ARTIKELDIGITAL.COM

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far...

text violates WP:NPOV. Specifically, it violates WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:GEVAL. WP:DUE says Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not...

of the NIV study Bible ([5] [6]), and same general WP:IDHT regarding WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC) Same flippant comparisons...

followers, so are we going to add each of them who are popular? Wikipedia:GEVAL needs to be checked. If still so important, it should be merged into "Pantheism"...

(UTC) Delete: Selection and grouping of items violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, and is not based on any such listing or grouping in reliable...

appropriate to omit the information in the lower quality sources, per WP:GEVAL, or the rare minority source, per WP:DUE. If equally reliable sources disagree...

to Windows 8.1#Update. WP:DUPLICATE is not the only problem. There is WP:GEVAL problem and this article has zero chance of ever getting to class C state...

contested Sanskritisation thesis as fact in violation of WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. It is also anachronistic original research and synthesis, folding the customs...

resulting in a misleading summary. An example is presenting a false balance (WP:GEVAL) to suggest an important controversy that is not shared by experts in the...

archaeological debate between Mormons and archaeologists" even that is WP:GEVAL, there's no legitimate scientific debate in relation to that pseudoarchaeology...

given source's reliability. Consider balance, taking in consideration WP:GEVAL and WP:MNA. If you have reliable contradictory sources and the sources used...

there is any unique, reliably sourced information here that passes our WP:GEVAL and WP:NOTNEWS policies and isn't already included in Stop the Steal, it...

of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V:, or bluntly violating WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL. The main instrument in feigning credibility seems to consist in interpretations...

the viewpoint they represent" is simply wrong, since for fringe topics WP:GEVAL has: ... plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized...

stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its...

to use here in developing content in other articles, especially with WP:GEVAL policy in mind that the author seems to still to not understand. Kingofaces43...

topic in ways that appeared DUE at the time. Other concerns were WP:NOT, WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTNEWS. —PaleoNeonate – 08:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC) I'll also note...

"shares both of our opinion" - Wikipedia does not operate that way, see WP:GEVAL. If scientific consensus is on one side, and the opposing view is not backed...

Comments: SPA not only edit warring, but refactoring content per POV & GEVAL. Clearly NOTHERE. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Page protected...

78.108.252 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC) See WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:V, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTCENSORED. Wikipedia is not a platform for any politician, all...

additional refs I had added. The intention to keep trying to force a WP:GEVAL perspective into WP about Vaxxed is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 13...

interpretations -- That's fine for one's personal beliefs, but goes against WP:GEVAL, the very reason why we present evolution as a fact and young earth creationism...

argument". Do not reward this blatant attempt at gaming 3RR to overturn both WP:GEVAL and WP:ONUS; I suggest an immediate WP:BOOMERANG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:58...

for divisive subject with two strongly-entrenched 'camps', it's not as WP:GEVAL in the real world than you would like to portray it (a clue is where they...

pages and pages of debate pretty much proves it. You keep bringing up WP:GEVAL as if it means something in this context. When you label a political belief...

undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs...

February 2015 (UTC) Addendum: I could imagine that this edit goes against WP:GEVAL in the intro, but I'd have to study the article in fuller detail to make...

scientific consensus was presented as someone's belief (but WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL already cover this particular case). The above is for when claims are really...

the policies that apply are WP:PSCI, MOS:LEAD, MOS:BEGIN, WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:FRINGE – and the support arguments strongly leant on them. Several...

- number getalenteerde - talented getallen - numbers getraind - trained geval - case gevallen - cases gevechtsvliegtuig - fighter plane geven - to give...

page, who presents sources about complaints filed as evidence of fraud (WP:GEVAL disputes). Others included these quotes: "Whatever your motives, you and...

editor has no clue about standards for scientific sourcing, or about WP:GEVAL but if that gets weaponized into arguments on Wikipedia then it becomes...

borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE....

all. What hgilbert expresses would result in content with WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL problems. What appears to be happening is that hgilbert is arguing for the...

Assistance/Requests, with no prior involvement. I have explained WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and WP:RS to the IP over and over. His response, every time, is...

Doug's reply). Of course nothing will satisfy 10, 11 (this one argues for WP:GEVAL among proponent sources and academic ones). The above included a WP:POINTY...

came into the article hot as a new editor and just doesn't seem to get WP:GEVAL in this topic (similar to climate change, evolution, and other science articles...

don't attempt to 'balance' articles in the way that you suggest. Per WP:GEVAL, we should be aiming to identify and use the best mainstream sources that...

contribs) 21:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC) (Anyone else hear quacking?) Per WP:GEVAL, we do not give paranoid delusions equal validity to accepted facts. 9/11...

the referendum here where it is immaterial other than an attempt at WP:GEVAL. The section is dedicated to discussing the context, circumstances, and...

SARS [195] and his edits were in the opposite direction of NPOV (per WP:GEVAL), so a formal warning about promoting pseudoscience would seem appropriate...

--Broter (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Your edits went well beyond WP:GEVAL into WP:UNDUE worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Comment...

question again as I have said and you have given no defence of fails WP:GEVAL, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOAPBOX via WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NOTABILITY as...

There's the issue of whether academic sources exist on the other side, see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC) I didn't see this comment...

informed decisions as to how to present the content. Wikipedia is not WP:GEVAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Well, this ANI is not...

hypothesis of adding original research and content that violates WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SOAP. Typically the best way to handle this kind of protracted...

mainstream ideas from the alt-right. (Going into prior years, posts with WP:GEVAL for conspiracy theories is nothing new). If he is not an alt-right troll...

even before a dispute to "rally the troops" Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review.. The whole noticeboard...

referred to in the discussion include WP:FRINGE/ALT, WP:FRINGELEVEL, and WP:GEVAL, all relating to how we handle mainstream versus minority views. I'm too...

reliable sources being clear about it. There's a tendency to present a WP:GEVAL view like if ideology and science were equal or that sources that comment...

block I made was on the grounds that: their edits to articles had a WP:GEVAL effect for WP:FRINGE ideas: for example, vaccines and autism, removing "conspiracy...

to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize...

reliable sources that support such a claim (at least not without violating WP:GEVAL). This is very similar to the type of conduct[44][45] that led to topic...

which had not been peer reviewed. The dispute is not merely over the WP:GEVAL rebuttal of an unreviewed claim (about which I would have agreed with you...

Blippy's warring is a push against policies such as WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL. Blippy is a time sink on editors who could be doing something more productive...

based on those sources are also only expressing their personal opinions (WP:GEVAL may be useful). —PaleoNeonate – 09:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I like JzG, so...

not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." WP:GEVAL policy specifically requires: "While it is important to account for all...

it's worth, in Dutch the equivalent of something being "the case" is het geval, which is indeed related to vallen ("to fall") and voorvallen ("to happen/befall")...

equal weight between scientific consensus and a discredited method — WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI are explicit about this. As for the video: a short clip of someone...

text violates WP:NPOV. Specifically, it violates DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:GEVAL. WP:DUE says Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not...

the secondary sources, which is not okay. That's not BALANCE; that's a GEVAL violation. BALANCE says when reputable sources contradict one another and...

be assumed to pass WP:N. Answering points in the nom: WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL do not seem applicable, if the page is limited as I proposed. Entries that...

(UTC) You forget that WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL are website policy. Sanger's way, which is basically a rejection of the GEVAL policy, was itself rejected and it...

find four people saying the opposite. A clear breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. If you're voting to keep the article, then please start work on it now...

two of the following explanations: "WP:NOR" "WP:UNDUE" "unsourced" "WP:GEVAL" "made up" / "hoax" / "WP:BOLLOCKS" "conspiracy theory" "edit made by sock...

reliable source about herself. GamerGate is a conspiracy theory, and per WP:GEVAL, their reinterpretation of news sources will not be given equal validity...

you;" along with a relevant block template explaining WP:FREESPEECH, WP:GEVAL and other common objections by fringe advocates. Like, I don't mean any...

having another. Undue weight is indeed an issue, but I believe it is WP:GEVAL that is what makes it so. Unomi (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC) Delete...

of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V:, or bluntly violating WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASP, WP:GEVAL. The main instrument in feigning credibility seems to consist in interpretations...

the secondary sources, which is not okay. That's not BALANCE; that's a GEVAL violation. BALANCE says when reputable sources contradict one another and...

also needs to be removed as it loses its WP:NFCC#8 credibility to its WP:GEVAL issue. However, Albert Finney article needs a photo. The Ustanov image,...

there is any unique, reliably sourced information here that passes our WP:GEVAL and WP:NOTNEWS policies and isn't already included in Stop the Steal, it...

question is WP:NPOV. Specifically, you'll want to spend some time with the WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI sections, both of which directly address the need to present...

for the input of others" is not compatible with standard policies: see WP:GEVAL and WP:ONEWAY. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC) Keep The only...

subject but has to give equal weight to all positions. That is wrong, see WP:GEVAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC) I am sure that Wikipedia...

with an opinion from LFF (as it is done in the article) is probably WP:GEVAL. --Buzz105 (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC) I posted a current YouTube...

be assumed to pass WP:N. Answering points in the nom: WP:FRINGE and WP:GEVAL do not seem applicable, if the page is limited as I proposed. Entries that...

concept's validity. —Srid🍁 01:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) That may be because WP:GEVAL applies to criticism of the concept's validity. Non-white people have to...

groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to WP:GEVAL. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same...

isolation from the other. This would seem to violate WP:POVFORK, WP:WEIGHT & WP:GEVAL. HrafnTalkStalk(P) I do have a problem with the current situation though...

it exists at all. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC) See WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC) All of the sources I mentioned...

MRAs? Seems to me that the sole purpose for the category is a WP:POINTy WP:GEVAL move and I don't see the actual text in the above list as being indicative...

reported by reputable bodies, not collections of baseless speculation (WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE). That's policy, not user opinion. None of the delete arguments...

ikreeds mijn reactie, vooraf geschreven. Hetverrassen, is niet dit? In elk geval, met een bepaalde bedoeling, kon ik niet op de bestratinglopen. Eigenlijk...

is. Groet, NielsFTalk to me.. 05:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Ze staan in elk geval nu op Commons:Pronunciation of Dutch municipality names in een overzichtelijke...

followers, so are we going to add each of them who are popular? Wikipedia:GEVAL needs to be checked. If still so important, it should be merged into "Pantheism"...

(UTC) Delete: Selection and grouping of items violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE, and is not based on any such listing or grouping in reliable...

I'm unaware of? jp×g 02:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC) That would be a kind of WP:GEVAL approach to policy. Essays which help build a framework for collaborative...

because of "political commentators" etc. is a preposterous example of the WP:GEVAL fallacy at full throttle. Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC) I'll...

to Windows 8.1#Update. WP:DUPLICATE is not the only problem. There is WP:GEVAL problem and this article has zero chance of ever getting to class C state...

WP:RANDY in Bible scholarship. @Bertrc: We have a problem: we don't do WP:GEVAL between Energion Publications on one hand and Mohr Siebeck, Oxford University...

archaeological debate between Mormons and archaeologists" even that is WP:GEVAL, there's no legitimate scientific debate in relation to that pseudoarchaeology...

to use here in developing content in other articles, especially with WP:GEVAL policy in mind that the author seems to still to not understand. Kingofaces43...

to justify exclusion of criticism which is required by policy to avoid GEVAL and the promotion of fringe beliefs, or that sources are lacking that criticize...

note that Proveallthings is fighting at such article against WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL, and WP:RS/AC. That is a match with Til's POV. Yup, the 2nd century BC dating...

states that we give room for opposing voices as justified by WP:WEIGHT, WP:GEVAL etc. It is indicated by the sources above that B'tselem is widely trusted...

the beliefs should be presented as such in these cases (WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL and WP:ABOUTSELF remain relevant) and it's always best to use independent...

(UTC) I can see why you might be unsure, on the face of it, but read WP:GEVAL, please. This is a big, seemingly authoritative article on a fringe, unaccepted...

find four people saying the opposite. A clear breach of WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. If you're voting to keep the article, then please start work on it now...

groups with mere alligation, taking newspaper as sources is amounting to WP:GEVAL. and finally confusing lines used with prooving and disprooving in the same...

stronger sources. As for the "clear anti-tobacco bias", you're making a WP:GEVAL mental error. A "neutral" article in Wikipedia terms is one that accurately...

said fringe sources undue weight and equal validity. See WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. Gabbe (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Again: I understand that absolutely...

(UTC) I can see why you might be unsure, on the face of it, but read WP:GEVAL, please. This is a big, seemingly authoritative article on a fringe, unaccepted...

May 2015 (UTC) It sounds like your proto-proposal is "Get rid of the WP:GEVAL policy". The English Wikipedia doesn't take an even-Steven approach to ideas...

sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." WP:GEVAL: "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must...

whether a different name might be helpful. "Neutral" lends itself to WP:GEVAL errors, as people think it means even-handedness. Perhaps "Resolution:Against...

12:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC) the result of the "critics say X" thing is WP:GEVAL, making it seem that the mysogeny is somehow only claimed and not actual...

needs to be evaluated as to whether it is being introduced to serve as WP:GEVAL. The second source used is "ВПК" (VPK) and is a WP:SPS. In this instance...

disagreement between both sides about what was claimed I think is fair. Per WP:GEVAL, academia relies on peer reviewed research and clinical trials to establish...

(UTC) RT should be used in the same way as we use CNN or BBC. - No, see WP:GEVAL. Apples and oranges. Discussed to death previously. "CNN is "not" oversighted...

These are arguably notable (coverage in multiple newspapers!) but NPOV/GEVAL directs us to omit fringe information that can't be respectably contextualized...

involved include WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV with particular regard to WP:PSTS and WP:GEVAL. . dave souza, talk 21:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I want to include the final...

undue weight (WP:UNDUE) Neutral point of view: Giving "equal validity" (WP:GEVAL) Also of particular relevance are: Tendentious editing: Righting Great Wrongs...

article level for living fossils but we are giving it a subcategory level. wp:geval comes to mind as well. Why give equal validity here? Painted on the walls...

an artificial balance that isn't present in reliable sources -- see WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC) For example, if a tabloid...

included so long as there was qualifying context from a good source, per WP:GEVAL, and that any fringe views were loudly identified as such per WP:PSCI. Alexbrn...

(talk) 23:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) You are mistaking neutrality for WP:GEVAL. There is nothing 'niche' about subject: it is thoroughly documented in...

WP:V-based policy. That being said, the material also happens to fail WP:GEVAL, if we give three or four sentence outlining her non-mainstream views on...

To put Gagnon's opinion on the same level as Boswell's would violate WP:GEVAL. You would need a heavy-duty academic work by a heavyweight academic scholar...

2015 (UTC) @Spasemunki: Try reading Wikipedia policy: WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia is not tit-for-tat. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015...

treat the other junk as junk as is clearly outlined in WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. " legitimate scientific disagreement" occurs in MEDRES sources, content...

WP:NOV while focusing on this particular page. It seems to me that the WP:GEVAL section of the policy page is particularly relevant here. Creating a false...

Kremlin-controlled media. WP:NPOV does not mean WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What does WP:GEVAL have to do with this? Do you mean that Poroshenko-...

article and is irrelevant here and inappropriate to attempt to pointy-WP:GEVAL in this context, of course. And if reliable sources also put Bowman's claims...

in park administration say Y" is almost the prototypical example of WP:GEVAL. jps (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Yup. And it seems that we aren't...

is arguing directly counter to NPOV policy, specifically WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL. Basically we call bullshit out for what it is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:42, 2...

that there is a debate. Wikipedia policy is pretty clear here, we have WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight. Neither support 'defining the debate' when it is this lopsided...

questionable if his EL merits inclusion. Fairness really wouldn't apply. wp:GEVAL comes to mind for me. In forgoing due weight we might and including Bennets...

the GMO conspiracy theories article. The OP seems to be advocating for WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC) @TFD: You are completely...

blocked for edit warring, but only for 48 hours. The blocking admin cited WP:GEVAL towards Naziism in the block, so the IP will continue to need eyes on its...

confusion in this regard. Vietminh (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) But per WP:GEVAL, we don't necessarily need to avoid "judgmental" language for all topics...

Muslim, but Obama says he's Christian, that'd be WP:BLP-violating case of WP:GEVAL. TL;DR: it is entirely a case-by-case issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 9...

scenarios with equal weight violates the NPOV policy, specifically the WP:GEVAL section, which explicitly bans giving equal weight to all scenarios when...

"engagement, or lack thereof" . --Inayity (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, we don't hide that heliocentricism is fact in the Modern...

wanting to whitewash things. But Wikipedia cannot change reality". 5. "WP:GEVAL Wikipedia needs to make clear when misinformation is misinformation" 6....

content does not follow NPOV and the FRINGE guideline, WP:PROPORTION and WP:GEVAL are probably the most pertinent policy links Just saying something is fringe...

medical experts take on the practice. That would be NPOV." - No, that'd be WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC) You are essentially saying...

Billwatkinsword (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC) See WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Wikipedia only summarizes professionally published mainstream...

that fans are constantly watering down criticism — which results in WP:GEVAL. Like I said, it could use RS sources that help distinguish reality from...

attention to what others say things would be easier for you. Also, go read WP:GEVAL and actually look at the citations in the Noah's Ark article until you see...

could have the article consist of nothing but criticism. Per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL, we don't give opposing sides "equal" treatment, we give each side due weight...

there were articles in Wikipedia which suffered from absurd amounts of WP:GEVAL. We had articles that lovingly detailed why the age of the Earth was probably...

19:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Since the reason for this AfD is mainly FRINGE/GEVAL violations, I figure I should leave a note here. Manul ~ talk 01:45, 9 February...

explosion happened on Ghazi is speculation and a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL should not be accorded more weight than that.Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42,...

some sort of superstitious mutation that they're not responsible for. WP:GEVAL requires that we do not create false balance between science and non-science...

be/hln/nl/4311/mexicaanse-griep/article/detail/854046/2009/05/14/tweede-geval-van-mexicaanse-griep-in-belgie.dhtml (571, 467, 1, -3) www.msal.gov.ar/htm/site/default...

article, is not appropriate under WP:STRUCTURE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALANCE, WP:GEVAL. I already held the user's talk page discussion in February (1), February-April...

Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) No. Please read WP:FRIND and WP:GEVAL. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Well, what about the articles...

times, I am not interested in legitimizing Evola's extremist ideas under WP:GEVAL, and I refuse to pretend that Evola's views are acceptable. Grayfell (talk)...

mass poisoning, leaving a summary and pointer. I also cleaned up the WP:GEVAL problems at the target article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2013...

boatload of political activists) on the other, then it's important not to WP:GEVAL, so as to maintain Wikipedia's need for neutrality . Alexbrn (talk) 07:33...

additional prominence to remain neutral, policy says the opposite. See also WP:GEVAL: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but...

want, etc. Which can be mitigated with policies like WP:RS, WP:YESPOV, WP:GEVAL and ultimately WP:NOTNEWS to determine what's worth covering. This doesn't...

issue from an editorial standpoint. The argument is with this absurd WP:GEVAL point that MRMs and you are trying to make that because violence against...

tedious research and reproduced results. The relevant policies here are WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI, part of WP:NPOV. ~2026-33889-87 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2026...

2015 (UTC) @Spasemunki: Try reading Wikipedia policy: WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia is not tit-for-tat. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015...

eventually removed and the excess coverage added back in with a heavy dose of WP:GEVAL. Some reviewing appreciated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)...

but it's still conspiratorial, a bit polemic about Wikipedia and pushing GEVAL/FALSEBALANCE arguments... —PaleoNeonate – 19:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC) Why...

speculation. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2018 (UTC) Please follow WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. This is very simple. If there are multiple RS telling...

2014 (UTC) Besides tightening inclusion criteria -- for which, btw, WP:GEVAL (as in: oy gevalt?) is pertinent -- I think it would be good to sharpen...

2017 (UTC) I'm not a particular fan of "alternative" which suffers from WP:GEVAL. Compare non-standard cosmologies which I think handles the issue of titling...

his reputation. That clearly violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE and WP:GEVAL. Criticism of peer-reviewed sources must absolutely come from peer-reviewed...

protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Recent changes pushing a WP:GEVAL view for the existence of psychic powers need review. - LuckyLouie (talk)...

December 2010 (UTC) Your "answer" is against Wikipedia policy -- see WP:GEVAL. And a 17th century Irish cleric is not a WP:RS on the subject of ancient...

as the best around. You are claiming that they are somehow equal, but WP:GEVAL says otherwise. Please stop this POV-pushing. jps (talk) 11:39, 31 October...

hit to fringe ideas (as with Vaxxed and Unplanned). As in those cases, WP:GEVAL is the relevant bit of NPOV, and is not negotiable: any fringe ideas must...

the Andrew Wakefield affair. That's a circumstance where indulging in WP:GEVAL has serious real-world consequences, given the reach of Wikipedia. Alexbrn...

borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE....

view in a current politically motivated dispute in the U.S.A. (as per WP:GEVAL) and not only that but it also fundamentally changes the definition of waterboarding...

to the other (EAGALA). Montanabw(talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC) WP:GEVAL is a real danger here. I see that basically all the non-critical claims...

09:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC) There is no need to do that, per WP:DUE and WP:GEVAL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Weak support per Sca, this...

used for preaching to the choir of conservative Adventists and we don't WP:GEVAL to the historical method and claims of supernatural encounters. I think...

Gadling (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC) I reverted the editor per WP:GEVAL and your previous revert. Crossroads -talk- 23:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)...

attempt "to present both sides fairly". The trouble is this falls afoul of WP:GEVAL. The fringe theory is given a lot of space to itself and a lot of reinforcing...

to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship (WP:GEVAL). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) But I think Til Eulenspiegel...

expense of ignoring "WEIGHT" and "GEVAL"? The evidence, in accordance with "Wikipedia:WEIGHT" and "Wikipedia:GEVAL", is as follows. The DSM-5 uses the...

source and not an academic one. Journalistic sources sometimes engage in WP:GEVAL between popular but unacademic views and academic but unpopular views. Ian...

sourced to a book and articles by the originators and the reception is WP:GEVAL, citing praise from Chopra cited to a press release, etc. Jytdog (talk)...

Wikipedia policies and guidelines and ARBCOMM directives, including WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:FRINGE/PS, WP:NOTRELIABLE & WP:ABOUTSELF...

specifically, but applies to all fringe subjects. This is further explained in WP:GEVAL: Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but...

all viewpoints aren't notable enough to warrant mention. See WP:DUE, WP:GEVAL, WP:MNA, etc. Gabbe (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC) Gabbe is right....

Tailing 56% of paragraph is in place because of WP:WEIGHT or was it WP:GEVAL? I don't see how these policies apply. Please, tell me why we need more...

reflect that, and not undermine the sourcing or have a problem with WP:GEVAL. Before we move forward Mdann52 would you please review the discussion we...

that the preponderance of reliable sources weighs against them. I find WP:GEVAL to be a very good guideline in situations like this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:50...

the "claiming there is controversy when there really isn't" type that WP:GEVAL discourages. Never mind that even the sources given don't seem too supporting...

(talk) 04:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Stating both sides is the classic WP:GEVAL violation of NPOV. @Firefangledfeathers, are you sure that's "I didn't say...

saying is that the categories are obvious WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, with a little WP:GEVAL thrown in -- a result of years of article neglect and accumulated cruft...

medical terms. I believe this violates WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI and most of all WP:GEVAL because this gives a patina of legitimacy to this fringe topic and gives...

is not a GEVAL violation. That single line is simply establishing the basis of a conflict which is minimally required under NPOV. A GEVAL problem would...

contingent of editors who believe that fairness is important enough that WP:GEVAL can be ignored. That's what I'm worried about. But let's retire to discussions...

fringe material can't be sensibly contextualized it's omitted per NPOV/GEVAL. There's no "except in biographies" exemption - in fact NPOV is explicitly...

dating for genuine, modern historiography, or at least on a par with it. WP:GEVAL. The historical method cannot attest miracles. As simply as that. See methodological...

be more properly called culture-ism per nl:Willem Schinkel. So, no, WP:GEVAL applies and the two sides of the debate should not be given equal weight...

calls it "controversial" but it really isn't in sane sources. Classic WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC) The talk page had to be protected...

current findings, or even alongside current findings in violation of WP:GEVAL. If the NRDC document was used widely by the organic food movement in the...

is just a disagreement among scientists, in fact you are committing WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view, and does not indulge the WP:FRINGE...

state to do revisionism. Also, this strikes me as a classic example of WP:GEVAL. Pielke is, whether he likes it or not (and he certainly does not), on the...

12 August 2023 (UTC) I don't know about these valid concerns, because WP:GEVAL is policy, and so far I'm the only editor who has cited anything in this...

approach. Providing separate sections for separate theories is a recipe for WP:GEVAL and WP:BALASPS. One needs to give adequate weight to each theory, in line...

sure what's going on here [43] but seems to be part of an extensive WP:GEVAL push. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Unusually, the user...

encourage editors to go through WP:NPOV. Particularly, WP:UNDUE, WP:MNA, WP:GEVAL, WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV (even if you have before) 6)And last but not the least...

fact, our fringe guidance is an elaboration of (at least) WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL, which are intrinsic to WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)...

reasoning/proposal in my post on the talk page. Looking for opinions re: WP: GEVAL and WP:REL. Lefthandedlion 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC) I've responded to you...

Catholic censorship... A completely non-neutral summary that argues against WP:GEVAL. I'm seeing one side cite a number of academic sources, and the other citing...

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC) I'm inclined to the opinion that WP:GEVAL (not to mention WP:FRINGE) implies that simply because one side benefits...

December 2012 (UTC) Gabriel's addition of Komen's rebuttal may be a WP:GEVAL problem and has the unfortunate effect of making it seem like Komen is the...

thus unreliably sourced, and violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. I just see a lot of deadhorse argumentation...

thus unreliably sourced, and violates WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. It clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. I just see a lot of deadhorse argumentation...

some editors, but this is in accord with our policies and guidelines (WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE) and not in contravention to it. Current policy is that we ought...

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC) I see some classic WP:GEVAL there, arguing in favor of why outdated Feudian premises (like the generalizations...

propagandists would like you to believe. Actually relevant here are WP:BLP, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:PSCI, WP:MNA... It's also because practical environmental...

debate is over. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Wikipedia:WEIGHT Wikipedia:GEVAL "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should...

conference. In that situation, "let the readers make up their own minds" is a WP:GEVAL violation. We don't need to have articles saying "Astronomers have identified...

theory, which is not a great way to frame things - a kind of macro-level WP:GEVAL. The Zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2 is is a fact and shouldn't really be...

state the "faces" had been faked. Yet these sources are buried within a WP:GEVAL pile of fringe sources. Ironically, it looks like a number of the fringe...

more on analytical depth than on proportion (which is how I interpret WP:GEVAL). Intelligent design does that very well, but this would carry over well...

contested Sanskritisation thesis as fact in violation of WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL. It is also anachronistic original research and synthesis, folding the customs...

be contexualized as such with mainstream views, or omitted. That's in WP:GEVAL. Whether something's fringey is not, however, wholly down to editor say-so...

Presenting it as just a difference of 'opinions' is both-siding reality in a WP:GEVAL way. Bon courage (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC) You can prevent your N/POV...

equal weight between scientific consensus and a discredited method — WP:GEVAL and WP:PSCI are explicit about this. As for the video: a short clip of someone...

stating a contested Sanskritisation reading as fact against WP:YESPOV and WP:GEVAL; this is synthesis, and it is internally self-refuting, since one of its...

the denial should also be mentioned in the lead. The way that we avoid WP:GEVAL problems with denials is precisely letting editors decide for each article...

not mean pure, unadulterated neutrality (a la Larry Sanger). It means WP:GEVAL, it means WP:PSCI, it means WP:DUE and so on. Even if it meant that, Wikipedia...

that NPOV did not mean what Wikiwriter thought it means while also linking GEVAL. It does feel like nitpicking Tgeorgescu when it was clear that Wikiwriter...

is pushing the view that the both sides are guilty, in violation of WP:GEVAL, which leads him to over-emphasize a few alleged but poorly documented war...

this is certainly not neutral POV—I can assure you that according to WP:GEVAL, the two POVs are by no means symmetrical. What has been excavated from...

that the policies which are relevant to this dispute; WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:GEVAL. I stated that critical vs. non-critical scholarship is not a case of mainstream...

downplay that vast amount of evidence that acupuncture is bunk. A case of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC) And, yup, my conclusion is...