Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Read through and try to get a handle on what the community thinks of that source. If there's a lot of disagreement over whether it's reliable or not, or if there's broad agreement that it's unreliable, it's best not to use it. If there is agreement that it's acceptable, then go ahead. Note that some of these discussions might be formally closed.
Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
The existence of verifiable, reliable information from which a neutral, well-referenced article can be written is an important criterion in deletion discussions, not its presence in a Wikipedia category or similarity to other articles. Similarly, that some articles on a related topic have been rejected does not mean that this one is unsuitable.
One can be of two opinions about which fact to believe, or one can withhold judgment. Perhaps the distinction you want to make is between irrefutable facts, and those facts about which there is some disagreement. A fact "about which there is disagreement" is not a fact. An irrefutable fact is a fact. Anything else is an opinion.
NPOV is an acronym for neutral point of view, which is an official policy of Wikipedia.. Everybody has a point of view. Though 99% of the world may see something exactly the way you do, your view is still just one of many possible views that might be reasonably held.
The problem with no response is that there are five possible interpretations: The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what they said." The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out.
The response usually follows these lines, Boyer said: “Because he tells it like it is, and that resonates with me.” ... But the disagreement stirs again as Aita tries to wrap that point ...
Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard.