| Revision as of 20:14, 12 July 2014 editSrich32977 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers299,682 edits →Related discussion: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:57, 13 July 2014 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ/Archive 2) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| {{Archives}} | {{Archives}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == These horses go only one way == | |||
| I have the bit from ] suggesting that it would be appropriate to mention Creationism in an article ]. That article makes no such mention, correctly sussing out that it would be off topic, and we should anyway not be dictating content from a policy page. Our articles on similar topics, from ] to ] right down to ], likewise do not consider it an appropriate part of their respective topics. We might replace the text with something differentiating articles discussing the process itself from articles about the development or the social impact of the theory, but the section seems to stand fine without it. - ] <small>(])</small> 10:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ASSERT == | |||
| There is a discussion taking place about ASSERT at ] about how we could clarify this section so it doesn't counter or subvert the spirit of NPOV, which I think it does. ] <sup>]</sup> <small><i>21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)</i></small> | |||
| == Related discussion == | == Related discussion == | ||
Revision as of 00:57, 13 July 2014
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Related discussion
There is a discussion at Talk: BLP PRIMARY regarding WP policy and assertions supported by public documents. – S. Rich (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)