septentrionalis 2250: 2244: 2226: 2220: 2203: 2197: 2158:Septentrionalis 2118: 2112: 2090:Septentrionalis 2034:Septentrionalis 2025: 2019: 1973:Septentrionalis 1968: 1962: 1918: 1912: 1893: 1868: 1814:Septentrionalis 1809: 1803: 1799: 1793: 1759: 1753: 1741: 1735: 1731: 1725: 1616: 1610: 1556: 1550: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1530: 1439: 1433: 1429: 1423: 1381: 1375: 1343: 1234:Works for me.-- 1193: 1038: 995: 989: 803: 797: 793: 787: 783: 777: 748: 742: 721: 700:remember it. -- 678: 635: 629: 625: 619: 556: 548: 497: 468: 463: 457: 449: 428: 396:WP:SUBSTANTIATE 392:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 388: 384:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 355: 299:Septentrionalis 268: 260: 255: 249: 240: 94: 37: 36: 29: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3566: 3564: 3532:for discussion 3518: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3447: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3426:WP:EXCEPTIONAL 3406:(i.e., beware 3400: 3378:historiography 3366:This 2007 edit 3362: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3307: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3217: 3214: 3198: 3197: 3190: 3187: 3185: 3184: 3174: 3173: 3156: 3131: 3110: 3091: 3072: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2486: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2358: 2357: 2345: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2311: 2308: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2241: 2230: 2190: 2183: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2150: 2143: 2133: 2132: 2105: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2063: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1923: 1922: 1908: 1907: 1867: 1866:For the record 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1839: 1838: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1746: 1722: 1719: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1607: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1338:wiki-wide poll 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1229: 1228: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1103: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 986: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 954: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 856: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 733: 732: 731: 730: 713: 712: 692: 691: 658: 657: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 568: 567: 566: 565: 547: 544: 543: 542: 522:has given his 496: 489: 488: 487: 456: 448: 445: 387: 380: 372: 371: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 267: 264: 262: 257: 256: 251: 247: 245: 242: 241: 234: 233: 232: 227: 222: 217: 209: 208: 205: 204: 199: 194: 188: 187: 182: 177: 171: 170: 165: 160: 154: 153: 148: 143: 137: 136: 131: 126: 120: 119: 114: 109: 96: 95: 90: 84: 79: 68:wiki-wide poll 35: 34: 27: 21: 16: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3565: 3556: 3555: 3551: 3550: 3545: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3524: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3475: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3455: 3453: 3445: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3346: 3345: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3321: 3320: 3313: 3305: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3253: 3251: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3224: 3221: 3215: 3213: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3196: 3193: 3192: 3188: 3183: 3181: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3157: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3132: 3130: 3127: 3122: 3120: 3114: 3111: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3095: 3092: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2609: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2570: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2511: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2480: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2465: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2451: 2445: 2442: 2441: 2436: 2433: 2431: 2429: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2394: 2392: 2390: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2356: 2353: 2347: 2346: 2341: 2329: 2326: 2319: 2312: 2309: 2303: 2296: 2289: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2249: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2225: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2202: 2196:is labeled a 2195: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2117: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2086: 2071: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2024: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1967: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1925: 1924: 1917: 1910: 1909: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1889: 1885: 1883: 1878: 1872: 1865: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1808: 1798: 1768: 1765: 1758: 1751: 1747: 1745:unacceptable. 1740: 1730: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1625: 1622: 1615: 1608: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1555: 1545: 1535: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1448: 1445: 1438: 1428: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1380: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1351: 1346: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326:Verifiability 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1265:Working party 1262: 1258: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1111: 1108: 1104: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1089: 1088: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1046: 1041: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1004: 1001: 994: 987: 984: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 953: 949: 945: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 918: 914: 910: 906: 905: 904: 900: 896: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 872: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 858: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 831: 827: 823: 819: 818:Protected (3) 815: 810: 802: 792: 782: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 761: 758: 754: 747: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 729: 724: 717: 716: 715: 714: 711: 707: 703: 698: 694: 693: 689: 688: 687: 686: 681: 673: 672: 668: 664: 655: 654: 653: 650: 649: 645: 641: 634: 624: 617: 612: 611: 607: 603: 591: 587: 583: 579: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 564: 559: 552: 551: 550: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 514: 510: 506: 502: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 473: 472: 471: 466: 460: 454: 446: 444: 443: 439: 435: 431: 423: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 385: 381: 379: 377: 370: 366: 362: 358: 352: 348: 344: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 314: 310: 309: 308: 304: 300: 296: 292: 288: 287: 285: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 265: 263: 244: 243: 239: 238: 231: 228: 226: 223: 221: 218: 216: 213: 212: 211: 210: 203: 200: 198: 195: 193: 190: 189: 186: 183: 181: 178: 176: 173: 172: 169: 166: 164: 161: 159: 156: 155: 152: 149: 147: 144: 142: 139: 138: 135: 132: 130: 127: 125: 122: 121: 118: 115: 113: 110: 108: 105: 104: 101: 98: 97: 93: 88: 83: 82: 78: 76: 72: 69: 65: 61: 57: 53: 49: 45: 40: 32: 28: 26: 23: 22: 19: 3540: 3520: 3495: 3479: 3460: 3456: 3449: 3403: 3382: 3364: 3343: 3342: 3335:...Possible 3318: 3317: 3311: 3309: 3254: 3246: 3225: 3222: 3219: 3199: 3194: 3179: 3177: 3158: 3133: 3118: 3112: 3097: 3093: 3076: 3071: 2699: 2664: 2629:attributable 2628: 2624: 2607: 2597: 2571: 2463: 2443: 2427: 2421: 2388: 2373: 2359: 2351: 2348: 2233: 2139: 2122: 2082: 2029: 1942: 1890: 1886: 1876: 1873: 1869: 1850:Father Goose 1828: 1791: 1749: 1525: 1332:and renamed 1296:Father Goose 1236:Father Goose 1189: 674: 659: 651: 613: 598: 577: 505:VictorPorton 498: 450: 424: 419: 415: 400:WP:ATTRIBUTE 389: 373: 347:WP:ATTRIBUTE 312: 273:Shirahadasha 269: 261: 235: 91: 73: 47: 41: 38: 3528:Knowledge:A 3500:Staszek Lem 3412:Staszek Lem 3261:Dirtlawyer1 3134:Weak oppose 2621:Attribution 2602:Attribution 2362:RegentsPark 2107:Apart from 1334:Attribution 532:Count Iblis 313:attribution 266:Use of term 3543:interstate 3374:news media 3370:news media 3257:WP:COPYVIO 3250:WP:COPYVIO 3189:A versus B 2625:attributed 2509:SlimVirgin 2478:SlimVirgin 2449:SlimVirgin 2422:historical 2325:David Levy 2318:supplement 2259:PMAnderson 2248:supplement 2238:WP:ARBMAC2 2212:David Levy 2201:supplement 2162:PMAnderson 2127:David Levy 2094:PMAnderson 2067:David Levy 2038:PMAnderson 1999:David Levy 1977:PMAnderson 1906:abstained. 1894:SlimVirgin 1846:custom tag 1833:David Levy 1818:PMAnderson 1797:supplement 1764:David Levy 1729:historical 1621:David Levy 1544:historical 1444:David Levy 1344:SlimVirgin 1083:David Levy 1039:SlimVirgin 1000:David Levy 993:historical 781:historical 757:David Levy 746:historical 722:SlimVirgin 679:SlimVirgin 623:historical 557:SlimVirgin 410:, and the 303:PMAnderson 215:Popculture 202:Archive 18 197:Archive 17 192:Archive 16 185:Archive 15 180:Archive 14 175:Archive 13 168:Archive 12 163:Archive 11 158:Archive 10 64:WP:ATT/FAQ 3430:Humanengr 3408:fake news 3386:Humanengr 3344:Steel1943 3319:Steel1943 3163:SmokeyJoe 2619:See also 2598:licensing 2490:April 9th 2147:WP:MOSMAC 1792:I've put 151:Archive 9 146:Archive 8 141:Archive 7 134:Archive 6 129:Archive 5 124:Archive 4 117:Archive 3 112:Archive 2 107:Archive 1 18:Shortcuts 3496:Seconded 3146:Flatscan 2085:WP:Essay 2028:says is 1534:rejected 1437:rejected 1379:rejected 791:rejected 633:rejected 582:Blueboar 477:Blueboar 418:meaning 92:Archives 3077:Support 3015:Crum375 2985:Crum375 2969:Where? 2957:Crum375 2929:Crum375 2812:Crum375 2732:Crum375 2704:Crum375 2669:Crum375 2633:Crum375 2584:Crum375 2531:Crum375 2424:page. – 2313:3. The 1748:2. You 1482:Crum375 1257:Crum375 1218:Crum375 1093:Crum375 909:Crum375 499:Should 404:WP:NPOV 329:Rumping 317:WP:NPOV 66:. In a 3404:per se 3337:WP:CWW 3159:Oppose 3125:(talk) 3113:Oppose 3094:Oppose 2665:policy 2580:WP:NOR 2572:Oppose 2527:WP:NOR 2444:Oppose 2302:failed 2288:failed 2224:failed 2104:rules. 1807:failed 1739:failed 1107:Jayjg 578:matter 416:always 323:or to 75:WP:ATT 31:WT:ATT 3312:where 3203:Ranze 2234:meant 2140:parts 2116:essay 2023:essay 1997:). — 1966:essay 1947:WP:OR 1943:parts 1916:essay 1757:essay 1750:still 1614:essay 1554:essay 1427:essay 1294:is.-- 1214:WP:RS 820:. -- 801:essay 753:essay 518:Yes, 464:talk 327:. -- 325:WP:OR 295:WP:OR 100:Index 54:with 3548:five 3504:talk 3486:talk 3452:diff 3434:talk 3416:talk 3390:talk 3351:talk 3326:talk 3292:talk 3282:and 3265:talk 3207:talk 3167:talk 3150:talk 3119:Tony 3104:talk 3099:Cirt 3085:talk 3081:Gigs 3033:talk 3019:talk 3004:talk 2989:talk 2975:talk 2971:Gigs 2961:talk 2947:talk 2943:Gigs 2933:talk 2886:talk 2882:Gigs 2830:talk 2816:talk 2754:talk 2736:talk 2722:talk 2708:talk 2688:talk 2673:talk 2652:talk 2637:talk 2608:xeno 2588:talk 2578:and 2576:WP:V 2557:talk 2535:talk 2525:and 2523:WP:V 2498:talk 2494:Gigs 2464:xeno 2428:xeno 2408:talk 2404:Gigs 2389:xeno 2366:talk 2123:made 1951:WP:V 1949:and 1933:talk 1877:that 1854:talk 1670:talk 1565:talk 1539:(or 1486:talk 1390:talk 1300:talk 1273:talk 1240:talk 1222:talk 1161:talk 1097:talk 948:talk 913:talk 899:talk 826:talk 706:talk 667:talk 644:talk 606:talk 586:talk 536:talk 509:talk 481:talk 453:here 351:WP:V 333:talk 321:WP:V 291:WP:V 277:talk 25:WT:A 3482:PBS 3410:). 3376:or 3288:PBS 3259:. 3029:PBS 3000:PBS 2826:PBS 2750:PBS 2718:PBS 2684:PBS 2682:-- 2648:PBS 2553:PBS 2243:3. 2192:3. 2185:2. 1929:PBS 1884:". 1829:can 1666:PBS 1561:PBS 1526:not 1386:PBS 1269:PBS 1197:| ( 1157:PBS 944:PBS 895:PBS 822:PBS 786:or 702:PBS 663:PBS 640:PBS 628:or 602:PBS 491:Is 432:| ( 422:. 359:| ( 293:or 3506:) 3488:) 3469:" 3436:) 3418:) 3392:) 3353:) 3339:? 3328:) 3294:) 3267:) 3209:) 3169:) 3152:) 3106:) 3087:) 3035:) 3021:) 3006:) 2991:) 2977:) 2963:) 2949:) 2935:) 2888:) 2832:) 2818:) 2756:) 2738:) 2724:) 2710:) 2690:) 2675:) 2654:) 2639:) 2590:) 2559:) 2537:) 2500:) 2410:) 2377:→ 2368:) 2321:}} 2315:{{ 2305:}} 2299:{{ 2291:}} 2285:{{ 2251:}} 2245:{{ 2227:}} 2221:{{ 2204:}} 2198:{{ 2119:}} 2113:{{ 2026:}} 2020:{{ 1969:}} 1963:{{ 1935:) 1919:}} 1913:{{ 1856:) 1810:}} 1804:{{ 1802:, 1800:}} 1794:{{ 1760:}} 1754:{{ 1742:}} 1736:{{ 1732:}} 1726:{{ 1672:) 1617:}} 1611:{{ 1567:) 1557:}} 1551:{{ 1547:}} 1541:{{ 1537:}} 1531:{{ 1488:) 1440:}} 1434:{{ 1430:}} 1424:{{ 1392:) 1382:}} 1376:{{ 1302:) 1275:) 1242:) 1224:) 1205:) 1201:- 1194:II 1163:) 1099:) 996:}} 990:{{ 950:) 915:) 901:) 893:-- 828:) 804:}} 798:{{ 794:}} 788:{{ 784:}} 778:{{ 749:}} 743:{{ 708:) 669:) 646:) 636:}} 630:{{ 626:}} 620:{{ 608:) 588:) 580:? 538:) 530:. 511:) 483:) 440:) 436:- 429:II 367:) 363:- 356:II 335:) 297:. 279:) 3502:( 3484:( 3432:( 3414:( 3388:( 3349:( 3324:( 3290:( 3263:( 3205:( 3165:( 3148:( 3102:( 3083:( 3031:( 3017:( 3002:( 2987:( 2973:( 2959:( 2945:( 2931:( 2884:( 2828:( 2814:( 2752:( 2734:( 2720:( 2706:( 2698:" 2686:( 2671:( 2650:( 2635:( 2586:( 2555:( 2533:( 2496:( 2460:– 2406:( 2364:( 1931:( 1852:( 1668:( 1563:( 1484:( 1388:( 1298:( 1271:( 1238:( 1220:( 1203:c 1199:t 1159:( 1095:( 946:( 911:( 897:( 824:( 704:( 665:( 642:( 604:( 584:( 534:( 507:( 479:( 461:| 438:c 434:t 394:/ 365:c 361:t 331:( 275:(

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