Redirect to:
This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience. Shortcut WP:RNPOVWP:RNPOV In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only...
Click to read more »edit also justified by gross and consistant violation of WP:MNA and WP:RNPOV. With one hundred and twenty-one sources cited, over seventy and five percent...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Blatant violation of WP:RNPOV; turning this into an encyclopedic article would mean a rewrite. PROD by...
Click to read more »proposals: Belief Religion Myth vs fiction Guide to addressing bias WP:RNPOV WikiProject Countering systemic bias Civil POV pushing "The Global Religious...
Click to read more »discusses fiction, so doesn't apply here. Instead, this looks like a case of WP:RNPOV, which says primary sources from the belief system are also used. Even if...
Click to read more »users cite policies randomly, without any appreciation of what they say: WP:RNPOV, WP:QUESTIONABLE Both the users make much of editors/edits being "biased":...
Click to read more »not disagree with the scientific theory of evolution. Violating Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion? As it has become difficult to reach any compromise with Hrafn...
Click to read more »Hindu worship, which itself is a good reason to consider it dubious (WP:RNPOV). The article has few independent sources. But that is not very surprising...
Click to read more »with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't. To clarify,...
Click to read more »she could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have...
Click to read more »he could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have...
Click to read more »traditional perspectives are oft left out completely or militated against, and WP:RNPOV is not applied evenly. I dabble in most fields - feel free to ask for any...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy...
Click to read more »WP:WTA#Myth and Legend ("myth" is acceptable in its formal sense), WP:RNPOV (the possibility of offending someone while talking about religion is not...
Click to read more »article talk page 08:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Fundamentalist POV */ WP:RNPOV" 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC) "/* Fundamentalist POV */ quote offered" 17:03...
Click to read more »their own relevant texts/documents and historical and scientific sources WP:RNPOV. If all of the mentioned requirements are not met we cannot honestly say...
Click to read more »Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Disamb or delete per WP:RNPOV, we can't make assumptions about what the reader believe is "the final testament"...
Click to read more »that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Wikipedia policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the...
Click to read more »April 2010 (UTC) This is more a question for WP:Article titles than WP:RNPOV since Genesis creation myth clearly is a formal usage. Professor marginalia...
Click to read more »agree that a majority of these edits seem based on both a violation of WP:RNPOV and a sectarian/nascent Gujrati nationalism. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)...
Click to read more »reported user is a fundamentalist POV-pusher who does not recognize WP:RNPOV, WP:VER and WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Blocked...
Click to read more »Talk:Belshazzar#Fictional tale Comments: Violating WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VER, WP:RNPOV, WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Page protected By...
Click to read more »2021 (UTC) "/* "Founder of Judaism, the first Abrahamic religion" */ WP:RNPOV" Comments: What is the problem with it? "Founder of Judaism" is possibly...
Click to read more »close connection with subject. Please Use Proper References and maintain WP:RNPOV. User:Eldhorajan92, John C. should focus on balancing different views and...
Click to read more »anything against him. The matter has been settled once and for all by WP:RNPOV and all editors have to obey this policy. And even more the basic policies...
Click to read more »October 2016 (UTC) I don't see any WP:NPOV violation. Remember that WP:RNPOV says that we should render both theological and secular scholarly views...
Click to read more »worldview a lie. Those corrections were to fix articles that violate the WP:RNPOV of Wikipedia. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC) Getting WP:NOTHERE...
Click to read more »also informed him that he was violating WP:NOR, SP:SYN, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:RNPOV, WP:HEAR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX. I had told WalkerThrough that I would take this...
Click to read more »like these. I would however love if someone would come by and explain WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC to these folks. Andrevan@ 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC) You...
Click to read more »with their idea of the academic consensus in violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV." "It has been suggested by Ret.Prof, who also claims to be a non-Christian...
Click to read more »policy or principle as such on wikipedia, but a policy of neutrality, see WP:RNPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC) It doesn't belong on the edit-warring...
Click to read more »WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:CHERRYPICKING, and WP:RNPOV, as explained in every minute detail at the talkpages and notice-boards...
Click to read more »warned them that their actions constituted a potential violation of WP:RNPOV,[132][133] though this has apparently been ignored. Alivardi (talk) 18:25...
Click to read more »dominant usage for Religious and Supernatural cosmogenical articles. WP:RNPOV Usage of "Creation Myth" is clearly in line with this policy. The policy...
Click to read more »disputes about this since January 2009. Normal editorial decisions based on WP:RNPOV. WP:NOTCENSORED only invoked to enforce reasonable discussion. Focus on...
Click to read more »from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources - see WP:RNPOV. If there are notions tossed about in the Talmud and Torah, they are worth...
Click to read more »this editor. Paul B (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC) In the light of WP:RNPOV policy, my take on the article still is and I here reaffirm it: [19], namely...
Click to read more »2026 (UTC) Well I think using only apologetic sources would violate WP:RNPOV, unless they were used sparingly in conjunction with more neutral sources...
Click to read more »I received; though "longevity myth" still lacks sources that satisfy WP:RNPOV, this was never recognized by consensus (perhaps due to COI), so I abandoned...
Click to read more »if there is controversy surrounding it. Even if it were non-neutral, WP:RNPOV requires there be some other reason it's unhelpful, and missing a silent...
Click to read more »('meatpuppetry not blockable'). POV 12.144.5.2: "myths" (contradicting WP:RNPOV). DerbyCountyinNZ: synthesis. Unverifiability 218.109.119.140, DerbyCountyinNZ...
Click to read more »October 2020 (UTC) Jammu is about a city, not sure how the above applies. WP:RNPOV and WP:RSPSCRIPTURE may be of some help concerning how WP approaches the...
Click to read more »Isn't this just religious censorship? How on earth are we fulfilling the WP:RNPOV policy, which says, In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content...
Click to read more »communicated. See also WT:WTW#Myth, and WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarifying WP:RNPOV (or at its likely archive). --AuthorityTam (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)...
Click to read more »completing even this action would violate it. Also it could violate WP:RNPOV by giving special exception on content based on the particular view. This...
Click to read more »"the ever so controversial Scientology"? That's a WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:RNPOV, violation right there. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »(books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) WP:RNPOV, WP:NOTGENEALOGY, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:WPNOTRS, WP:NOTRELIABLE. A genealogy...
Click to read more »she could work on the real problems associated with WP:NOR, WP:BLP and WP:RNPOV that are being violated here and once those problems are fixed we can have...
Click to read more »from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources - see WP:RNPOV. If there are notions tossed about in the Talmud and Torah, they are worth...
Click to read more »their own relevant texts/documents and historical and scientific sources WP:RNPOV. If all of the mentioned requirements are not met we cannot honestly say...
Click to read more »may have come to question whether we should perhaps change WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV, or at least ask for community discussion of them, to deal with those points...
Click to read more »Hindu worship, which itself is a good reason to consider it dubious (WP:RNPOV). The article has few independent sources. But that is not very surprising...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Blatant violation of WP:RNPOV; turning this into an encyclopedic article would mean a rewrite. PROD by...
Click to read more »sources because they are not in line with your personal pov. See also WP:RNPOV: "In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only...
Click to read more »prominent Mormon scholar, it is probably WP:DUE in some capacity per WP:RNPOV, even if his views are not widely held among non-Mormons. This particular...
Click to read more »"the ever so controversial Scientology"? That's a WP:NPOV, and possibly WP:RNPOV, violation right there. SplashScreen (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Delete...
Click to read more »Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC) I interpret WP:RNPOV to mean that we shouldn't write Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt...
Click to read more »problems on policy grounds, including WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RNPOV, possibly overcome with good sourcing. In terms of this particular delete...
Click to read more »consider our article Jesus ChristJesus Christ under the guidance of WP:RNPOV, which says " ...editors should not avoid using terminology that has been...
Click to read more »reader accepts astrology as fact. I.e. it is in line with WP:PSCI, WP:RS, WP:RNPOV and WP:TOPIC." This seems sensible to me but Makesense64 still insists that...
Click to read more »to recall that Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, cf. for instance WP:RNPOV. There's no reason for us to treat the Bible differently than any other...
Click to read more »0 days, are false and thus "myths" (in the sense forbidden to WP by WP:RNPOV). I have no problem discussing the mythos of longevity (in the permitted...
Click to read more »Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC) In related news, the WP:RNPOV-violating brigade does not like it when you identify the facts about the...
Click to read more »completing even this action would violate it. Also it could violate WP:RNPOV by giving special exception on content based on the particular view. This...
Click to read more »similar to the term "cult" and used only with the same care; whether WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Religion be updated (contrast WP:WTA#Myth and legend). Additional...
Click to read more »information, I collected a few wikipedia reference pages for consultation. WP:RNPOV, MOS:WTW and WP:ATT. Secular is a perfectly acceptable work and is neutral...
Click to read more »problem with the word "myth", and change the article in violation of WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected for a period...
Click to read more »vandalism – WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT, changing myth to belief, contrary to WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC) Semi-protected for a period...
Click to read more »about our rules. E.g. he ignores WP:VER and WP:IRS, not to speak of WP:RNPOV. I.e. he comes empty-handed (as sources) to our article and insists to change...
Click to read more »idea of the academic consensus in [This is a] violation of WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. It is true that these minority theories should probably not appear in the...
Click to read more »isn't an actual historical account behind the text. However, as per WP:RNPOV, we don't present viewpoints espousing infallibility, inerrancy, etcera...
Click to read more »WP:PSCI and WP:RNPOV are distinct sections. Have you read them? SanctumRosarium (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC) Never heard of RNPOV before, but I...
Click to read more »problems on policy grounds, including WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RNPOV, possibly overcome with good sourcing. In terms of this particular delete...
Click to read more »assumptions" is not a good idea here. Also (and down a bit from that) WP:RNPOV states: "Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion...
Click to read more »on Wikipedia. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC) See: WP:RNPOV "In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only...
Click to read more »similar to the term "cult" and used only with the same care; whether WP:RNPOV and WP:WTA#Religion be updated (contrast WP:WTA#Myth and legend). Additional...
Click to read more »with religion being referred to as anything but. It seems like Wikipedia:RNPOV#Religion would cover this pretty well but so far it hasn't. I would personally...
Click to read more »Sounds good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC) I interpret WP:RNPOV to mean that we shouldn't write Generous sharing of the meat from a hunt...
Click to read more »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, please be civil...
Click to read more »an interpreted history of sorts? Reliable mainly in PRIMARY sense re WP:RNPOV? DN (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC) It can be contemporaneous evidence if...
Click to read more »discusses fiction, so doesn't apply here. Instead, this looks like a case of WP:RNPOV, which says primary sources from the belief system are also used. Even if...
Click to read more »~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC) Strong Oppose per WP:RNPOV. "Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred...
Click to read more »same when mentioning it as birth place of Jesus of Nazereth. Refer to WP:RNPOV." 09:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC) "Replaced the world 'hypothized' with reference...
Click to read more »Andre🚐 21:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) WP:RSPSCRIPTURE, perhaps? Or WP:RNPOV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC) Thanks for those...
Click to read more »Cullen328 (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC) @SimpleSubCubicGraph See WP:RNPOV for some guidance on this. According to a lot of Muslims, Muhammad is not...
Click to read more »(UTC) That's it, thanks NotQualified (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC) WP:RNPOV? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC) I don't think any god...
Click to read more »2026 (UTC) Well I think using only apologetic sources would violate WP:RNPOV, unless they were used sparingly in conjunction with more neutral sources...
Click to read more »(UTC) Wikipedia articles should be written in a Neutral POV WP:NPOV WP:RNPOV "Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals...
Click to read more »filter log · block user · block log) Many edits like [13]. Violating WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Getting reported to WP:ANI did...
Click to read more »i believe i was following the wiki principle as stated in WP:RNPOV — as follows: WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia...
Click to read more »"unnecessary case of WP:FORUMSHOPPING", nor "an apparent attempt to circumvent WP:RNPOV", nor can it be yet again dismissed as dastardly "POV pushing", and I hope...
Click to read more »