at the Hoover eviously, he was a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford, a visiting professor at the New. Ferguson writes and speaks about international history, economic and financial history. All encyclopedic content. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (npov which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Npov is a fundamental principle. Thai massage : Free Porn Tube Videos thai massage, sex M, asian : Fuck Tube Free Porn Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia is also one. Wikipedia 's three core. Disclaimer: m is an automatic search engine allowing consenting adults to find free porn videos. The administration of this site doesnt own, produce. For the essay on how to describe points of view, see. Handling neutrality disputes Attributing and specifying biased statements Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style Point of view Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. What do I do? All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. Impartial tone See also: Wikipedia:Writing better articles Information style and tone Wikipedia describes disputes. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints. Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to experts holding that interpretation. For example, the widely used names " Boston Massacre " Teapot Dome scandal and " Jack the Ripper " are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation-evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjectivewe might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano. Common objections or concerns raised to Wikipedia's npov policy include the following. Contents, explanation of the neutral point of view. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should thaimaa rokotukset big big cock not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. Isn't this a problem? See also the guide to layout, formatting of criticism, edit warring, cleanup templates, and the unbalanced-opinion template. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Wales in September was instrumental. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names ). For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered to be one of the greatest authors in the English language. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view. Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. Is this contrary to npov? Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view.