Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pseudoscience

I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 [1] to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened

• Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#FAQ_pseudoscience_discussion_reopened

For reference, the current intro wording is this:

How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

The question and answer simply don't fit together. In fact, the question the answer appears to answer is this one: What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories? Then our answer would make sense.

But the question asked is something else. It is "how to write an article on a pseudoscientific topic" (e.g. astrology). In this context, the sentence "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate" simply does not compute. I said at the time that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on astrology devotes 4 large, densely printed, double-column pages to describing the history of astrological thought, its cultural standing over the centuries, etc., and that it ends with the words "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." In other words, the EB thought it "proportionate" to devote most of its article on astrology to the description of pseudoscientific thought, and surely that is appropriate in the article devoted to such a topic.

I also thought that when it comes to Ancient astronaut theories and the like, our articles on these theories should not contain lengthy quotes from primary sources such as Erich von Däniken & Co. Instead editors should be encouraged to search out mainstream scientific analyses of these pseudosciences as sociological or religious phenomena, like this source here: [2] Where such a scientist quotes Däniken, we can of course quote what he quotes (E. v. Däniken, quoted by X in Y). But where there is a body of secondary literature, editors should follow that, and not be let loose to quote the primary source bits they like best.

So, the suggested wording was this:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

If a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science, for example, and these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. Also check if the theory has been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large.

We could of course keep the existing answer as well, but should change the question preceding it, as indicated above. --Jayen466 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm inclined to use both your suggested response, and the old one with a new question, yours to emphasize the standard rules on POV-forks, and the old one to make it clear that minority views should not be presented as equally important as the majority ones in main articles. However, what does everyone think about moving both of them into a new section fo the main WP:NPOV page, with a change of questiona nd answer to more standard text? They're the basis for the important guideline WP:FRINGE, so I do think they should have a simple, policy-level statement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with moving them into a new section either qith a Q&A or with a 'more standard text'. Doug Weller (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections to moving them there. Jayen466 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving anything onto the main policy page should have a fair amount of community input I would think, especially on this topic.(olive (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

That new version is a lot clearer and ties in well with issues of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving priority to self-descriptions by pseudoscience promoters, so support the change. Not sure if there's much value in keeping the previous version to supplement it. It could be readily phrased as an instruction rather than a question and answer and so made suitable for a move to the main policy page, which would perhaps help to point out that this is a policy. There's validity in the need for consultation before such a move, but it must be accepted that this is policy regardless of which page it appears on. . dave souza, talk 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, Jayen466. Reads much better and a lot clearer. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Jossi, this was well-done, and should be incorporated into policy. It is clear. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen: I'm inclined to be a bit clearer about the issue. for instance, I'd prefer something like this (using the same question as in your second box, above):

An article on a pseudoscience topic, like any article on wikipedia, should strive to present a clear and comprehensible description of the topic's theory, history, and pertinent details. Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. This should not, however, become a central or organizing theme in the article; it should be offered simply as a historical and scientific fact. Wherever possible, source material from mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology should be used to present the idea's history, and indicate its standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Sources from advocates of the pseudoscience and sources from mainstream scientists engaged in the field should be treated as primary research, with the limitations that entails.

further, if you want to retain the first paragraph as a separate FAQ question, then I'd prefer it to be modified for clarity. something like this, maybe:

What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories?

The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; pseudoscience by definition lacks scientific corroboration. However, pseudoscience may have significant social or historical importance which merits its inclusion in articles. Where pseudoscience is presented in comparison to mainstream scientific views it should be made clear that the pseudoscience view is a minority position with limited standing and acceptance; in no case should it be suggested that the pseudoscience view is superior to , equal to, or even in serious competition with established science. Where pseudoscience views are presented on their own, as in articles about the pseudoscience itself, the article should give them prominence, but must note that the view is not currently considered to be a valid scientific perspective; in no case should the theory be presented in isolation from other more accepted scientific views, or suggest that those other accepted scientific views are false, flawed, or otherwise unacceptable. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

I think these answer both questions fully and appropriately. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Both of these make it less clear. Jayen's is much better. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

More comments. First, if an article represents a pseudoscience, and it is well known, then yes, the scientific debunking should be the primary, if not exclusive, theme of the article. And I just cannot support the use of "fairly" in anything, since it's so judgmental. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Orange (damn, I have an inexplicable urge to call you 'Agent Orange' today ) - the article is supposed to be about a pseudoscience, not 'the debunking of a pseudoscience'. the 'debunking of a pseudoscience' wouldn't even be notable enough for an article without an article about the pseudoscience itself. you're forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for establishing truth. it's our job to present even pseudoscience in a clear, neutral, and fair manner. and no, I do not think wikipedia wants to establish a policy that says wikipedia reserves the right to be brutally unfair to any topic it thinks is stupid. that's just wrong, on so many levels. --Ludwigs2 21:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the POV which has caused so much damage to the NPOV status of articles on fringe topics. It is this which needs to be specifically addressed and put to rest in a final way per policy. It is this POV which the former FAQ gave some tenuous support, by making the scientific view ipso facto the majority. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, the scientific view is not a majority view. It is the verified and supported view. If Wikipedia were to work using a majority view, the UFO's exist and make crop circles. Science lacks a POV, it simply is a methodology to ascertain the behavior of the natural world. It can't think. It can't opine. Because humans, who are fundamentally flawed in being that rational, run science, a whole system was created to publish articles, to review them, and to bring them to the forefront fore discussion. Over time these theories are enhanced and developed until they are fundamental facts, like Evolution or Gravity. Psychics or paranormal are both rejected because they cannot be tested scientifically or when tested scientifically were found to be lacking. So, your POV and Ludwig's suggestions actually create a POV, instead of keeping it NPOV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Orange, this doesn't quite track. setting aside things that I would heartily love to debate but are out of scope (e.g.: of course science has a POV - what do you think a methodology is based on, if not a set of pre-binding assumptions?), let me make a few necessary things clear:

1. wikipedia is not here to defend science or truth. wikipedia is here to present human knowledge, and this means all human knowledge, even where it's wrong knowledge. pseudoscience topics are valid field of human knowledge in their own right, and should be presented as such.
2. NPOV does not mean 'lacking a POV' on wikipeida; it means fairly representing all significant POVs. so even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant. we're not looking for sources that present some 'neutral truth', ever; we're looking for sources that present their own POV, so that we can balance those fairly with other sources.
3. you are consistently oblivious to context, and that puts a tremendous strain on the credibility of your arguments. if you can't distinguish the different contexts in which a fringe topic might appear, how could you possibly have any insights in to the contextual nuances that go into establishing neutrality?

--Ludwigs2 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Science is a POV, and it is not Wikipedia's job to present information in a way which favors any POV. "Even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant...we're looking for sources that present their own POV" and we present all the POVs in proportion to their prominence. I happen to believe science is the only way of gaining knowledge, but that doesn't matter. Your take on psychic stuff is uninformed, but it doesn't matter either: Wikipedia is still not in the business of taking sides. Orange, your POV has been discussed and rejected by the Wikipedia community. There is no point engaging you on it. Just don't edit war over it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? Where has MY POV been rejected. In fact, it's been supported more times than not. Give me a fucking break. You just can't make broad pronouncements and get away with it. Oh that's right, you used your pseudoscientific psychic powers to divine what I know and don't know. I keep forgetting how much smarter you are than I. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's be civil here, please. Dreadstar † 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work, you guys. For history's sake, I am against any policy which makes the scientific view ipso facto the majority view. This is used on articles to argue that within articles on fringe subjects the scientific view has the greatest WEIGHT, and thus should be favored in terms of a) space and b) wording. In other words, it takes over the subject of the article and tends to be asserted as fact or presented with wording which gives a very heavy bias.

I support Jayen's drafts and I think that Ludwig's drafts are very good expansions on it and make the issue clearer. I think we need to make sure the final draft makes clear that per WEIGHT the scientific opinion is not going to take over the entire article, per Ludwigs.

Thus the previous version has to go. It is not in accord with the NPOV principle.

I think we need to make it clear that the criticism should come either 1) from critics outside the field, in which case it should be Attributed. Or 2) should come from sources within the field (eg Astronomy) in which case it can be presented as the majority opinion, unless there is good reason to attribute-- for example, if the person writing is a noted critic of pseudoscience in general or a member of CSICOP.

We also need to note, per dave souza above, that pseudoscience sources are perfectly acceptable for describing the positions of fringe ideas. I don't know what he's really getting at, but if he thinks WP should use the secondary sources in order to take their point of view, instead of a neutral POV, then that is an indication that we need to make things clear. When he says "basing articles," it seems as if he would describe a fringe POV from the perspective of a mainstream source, thus cutting out the fringe POV's ability to speak for itself. That's unacceptable. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense, finally. In a simplistic parallel. If in the fine arts I am writing an article on Rauschenberg's goat sculpture Monogram which let's say many critics would say is not art, then I can't write an article about Rauschenberg's goat and have most of the article be about how this is not mainstream art. The article is about the goat and no matter my view on it, and although certainly, the article must contain material on the critics' views of the goat negative and positive, the "weight" of the article must be about the topic (or subject) of the article, that goat. That's encyclopedic...(olive (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Exactly. We need to make that clear, and also that sources within the fringe POV are good -often best- for explaining that POV.

You can use fringe and pseudoscientific sources to describe beliefs, but you cannot use them to describe reality. Articles on, for example time cube, remote viewing or a flat earth need to accurately describe the ideas and their history, but need to also give a clear and thorough account of their relation to reality. It would be unacceptable, for example, to write an entire article on ideas about the flat earth without balancing the claims of advocates with the facts from reliable sources. This also needs to be done throughout much of the text, so that the reader can be given a clear idea about each claim. However, such an account of the relation between claims and reality should not be the sole purpose of the article, since the history and sociology of such ideas need to be covered as well. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You're basically right, but I believe you err in your use of the word "reality." We don't do reality here on WP, but sources. Yes, on all controversial subjects we need to describe both sides of any controversy, and who says what. Yet, we should never, ever contrast POV X with Reality.

Controversy should have weight relative to its prominence in the sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources must be reliable sources, and undue weight must not be given to minority views amongst expert opinion on the subject. Where the subject is claimed to be science, that claim has to be shown in relation to majority expert scientific opinion and the scientific consensus on the subject. Of course that doesn't prevent due weight being given, for example, to majority expert theological views of faith based subjects. . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As Dave observes, there is often a close interaction between WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. When discussing majority and minority points of view, it needs to be done keeping in mind the reliable sources analysis. If a pursuit such as, say parapsychology or "psychic", such as is at issue here, is asserted by certain of its advocates to be a "science", the majority view of the scientific community must be given its due weight w.r.t. that assertion and the minority view its respective due weight, using also a reliable-sources assessment when making the "due weight" assessment. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No consideration versus rejection

I see a WP:NOR problem with these:

...these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. (Jayen)

...Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. (Ludwigs)

These can be read as: Lacking serious/reliable sources you may/should jump to the conclusion that the scientific/reliable sources reject the novel/pseudoscientific theory. Inferring verifiability from a *lack* of reliable sources? That would be a first...

In that case I'd prefer to stay with the present formulation, which is a bit more woolly but doesn't seem to have this NOR related issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good point. In practice, it is almost always the case that this "non acceptance" will be stated in the fringe or mainstream sources (and either are RS for such a statement), and if it isn't stated anywhere that it has been "not accepted" (or rejected), then it is OR just like you say.... but it is non-controversial almost always. And perhaps we should make it clear that "not accepted," or "not considered" is not the same as "rejected." FRINGE already does that, but it could be stated here also. For example, saying that the concept of Orgone energy is not accepted by the scientific community isn't going to get tagged usually as it's self evident. Saying that Psi (parapsychology) isn't accepted by mainstream science will not raise any eyebrows. Saying either has been rejected is contentious, however, and therefore requires sources combined with attribution. That's what you're saying, and the statements above are in harmony with that principle. Maybe we just need to add a sentence? From FRINGE:

However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. [3] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a good point, but a lack of credible scientific sources would mean that the subject is not notable as science, and should not be presented as having any scientific credibility. Thus a protoscience such as the phrenology of the 1820s became recognised as a pseudoscience, and it might be difficult to find any modern mainstream sources giving it serious consideration. A more nuanced situation arises where claims are still made for scientific credibility but no evidence has been published in recognised scientific journals, or the little attention it has been given by mainstream science has found it wanting. That still meets the current WP definition that "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." In such cases care has to be taken to ensure that a lack of modern attention is not presented as giving any credibility, or allowed to give undue weight to claims made by proponents. . . dave souza, talk 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the WP definition that anything which has not received publication in mainstream scientific journals, but claims to be science, is pseudoscience? Oh, well, it's the "otherwise lacks scientific status" bit, I see. Lol. Well, that makes most research, published in little specialist journals, pseudoscience. Not only has it not gained overall "status," it never will because it's only of interest to a sub-sub-discipline which only two or three people in the world know much about. Don't cite WP articles for accurate understanding for use in making overall policy. That last bit should just be taken out. I agreed completely with this diff. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I don't know what to say about the comment above except that it seems to demonstrate pretty severe misunderstanding of how science works. First, a journal can be "specialist" without being not mainstream. Specialist journals are frequently cited by other journals in other areas. And those aren't the only issues. Reputable journals of all types go through rigorous peer-review by experts in the fields. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well if that's what he's getting at then there is no problem. I thought he was saying something different, hinging on the word "recognized." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the OR problem Francis raises could be solved as follows:

I am working on an article about a pseudoscience. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?

Check if the theory is notable enough to have been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Also check for press sources. If the pseudoscientific opinion has not been discussed by scholars of any field, and there are no other reliable third-party sources discussing it, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any good? :-) Jayen466 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Except there are clearly notable pseudosciences that scientists won't even bother thinking about. Consider for example EVP which is so thoroughly rejected that it is very hard to find any scientists even saying "yeah, that's crap". But EVP is clearly notable with many mainstream media sources discussing the idea especially when it comes up in fictional contexts (as it has in many recent movies and television shows). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources – "4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." – feel free to summarise. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it, doesn't this arbitration decision more or less remove the OR concern that Francis raised? Jayen466 04:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on EVP, but I'm pretty sure there are scholars of psychology, sociology etc. who find this sort of thing an interesting topic for research, especially if it's prominent in contemporary entertainment media. [4], [5], [6], [7]. The thing is, if no one has studied it, not even out of psychological or sociological interest, if the press don't mention it, and not even the Skeptics have a page on it somewhere, then we don't need to have a page on it either. Jayen466 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with Jayen's draft above is that, unlike the quote above, it doesn't say "reliable source varies with the topic of the article." It is clear that a RS for the content of a fringe idea will be the proponents of the fringe idea. I really liked Ludwigs expanded version, because it made some of these things clearer. Basically, Jayen's draft may be easier to put in the policy, yet it doesn't cover a lot of things. Still, as long as it can't be used against policy, it might be alright. I do see that potential though "this isn't a mainstream source which says what fringe people believe, so we can't use it." You might not get the history in a mainstream source at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Since a rewrite could be included in the mother policy, NOPV, and since the question and answer format is used very little there, I have transcribed as a statement rather than a question: This is a combination of the work and words of multiple editors, and hope they don't mind my using their words in this draft.(olive (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

In an article on a science, where pseudoscience is presented in relation to mainstream, scientific views, the sources must be reliable sources and undue weight must not be given to minority views in relation to expert opinions on the subject. If the subject is claimed to be science, that claim must be shown in relation to majority, expert, scientific consensus on the subject.

In an article where the pseudoscience itself is the subject of the article, material concerning the pseudoscience should be given prominence, but the pseudoscience by definition should not be considered a mainstream scientific view, and its relationship relative to more accepted scientific or skeptical viewpoints should be described.

Since pseudosciences often have not been considered by mainstream science, mainstream sources on them may be difficult to find. If available, notable sources on the subject by expert scholars in fields such as history, sociology, religion, psychology may be used as historical and or philosophical perspectives to show the relationship of the pseudoscience within the scientific community and society at large. If reliable sources cannot be found on these matters, less reliable sources may be used. However, in each case careful attention should be paid to attribution, so that the reader will have opportunity to evaluate the reliability of the claims. If the pseudoscientific opinion is not notable, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

---

[The above is not by me - Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]

I find Olive's suggestion confusing, paticularly the third paragraph. Also, insisting on attribution could result in situations where you see something like "The Organisation of Psudoscientific Scholars say that there is strong evidence that UtterNonsense exists. Frederick Farrar disagrees, and says that UtterNonsense is not possible under the laws of science." - where Frederick Farrar is representing the majority, scientific view, and the Organization of Pseudoscientific Scholars has only a dozen members. Attribution could easily directly violate undue weight. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion above, Actually, I believe it should be possible to find at least some scientific discussion of the paredolia-like ways that people delude themselves into thinking that EVPs occur on a certain bit of tape. It might be necessary to go back to its earlier form, playing records backwards to find supposed "secret messages", but there's almost surely some commentary out there. And, given parity of sources, the pro-EVP sources are pretty weak, so we need not counter with articles in top-tier journals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker are you on the wrong page, perhaps? I put together the draft above as noted, based on the several drafts and ideas by multiple editors. I am in the dark or at least twilight on why you have introduced EVP into this discussion on a NPOV/FAQ and NPOV policy.(olive (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The first and second paragraphs discuss undo weight in both articles whose topics are science and pseudoscience.(olive (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

EVP was used as an example a little bit above. I just threw in the comment down here as an aside. I'll edit it a little to make that clear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Olive, where do you get the idea that we should be using "less reliable sources"? If no reliable third party sources show that it's science, then we don't present it as science. . dave souza, talk 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution violates undue weight? Not if the scientific source is any good, and the reader not a total idiot. Rather, it strengthens it. Anyone else think that attribution is likely to mislead a reader? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there's nothing to prevent total idiots from reading and misunderstanding anything in our articles which is in any way obscure, and some seem to think that fringe or pseudoscientific organisations should be shown as though they match mainstream organisations with titles which are not in common usage by the general public. WP:NPOV#Article structure, Undue weight "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity" apply. . dave souza, talk 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's one of those things where I've seen it done - the majority side is carefully attributed to individual scientists, making it look like there's just a few scientists that hold those views. There's a WP:FRINGE section on Particular attribution which, while it could be done a lot better, does point out a genuine problem: That attribution can be used to imply that widely-held beliefs are only held by a tiny minority, or, by using the names of tiny fringe organisations, you can make fringe theories appear to be much more widely-held. Both are problematic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that as long as there's confusion, the writing is still too complex. If we can't understand it, either will a new editor looking for guidance.To explain, this rewrite includes work from Jayen, dave souza, Ludwigs, and Martinphi. I tacked it together.

The reference you make, Dave, to "less reliable sources" is not for science but pseudoscience, and I think attribution implies verifiability. That should be clear if not it should be rewritten.

The third paragraph is saying basically: In the case of a pseudoscience where mainstream sources are difficult to find the editor may use : a notable source by expert scholars to explain historical and philosophical perspective, if necessary a less reliable source well attributed (verifiable), and if not notable the pseudoscience should not be included in Wikipedia.

Doesn't the first paragraph take care of problems with presenting a minority view as if its a majority view, and in the second paragraph as well where it says pseudoscience should not be considered a mainstream scientific view and its relationships to more accepted scientific viewpoints described?(olive (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

WP:V already takes care of this. The problem I’ve seen is where one or two mainstream scientists have made a comment about a pseudo or fringe science, and that singular comment is presented as being the view of the entire scientific community, while there’s no WP:V source that says the entire scientific community shares that view. Indeed, it has been used in situations where members of the scientific community have not all agreed that something is pseudoscience – a few believe something possible, yet those holding the minority opinion are completely disenfranchised. If only a limited number of the mainstream scientific community have commented on something, then that should be made clear... but the small number of actual comments should not be made to look like it’s a view held by the entire mainstream scientific community. Rare is the occasion where the mainstream scientific community agrees on anything. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so while the majority or even all members of the scientific community may agree that something is impossible, or stupid, or pseudo or fringe, if it is not Verifiable, then it is not something that can or should be included in Wikipedia. If it is made so that you can do synthesis or original research for pseudoscience and fringe topics, then why not every other subject? It’s a slippery slope and it is misleading to our readers. We need to maintain complete neutrality and verifiability across the board in a predictably consistent manner. Making an exception for pseudo/fringe articles doesn’t do that. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical considerations

The approach remains rather theoretical/philosophical – which maybe isn't too bad while we want it to cover a lot of aspects. Nonetheless contributors might want to find more practical recommendations. Here are some ideas, not yet clear-cut policy or guideline text, but let's explore whether such approach might add more practicality:

1. Does the theory, approach or ideas we want to describe in a Wikipedia article make scientific claims or assumptions?
   • Scientific claims (in this sense) may follow from several indicators: the person proposing the approach may claim to be a scientist or professor; the terminology to describe the ideas may be hooked in a scientific discourse; the theory may be published in a scientific journal (Nature, The Lancet,...); The proposed claims may be discussed by the scientific community; [non-limitative list]
   • If the described theory, approach, ideas, claims, don't carry *any* scientific claims, no mention of "science" nor "pseudoscience" need to be made in the Wikipedia article describing them;
   • If there are scientific claims, then,
     • The scientific community may reject the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims virtually unanimously: then it wouldn't be too difficult finding reliable sources to that effect: use them to describe the scientific approach, on the same page as the description of the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims, in order to acquire a NPOV.
     • The scientific community may embrace the novel theory (without necessarily approving): then it would not be too difficult to find sources describing the novel theory as a scientific theory: use the available sources to describe and qualify the novel theory (without leaving out possible reserves scientists my have per the reliable sources).
     • The scientific community may be ambiguous, some approving, some rejecting: anyway, again reliable sources are available to describe these approaches, and should be used in the Wikipedia article;
     • The scientific community at large may remain moot on the point: attention should be given not to describe the novel theory as if it were something the scientific community is involved in: depending on circumstances e.g. the Wikipedia article could indicate that the theorist proposing the new ideas is a science fiction author, that the expression "speed of light" as used by the theorist is not 299,792,458 metres per second (take care not to suggest the contrary e.g. by using wikilinks "speed of light" in that case). Sometimes the "broader picture" should be given, summarizing conventional scientific approaches on the subject (take care not revert to original research, by adding something like "...therefore the [novel theory] is wrong" if no reliable source states thus - let the reader come to his/her own conclusion).
2. "In universe" aspects: some novel approaches/theories/... may carry a distinct artistic (or otherwise) in-universe component, e.g. ’pataphysics - in which case WP:INUNIVERSE should be observed in writing an article about such approaches/theories.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

A general rule might be "If insufficient sources exist to discuss the scientific community's response to a fringe theory, which claims to be scientific or makes claims obviously related to a scientific field, then the theory should not be on Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Too narrow, imho: Wikipedia's "reliable source" concept is broader than "scientific sources" (it might be useful to refer to the rejected WP:SPOV here). Scientific claims treated only in non-scientific reliable sources may have a place in Wikipedia. Whether they would have in a separate article is not the issue here (I mean, in the context of the NPOV policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think, this rule would be so open to interpretation and other difficulties as to be impossible to handle in any contentious environment:

What constitutes insufficient sources could be debated.

Science does not sufficiently deal with fringe, if at all, by definition ... fringe to what.... fringe to science. Since peer-reviewed science becomes by definition the mainstream, and what makes something mainstream could be, at the least, peer-review, a relatively closed loop is created that would not include notable, albeit, not mainstream science topics - fringe to science topics.

In an article on a so called fringe science or a pseudoscience, references to science can and should be made as long as the pseudoscience is not shown to incorrectly be mainstream, since the terms fringe science and pseudoscience refer in part to a relationship the topic has to science, however slight that might be. In an article, material might be included to show the topic's non-association to science, the debunking of the pseudoscience in relation to science, as long as it is appropriately weighted, and attributed. All of this is possible in a well sourced, well written complete article but would be disallowed by the above suggestion, seems to me.(olive (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Since we need attibution to show that it's science, if such verification is unavailable then we don't show it as science, but as a non-science social phenomenon. Where it's been subject to scientific testing which has not shown any validity for the claims, then we state just that. Since proponents of such claims commonly claim to have made tests, reports of scientific tests have to be published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Reports in fringe journals or self-published claims by proponents have to be treated as primary sources. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because it's in a p-r journal doesn't mean it isn't WP:PRIMARY. We can report proponent's claims about their tests. Also, above people were saying that attribution was a factor detracting from its believability.

The problem around here is that people often don't quite get that we aren't out to present the truth. We're just presenting sources, and attributing. So all this evaluation that people are doing-- we don't have to do that. We don't have to evaluate the truth of a claim, we only have to let the reader know who the claimant is. We have to present sources in accordance with their prominence, not their truth. If we use the sources right, we can write a good article on any topic without ever evaluating for ourselves who is right and who is wrong. Attribution kind of takes truth off our hands.

Prominence not truth: that is why RS and WEIGHT are relative to the article, not to some general body of humanity or intellectuality. Otherwise you could never rank which source is most prominent for the article. In a fringe area, you would find that the most prominent sources are the fringe ones. The most prominent sources stating the scientific or mainstream scientific opinion of the fringe topic will be from mainstream sources. The most prominent sources stating the fringe opinion of the mainstream will be fringe sources. The most prominent sources stating the relationship of the fringe claim to the mainstream will be both from fringe and mainstream sources, and attribution will be particularly important: don't like that? No, we aren't here to tell the reader what the relationship is, we're out to report what people say.

Yes, that means if the reader can't tell a good source from a bad one, the reader will be twisting in the wind of truth and falsehood. That isn't our concern. We aren't here to tell the reader what to believe.

The phrase "we...show it as" in the post above: that's utterly wrong. We aren't here to show anything as anything. If that is how people are thinking about policy, then something very wrong is going on.

People don't get the italicized text here:

"Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."

Note that you can always get RS on fringe topics: the publications of proponents are the fully RS sources which you use.

For what they believe. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, self-published sources are by definition generally unreliable, and can only be used in specific exceptional circumstances - most fringe topics would fail that (e.g. per #3 "unduly self-serving") when no other sources apart from the self-published ones exist. But that is all WP:V matter, not something that needs to be rehashed for the purposes of the WP:NPOV policy. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You forget the fringe exception [8]. That exception seems to have consensus because the alternative is to adjust NOTABILITY to exclude more, as Shoemaker suggests in a limited way above. Whatever, but if we're talking about fringe, the sources have the fringe exception. And of course in most fringe areas you can find plenty of fringe proponent sources from third party publishers. We should probably make this exception even more clear, I guess. The reason for it is that you sometimes can't describe a fringe idea without having recourse to such texts- yet it's still notable. In FRINGE it's phrased to favor non-RS criticism, but the corollary is that fringe topics are also sourced to fringe sources, including self-published ones. This also constitutes an exception to WP:SELFQUEST 2, 3, 4, and 7. This is the practice. If anyone wants to tighten up NOTABILITY, we've got a lot of articles to delete. I'll support it. There is of course disagreement on this, but the exception is commonly accepted, and necessary, since in many fringe areas you just don't have RS. You have one or two RS which give it notability, but 90% of the description only exists on sites or self-published texts. The alternative to using self published sources is thus to not allow fringe proponents to speak at all. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice the dodges on the Time cube article. It's about the site, not the ideas (thus I guess they could use the site as a source but for SELFQUEST), but they quote the website without citation. This is where you get if you don't allow fringe sources to speak for themselves on articles about themselves. Another example is the EVP article, where it has been argued that you can't use sources like the AA-EVP website. The problem is that information is moving to the web, first, and second fringe ideas are often only described fully in proponent sources. You can't get a full picture of a lot of these things without using their self-pub sources. Perhaps we need to tighten NOTABILITY to say that unless there are enough mainstream sources for a full and comprehensive article, and some of the sources are by proponents, you can't have an article. Proponents have to be able to speak for themselves or else WP is biased and not very useful. This may not be easy to argue under current rules, but I think it would fly in a full-blown policy discussion. So if anyone wants to argue that the fringe exception as I described is against policy, we need to have that discussion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding of he Fringe policy,a s far as Ican tell. I believe you're talking about Parity of sources, which says that if the fringe claim's sources are weak, the criticism can be taken from similarly weak sources. That doesn't mean, though, that all the sources in an article can be self-published internet sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they could be- you need at least the requirement of NOTABILITY. But that is such a low requirement that if you are going to fully describe a fringe idea, you are going to be using such sources: this is used as a source here. You just said "all the sources." By standard policy, you don't use any such sources. That's why I'm saying there is a commonly accepted fringe exception. It should be made more clear as now any wiki lawyer can do as he pleases. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, BTW, the logical corollary of WP:PARITY is that if the fringe sources are pretty good, and the skeptical sources are worse, you wouldn't use the skeptical sources. It assumes the fringe sources are always bad, or can be made out to be bad. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can see why one might want to quote primary fringe sources -- articles on things like the Time cube or the moon landing hoax accusations are sometimes interesting and entertaining to read -- and the primary source may be more precise and detailed (or entertaining) than whatever coverage there has been in reliable sources. But I still feel queasy about letting editors loose on Daniken's collected works, or those of David Icke or of an EVP proponent, to pick their quotes as they will; I'd much rather restrict sources for such notable fringe topics to bona fide scholarly treatments (especially since such treatments often do exist, even on wacky stuff like EVP, and are unfortunately frequently ignored by us) ... or at least reports in reputable newspapers. The argument that the secondary sources may have got it wrong and Wikipedia has to rely on editors to select primary source quotes in order "to put things right" is not a very palatable thing to write into policy. Perhaps I'm lacking humour or need to lighten up a little. Jayen466 05:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well no, we could do as you say... but it requires re-writing NOTABILITY in some manner where we'd always have enough mainstream sources to round out the article. Do you want a Wikipedia where fringe proponents don't get to speak for themselves at all? That might be fine. You are also going against the principle of PARITY. Because a lot of the criticism sources are very promotional- Quackwatch, skepdic.com, etc. The deal with parity is you have bad fringe sources and bad skeptical sources, but a loose NOTABILITY policy. I have always thought that the source was relative to the claim, just like RS says. So for example, I'm quite happy to have people sourcing to skepdic or quackwatch or whatever for a skeptical opinion. But these sources are not RS- quackwatch was even noted as "partisan." [9] A "partisan" source promoting a particular POV and run by a single person is hardly RS, as the heading says. Same with Skepdic. However, I use these sources for critical POV, and I also use the Parapsychological Association for the parapsychological POV and aaevp.com for the evoip POV, as examples. I usually write in Parapsychology related articles, which have many, many many peer-reviewed sources. The critical sources are often not peer reviewed, and where they are RS, they are often out-dated. here you have full justification for writing such articles with only scholarly criticism, and leaving out skepdic.com altogether. I haven't insisted on it. Perhaps I should. I warm to your idea, but I do think letting fringe sources speak for themselves is necessary to round out the less talked-about fringe articles we have now. Should we delete them? How should we tell when they're notable enough? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• It seems once more, apathy has overtaken this discussion. But we still have a text version in the policy that we pretty much agreed at the time does not really make much sense. Shall we have another go? Jayen466 22:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Pathological science like Pseudoscience?

Maybe WP:PSCI is also valid for Pathological science, Junk science and their kin listed under Voodoo science? Said: Rursus (☻) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:POV pushing vs. describing a minority view neutrally

I added to the FAQ that it is not necessary to remove any information from an article which "advances the POV" of the minority, as long as we state emphatically that the viewpoint being advanced is in the minority.

Is this a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow? I think it's in accordance with recent rulings by the ArbCom.

• "It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view." [10]

I think this distinguishes between:

1. including a point of view (but not advocating it or "pushing for it") - which is permitted; and,
2. using an article page for POV pushing - which is not permitted

The essential difference is that Wikipedia:POV pushing declares one viewpoint to be right and/or another viewpoint to be wrong, while neutral editing merely says what a viewpoint is and why its adherents believe it.

In other words, we cannot say X is true. But we can say A believes X because of Y. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

As phrased, I think it was a bit likely to only cause more problems: Remember that there's also weight issues: Including huge amounts of information on a tiny minority position in a mainstream article, for instance, gives the impression that the minority view is more significant than it is, even if you say "According to XYZologists" regularly. And, of course, you then get quibbling over well-referenced and the like that can cause problems themselves, plus appeals to popularity and cherry picking, which can skew an article despite containing well-referenced material. And, of course, with cherry picking and synthesising, an article or section can be "well-referenced", but still be nothing but original research.

The intent behind your edit was good, but it'd probably cause more problems than it solves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I didn't mean mainstream articles. I had in mind only articles that are about a controversy (i.e., more than one side exists) or specifically about a view held by a tiny minority. Don't we have articles about conspiracy theories (like NASA has a secret lab somewhere in the desert with space aliens and flying saucers)?

I'm also not advocating original research - at least not on the part of us ordinary contributors. I am saying that published research that contradicts the mainstream should not be Wikipedia:censored merely because it disagrees with the mainstream. That would amount to an endorsement of the mainstream as Wikipedia:truth. I only had in mind cases where someone added an idea and/or its justification to an article about a politician, historian, scientist or engineer, but which was deleted with an edit comment like "rv POV".

We need a way to distinguish between contributor POV ("Let's put this in because *I* believe it") and the viewpoints of published authors. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

We do distinguish between genuinely significant alernative views published in reliable sources, and views which are fringe where their inclusion in an article is inappropriate as giving undue weight to an extreme minority view. In articles devoted to these fringe views, we take care to give due weight to mainstream views of the fringe view. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Aye, evvewn in dedicated articles, it can sometimes be necessary to cut a lot of things about a fringe theory, because, for instance, it's written like a advertisement and the advocacy v. content ratio is low. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, in these dedicated articles we must base them on verifiable third party reliable sources, using reliable secondary sources to avoid original research, and not just present advocacy from primary sources. . dave souza, talk 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is one of the problems with the new section: it presents as without exception something with dozens of exceptions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming in very late just to wonder where WP:Undue comes into this (I think it does). dougweller (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(1)

How can a FAQ on a policy be a policy itself? — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It was split off the policy page several years ago, and helps to expand upon and clarify some of the issues involved. Pretty much the entire FAQ page can be found in the first revision of WP:NPOV. [11]. Of course, in some ways, the name is a misnomer. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added [12] - apparently based on this discussion, according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". Looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay. Dreadstar † 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's at least some important policy in there - WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, for instance, is the policy basis behind WP:FRINGE. I'd be inclined to remerge at least parts of the FAQ before downgrading it. The simple fact is that a clear, unambiguous statement like WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is the oly way to keep certain parts of Wikipedia at all sane to edit, such as Intelligent design, Evolution, Homeopathy and so on. Without it as policy, we could pretty much throw out any hope of getting any of those fields looking at all encyclopedic. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A dilemma. As the FAQ was spun off originally from the NPOV Policy one would think the material was significant but not crucial, possibly an important distinction. In which case, the auxiliary material should probably have never been tagged as a policy but left as an essay or at best a guideline. The Civility policy for example has numerous links to material/essays significant to the understanding of the policy but not critical to its explanation. If critical enough to be part of the policy one would assume that it should have been left on the page where it could be easily accessed. If any material is reinserted into the original policy, I would think a fair amount of discussion and a consensus would be necessary to distinguish what is necessary, from what is useful but not critical. (olive (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Givenm it's BEEN policy for 7 years, I don't think we'd need that much re-evaluation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First, the pseudoscience bit (the bit in contention at this time) has not been policy for 7 years, but has been in constant conflict and question, and has been changed many times. Some of the users changing it were senior admins, who thought it was not in accord with WP basic policy. Second, the length of time it's been in could as easily be seen as it's being in need of review, as of it's having consensus. Third, it has been edit warred over, which often means it is not a consensus version, but people gave up. Fourth, the status of the FAQ as policy is in question, as above:

"What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)"

So, I don't think there was any consensus to make it policy. We may need to merge/downgrade.

Fifth, the point is whether it is correct. There needs to be a discussion on whether some of its parts are actually NPOV in truth, or merely relics or bits which only some editors feel are correct. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless Martinphi provides some evidence, I don't think he accurately portrays the situation. His firststatement, portrayed more accurately, boils down to "The policy was questioned, and consensus said it should stay". If a policy having ever been challenged means it wasn't a policy, then no Wikipedia policy is one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, it looks more like edit warring to me [13] [14]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. You ignore the lengthy talk page discussion that was ongoing simultaneously. That discussion went on for some time, but eventually died out after some mild constructive criticism of a new suggestion failed to result in any further suggestions. You'll note I was not even involved for much of the last part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

shoemaker:

1. an FAQ should not be policy. at best it should have guideline status, and anything on the page that should be more than a guideline should instead be moved over to the policy page proper. otherwise we open a tremendous back door where editors can surreptitiously write new policy without the normal review and consent process, and possibly end up with mutually contradictory policy statements. I second Martin's suggestion that it should be downgraded.
2. I think it's high time this entire pseudoscience/fringe issue was reopened and revised. frankly, this supposed 'policy' strikes me more as a political move in ongoing ideological warfare than as useful aid in writing wikipedia articles. the whole thing is predicated on a questionable understanding of the nature of science, and on some blatant misconstruals of the original ArbCom ruling (which itself is underspecified).

--Ludwigs2 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something needs to be done, but let's take our time on it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The ending of the discussion mentioned above by Shoemaker: "I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)" ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Martin, but I'm getting a strong impression that you really want a major war with me. Maybe this isn't true, but I still think that such feelings means the best thing for me to do is to just disengage, and to make a polite request that you do the same, both of us communicating as little as possible with or about each other. If you would, I'd appreciate if you'd make sure that at least one neutral party's comment is said in any thread after I make a reply before you reply, and I'll do the same for your comments. I do not want to be pulled into a war with you, and so a tacit agreement to this sort of disengagement for the immediate future would be far preferred by me. Thank you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

War with you? No idea what you mean. You seem to be continually trying to get me banned from Wikipedia or sanctioned, etc. etc., but for my part I have only wanted to be left alone. Nor have I done anything warlike toward you at all, although once I responded to an attack by going to AN/I. I find no reason not to respond to you, but if you wish to not respond directly to me that is up to you. At any rate, be assured that I have no warlike intentions to anyone on Wikipedia, yourself very much included. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Various arguments about content aside for a moment, it seems fairly obvious to me personally that a FAQ page, which is effectively a policy fork where editors have substantially more leeway than they would ordinarily get on the policy page per se, is not properly categorized as a "policy". Plainly this one slipped through one of the many cracks that the diffuse concept of WP:Consensus quite frequently allows in such a large endeavor as Wikipedia. At best, it seems to me, this type of FAQ page is properly categorized as a supplemental guideline based on the policy page from which it is derived, unless adequate consensus can be achieved to the effect that it's not merely a convenience but instead is sufficiently central to the policy to merit the community's attention to maintain it with the same degree of diligence as policy pages in general. (I will intentionally avoid any personal judgement here about how well policy pages are typically maintained, except to say that in my observation more attention is typically paid to the core policy pages than is ordinarily devoted to various other pages.)
..... That said, this set of arguments is fundamentally a content dispute, which has escalated into an attempt to define or redefine the current balance between WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:Reliable sources, and perhaps also other policy pages that might be relevant here. Might I suggest that, if participants in this intense debate here can't hone in on what factors the dispute involves, or to the extent that participants disagree about either WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and/or other policy issues, that the discussion be moved into a forum where such balances are commonly negotiated? The normal course of resolving such content disputes is WP:RFC, followed if necessary by WP:RFArb, etc.,
..... Maybe the most obvious step for longer term participants in WP:NPOV, of which this page is a direct extension, is to seriously consider "downgrading" this page to guideline status, and leave the content issues such as are being brought up here to local consensus about WEIGHT and RS, and if need be to RFCs and Arbcomm. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it best to keep it policy (as it has been for the last five years or so) until at least a few issues are settled. For instance, I think Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity as important for understanding the NPOV policy as "Verifiability, not truth" for WP:V. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say, Kenosis, except that we seem to be making some progress here, so give it a chance. I also don't know how it would be brought to ArbCom, as they don't do policy much. The FAQ maybe should be downgraded.... which in itself might solve a problem, as either people would not care quite so much, or else any parts of it moved to NPOV would be given attention by the community. Also, it's easier to say "the guideline doesn't jibe with policy." On the other hand, I'm not sure the issue would get enough attention if it weren't policy, but whatever. But this should not be seen as a content dispute, as it's been brewing for years. We have a couple good suggestions going, I don't see why we should not forge ahead. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Francis Schonken, this policy is essential for understanding aspects of the main NPOV policy, in particular WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications which links directly to this rather than providing the answers on the main page. It might clarify things if that section was reorganised to include all essential points from this policy, at which point anything less important could be covered in a guideline, but it's evident from current content disputes that this would be strongly contested and could easily escalate into a complete waste of time. A correction – when this was split from the main page, it was a summary style split into two aspects of the policy, and not a POV fork. . dave souza, talk 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave, just to clarify, I didn't say "POV fork" but said "effectively a oolicy fork" in the sense you just described it, i.e. a fork devoted to FAQs. If it's to remain policy, it should of course be maintained accordingly by admins and other users familiar with specific aspects of NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience, and other relevant aspects of WP:NPOV. At present, the section on "pseudoscience" appears to me to be consistent with the Arbcom decision, though there are many aspects of the section on "Balancing different views" that presently read like an opinion piece, with direct links to guidelines and even to essay pages. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to misrepresent that, I think we're on the same wavelength here. My feeling is still that it's not so much a fork as an amplification of aspects of the core policy, which have been left rather cryptic by the split showing the questions without the answers. As you say, it's consistent with the Arbcom decision, and the principles in that decision are important. Items 3a and 4a seem relevant to recent discussions.[15] . . dave souza, talk 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy?(2)

This should not be a policy. WP:NPOV contains the actionable rule, and the examples here have broad consensus but are community interpretations of the NPOV policy. So, this should be labelled as what it is: a guideline. An official guideline, but nonetheless, a guideline. Mangojuice^talk 18:07, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's been reaffirmed as policy several times, and has been policy since NPOV itself was, so, eh... Frankly, Policy and guideline are regularly misapplied anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy?(3)

This has gone on long enough, FAQs are not policies, and this one was not meant to be one. Move the content you believe to be policy to the actual WP:NPOV policy and let this be a FAQ for that policy. Dreadstar † 16:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I know I am weighing in late, but I don't exactly agree. I DO agree that FAQs are not policy per se (NPOV is the policy, I think we all agree on this). But I don't think FAQ is a "guideline" either. Policies and guidelines are quite different things and ought to be different. I do not see the FAQ as guidelinees because the FAQ only exist as an adjunct to the policy, as someone pointed out they were part of the policy and split off for length/structural reeasons. To me they are still attached to the policy and have the weight of policy, not the weight of a guideline. It seems to me that the source of the problem is this: when FAQ were split off of the policy page we should have created an entirely new category of WP pages. It is not a policy page, but it is not a guideline either. It is a codicil to a policy, it exists and has force only because (1) a policy exists and (21) this is connected to the policy. It should not be spun off as a "guiideline" because it should only exist because of its relationship to NPOV. I used the word "codicil" and that may be too legalisctic for Wikipedia but the fact is, I think we just have to come up with a new category to describe pages that are adjunct or auxiliary to policy pages ... and then reclassify this appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...good point...guess WP:ESSAY doesn't fit either....aybe we need to create a new classification like WP:ADDENDUM..or perhaps something as simple as WP:FAQ with a subject qualifer [[WP:FAQ|NPOV Policy]]? Dreadstar † 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the best tags for a page like this would be {{Supplement}} or {{Infopage}}, {{policy}} doesn't fit it, and {{guideline}} might, but I prefer the first two. MBisanz ^talk 17:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think those are excellent! I like {{Supplement}} best of all; much better than policy/guideline/essay. Dreadstar † 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been policy since 2002 (it was part of the NPOV policy before it was split off). You can't just demote it without at least getting a wide-ranging discussion. I'm reverting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No it hasn't, you need to reexamine the evidence. This was split off the actual Policy because it wasn't policy material. Dreadstar † 17:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And immediately tagged with a policy tag when it was split off. Seriously, you're arguing that something that was tagged as a policy when it was split off, and which remained policy for, what has it been, five years, was never meant to be policy. Your argument has a severe disconnect from reality. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to review my edit from above: ":I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added [16] - apparently based on this discussion, according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". Looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay. Dreadstar † 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)". Dreadstar † 17:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Three years later is a bit late to begin objecting, don't you think? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Um...no. Dreadstar † 18:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Shoemaker. If it was split off of policy, then it is no longer policy. To become Policy or reconnect to the original policy will require discussion and wide community input as is necessary when dealing with policy decisions like this.

I like Slrrubenstein's idea of denoting this is an auxiliary to a policy page... calling it a supplement is fine, too.(olive (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

It's been marked with the policy tag for three years. I simply think that it requires a reasonable discussion before it's changed. You can't very well say, in the middle of a discussion about it, that you're going to demote it now, and anyone who continues to say it's policy is clearly wrong. You need to show YOU have consensus first; you cannot claim that the status quo needs to show consensus to remain. Open a request for comment if you want, but I'm going to insist that proper procedures are followed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's remained as a policy and has been used as such for good reason. Any merge into NPOV has to be carefully considered so that the policy isn't diluted. . dave souza, talk 18:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's been being "carefully considered" for over four months. FAQ should not be a policy. Dreadstar † 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's been under consideration for four hours. Just because you added something today to a section that had its last post on the 8th of October does not mean that the discussion continued from October until today. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Two policy pages for the same policy dilutes the statement and creates confusion. As has been noted above, if there is unique content in the FAQ that is needed in the policy page, it should be moved to the policy page - based on full discussion and consensus as is usual for updating a policy. It's useful for a policy page to be supported by a Q&A to help editors to make decisions about how to apply the policy in various situations, informed by experience, consensus, and in some situations, ArbCom findings - but the Q&A is not the policy, it illuminates the policy. An analogy is the relationship between the WP:V policy and the WP:RS guideline. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jack-A-Roe. We can't have two policy pages for the same policy. Once an article splits off from a policy page, it is no longer that policy. There is a practical issue here too: long-time editors have long watchliosts and people who watsh NOR and participate in discussions of proposed changes to NOR may not watch the FAQ page. It is easier to make changes to FAQ than to NOR, for this reason, and for this reason it shouldn't have the same weight. This is why Dave Souza expresses a very valid concern about merging this page back to NOR. So it ought not to be a "policy." That said, I still do not think it should be a guideline. It should be called something that indicates that it exists because of and as a suppelement to NOR, and its purpose is to help people understand a policy. That does not make it a policy, but it is not a guideline either, it exists by virtue of its function vis a vis a policy and we need a category that appropriately and clearly communicates this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar that it would be better to call this page a guideline, or even for it to have no status, but have it simply as a help page regarding the policy. What do people see as the benefit of calling it policy? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "help" pages concerning policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience is the clearest policy-level discussion of how psuedoscience should be handled in Wikipedia. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If that's to become policy, there needs to be consensus for it to go on the policy page. As it's currently written, I don't think it would get that consensus. That's the problem with making FAQs policy — lots of people edit it to be helpful, but then it assumes the status of the policy it's attached to, which it really ought not to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

But it is policy. See the policy tag? It doesn't cease being policy until there's consensus to have it stop being policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a clear consensus that the policy tag shouldn't have been placed on it. In favor of it being tagged policy: Shoemaker's Holiday, Francis Schonken, Dave Souza. Against it being tagged policy: Rlevse, Dreadstar, Olive, Martinphi, Ludwigs, Kenosis, Mangojuice, Slrubenstein, SlimVirgin, MBizanz, Jack-A-Roe. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(4)

A discussion from October, which had no discussion since, had a few comments added today by Dreadstar, and then he promptly began claiming that per the four-month discussion...

No. You have just started a new discussion. The old discussion closed with no consensus, and it is now only four hours since you re-opened the topic, and thus far, far too soon to be making any changes to whether this is policy or not.In fact, Dreadstar changed this page from policy to guideline mere minutes after reopening the discussion, linking to that discussion, and treating it as if he was dealing with a long-running discussion, not one four months old. [17] I think this behaviour is absolutely abominable. Please stop, open an RfC on this policy, and if you get consensus for your proposed change of levels after more than a couple hours have passed, then you'll have something. Less than one hour since you reopened a discussion is ridiculous. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There is consensus that it shouldn't have been tagged as policy, SH, and there has been for months. People feel they have more leeway to edit this than a policy page, and not so many people watchlist it. In addition, there is text in it that arguably contradicts NPOV. Let's take the policy tag off it and decide what to call it, if anything. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The notion that it shouldn't be policy because people have been trying to edit it a lot is not at all persuasive. The response to that should be to revert people not to declare that somehow makes it not policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dreadstar and Slim Virgin. There is a large group of editors who don't agree this should be a policy so why not "clear the floor" and begin a discussion on what it should be.(olive (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

I've said this about five times: OPEN A POLICY RFC. Do this with proper process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I’d like Shoemaker to please provide a link to the consensus that made this FAQ a policy; as I’ve stated before, the discussion at the time this was spun off WP:NPOV indicates that this FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". As for right now, I don't see any consensus or reasonable logic that this or any FAQ should be a policy at all. And I agree with SlimVirgin, there’s clearly no consensus that this should be a policy. If there are things in this FAQ that should be Policy, then move them to the relevant policy and make this FAQ what it should be....which is not a policy. Dreadstar † 20:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker, I'd also like to see where it was decided this should be policy. This page has no talk archives, so it's hard to see what's what. So far as I can tell, it was removed from the policy page because it was deemed inappropriate for policy. Then someone tagged it as policy, and there has been disagreement ever since. Removal and restoration of the tag:

• Moved by FT2 out of the policy page, June 26, 2006 [18]
• Tagged by Francis Schonken as policy, June 27, 2006. [19]
• Policy tag removed by Radiant! Sept 9, 2006 [20]
• Restored by Francis Sept 9, 2006 [21]
• Policy tag removed by Pmanderson March 15, 2007 [22]
• Guideline tag removed by Jossi, so it's now untagged, March 16, 2007. [23]
• Policy tag restored by FeloniousMonk, March 17, 2007. [24]
• Policy tag removed by Dreadstar, Feb 12, 2009. [25]
• Restored by Shoemaker's Holiday Feb 12, 2009. [26]
• Policy tag changed to supplement by Littleoliveoil, Feb 12, 2009. [27]
• Restored by Dave souza, Feb 12, 2009. [28]
• Policy tag changed to supplement by SlimVirgin, Feb 12, 2009. [29]
• Restored by Stifle, Feb 12, 2009. [30]

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

And how does that compare to other policy pages? I'm quite certain that you could make very similar lists for WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOR, and so on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

My opinion here is that this page provides specific community-agreed-upon interpretations and applications of NPOV. These should be just as binding as a policy. If there is disagreement, then we should open it at least to a community-wide RFC. NPOV is far too important to the project to deal with this in any less casual of a manner. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If this page "should be just as binding as a policy", then it should be policy. Cardamon (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that this same question is being discussed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. It's not clear from that discussion whether it's about this section or the pseudoscience thread at the top of this page, but the question about the FAQ being policy is mentioned there, hence the reason for linking that discussion here. -- Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy?(5? sigh...)

Heavens, I make a point of studiously ignoring Wikipedia for a few months (because I'm no good at the political games: I always lose), and I come back to find the exact same puerile arguments still ongoing. it is to weep...

points of logic:

1. if there is this much contention over whether the FAQ is policy, then there's no point in it being policy - seems like half the Wikipedia population will IAR it anyway.
2. the idea of an FAQ being policy is ridiculous - what if the questions frequently asked change? who decided what questions were 'frequently asked' in the first place? if there's anything here that deserves to be policy, it should be on the POLICY page, not on the FAQ designed to exemplify and clarify policy.

now I will grant that there are some important and interesting issues under discussion in this debate, and I'd love to actually discuss them (that would be fun). but please don't waste time responding to this if you're just going to spout the same old mindless b#llcr@p. I'm not interested in reading it. --Ludwigs2 00:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that consensus-derived applications of a policy are in fact an extension of the policy itself. This FAQ tells us how the community has aggreed to apply NPOV in frequently misunderstood situations. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

but that strikes me as pretty much the definition of the difference between a policy and a guideline (or FAQ):

• Policy: a broadly agreed-on set of (usually abstract) principles that can be applied universally.
• Guideline/FAQ: examples of the application of policy to specific situation, in response to issues that have been raised.

Guidelines don't need to have quite as much broad consensus as policies, since it's assumed that guidelines have a lot of contextual elements specific to the situation they are dealing with - there's more room for disagreement there.

now, what I see happening here is an ongoing attempt to elevate a contentious application of policy to the level of policy itself. This effectively changes the nature of the policy without establishing proper consensus. and it is contentious: there are editors who support it and editors who oppose it, and no real effort between the groups to discuss the matter reasonably. that tells me right there that this doesn't qualify as policy. if it were up to me, I would remove the Policy status, remove the Guideline status, and just leave this as a simple explanatory FAQ until such a time as the editors involved settle down and cooperate to produce something that they can all agree on, which can then be added to the main policy page without all this silly political maneuvering. that would be the reasoned and reasonable approach, don't you think? --Ludwigs2 05:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to suggest that the definitions of Policy and Guidelines which you give us above - logical and well reasoned as they are - do not match up to how Wikipedia defines its Policies and Guidelines. From WP:PG:

Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature.

And:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia. Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur.

So the question is: Is a FAQ of a policy itself policy or a guideline? Or something else entirely?! Let's start here:

1. Are the answers given to the questions at this FAQ considered standards which all editors should follow or more advisory in nature?
2. Does the FAQ page have wide acceptance among editors? If not, is it disputed much more frequently or by many more editors than a typical policy? Than NPOV itself?
3. Is this FAQ closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia?
4. Is the FAQ page considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow or are exceptions to the answers more likely to occur than they occur with policies in general? More likely to occur than with NPOV itself?

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant your distinction between my definitions and Wikipedia's (though I'm not seeing as big a difference as you - mine are just more generalized). That being said, your questions seem (to me at least) to have some fairly direct answers

1. No, almost by definition. Policy says 'this is a standard we on Wikipedia apply.' questions start appearing in article talk, asking 'how do we meet that standard for this particular problem?' and the answers to those questions end up in the FAQ. such answers, though, can only say how the policy was adapted to work in a given situation; they do not extend themselves to a more general usage without a lot more discussion and effort, at which point they are no longer answers to questions but are actual revisions to policy.
2. This particular FAQ - obviously - does not have wide acceptance. with an average policy (so it seems to me) there are specific clauses that might give people pause, but there is an overwhelming support for the core principles of the policy. almost no one, for instance, argues that Neutrality is a bad or undesirable thing, though there are certainly disagreements about what neutrality means in specific cases. however, the history of this talk page shows quite clearly that there is not overwhelming support for the main principles of this FAQ. there's not even whelming support.
3. yes and no. most of this FAQ is advisory in nature (e.g. what do I do about...?), which is not out of line with the five pillars but not really linked to them. standard FAQ stuff. parts of it are attempts at extending NPOV into new (and sometimes questionable) arenas, which is problematic. the sections on religion and morally offensive views are probably the best in terms of the five pillars, others are worthwhile, some are (in my view) close to contradicting some of the pillars. as a whole (to keep the structural analogy), this FAQ would not bear loads well, and serve to weaken some of the other pillars if taken too seriously. more on that if you like...
4. some of the clauses here are too specific to lend themselves as universal standards. some present themselves as universal standards, but lack the consensus to actually survive as universal standards. a very few might work as universals without too much in the way of exceptions, but not the entire FAQ by a long shot.

really, the problem here is that while there are a couple of sections that I think all of us might agree are worthy of policy, if I were to say 'let's move this section and this section into policy and leave the rest' I'd meet instant opposition, because (frankly) the goal of all this silliness is to get the (contentious and opposed) pseudoscience sections entrenched in policy. No compromise is going to fly that excludes those sections. I mean really - if the pseudoscience sections weren't in this, would anyone even bother trying to elevate this FAQ to policy? no one has tried that with any other FAQ on wikipedia that I know of, and the skeptics circle are the only people who have been actively pursuing the creation of new policy. a six year old could do that math. --Ludwigs2 06:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. A random, unstructured and rambling commentary on NPOV. In places, barely comprehensible (e.g. "You are not contradicting that belief by accepting that Wikipedia is not the place to demonstrate that to other people before it has become accepted human knowledge"). Completely lacks the clarity, precision and quality of thought that we expect from a policy. Could aspire to be a guideline, but as it stands, it's just a badly-written essay. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this another way:

FAQ is not policy

The FAQ is not essential to NPOV the policy, and so was split off.

Without NPOV, the FAQ probably would not exist and owes its raison d'etre to the policy.

NPOV is capable of standing alone without the FAQ, as indeed it does.

In the same way, the art critic is not essential to the painting. (isn't that the truth).

Without the painting the critic might as well go home

And again, critic, and FAQ enhance but are not essential to.

Critic, and FAQ further describe the essential aspects.

Critic and FAQ are about the policy and painting but are not the painting or policy themselves. They supplement or are addendums to the essential aspects.

The critic is not the painting and the FAQ is not the policy

In a general sense the FAQ may be described as something that helps guide the policy, but we don't use guideline in that way on Wikipedia. A guideline here is much more akin to policy than this general definition, so I would think the FAQ needs to be called something else - supplement, addendum ... whatever.(olive (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

{{editprotected}} I think there is enough dissensus (and dissensus with sound reasoning, at that) to show that this FAQ does not merit policy status, so I'm requesting that an Admin remove the policy tag. I suggest it be removed entirely, and we can start a separate thread on whether the FAQ should have guideline status. thanks. --Ludwigs2 23:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done There is, I believe, consensus for the removal of the policy tag. However, until its new status is decided, I will leave it with no status for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There is/was no consensus for the removal of the tag, which should be clear from the above (people called "dissensus" for removal of the tag, whatever that is).

Anyway, if the presence of a policy tag is *disputed* and *discussed at the talk page* there's a perfect tag to indicate that:

Please (at least, if not reverting the previous "editprotected" edit as controversial), add this tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. There does seem to be consensus for removal, but until this discussion is complete, and everyone's more-or-less agreed, I won't risk ending the discussion and unprotecting the page. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

tx, re "There does seem to be consensus for removal": see also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, making clear there is/was no consensus for the removal of the {{Policy}} template.

As for the content of the policy/no policy discussion, here's another idea: why don't we move WP:NPOVFAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity and WP:NPOVFAQ#Pseudoscience back to the WP:NPOV page somewhere? --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

hmmm, let's work through the logic here:

• Given: pages should have broad consensus in the community to be considered policy
• Demonstrated (by this talk page): this page does not have broad consensus in the community
• Conclusion: this page should not be considered policy

I don't object to the 'under discussion' tag, but I see no reason to keep the page tagged as policy until the discussion is over, certainly not when there are this many objections to it.

with respect to Francis' other suggestion - lol. it's as I suggested above, the entire policy struggle on this page is to get the pseudoscience material entrenched as policy. please know that those sections are entirely problematical, and there's no way they should be moved onto the policy page without a great deal of discussion. I'm actually shocked (and pleased - I like honesty) that FS was that upfront about the larger goals here. that allows for a clearer discussion.--Ludwigs2 01:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Francis' suggestion. On Ludwig's comment: there hasn't been an RFC, alerts on the village pump, or similar, nor more than a couple days for discussion. It's way too premature to claim consensus to demote it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker: way too early to make which claim?

• that a number of editors object to this FAQ being policy? that's not a claim, that's a fact - read the at least 8 editors above on this page, and heaven knows how many more in the archives.
• that there's no logical reason for making this FAQ a policy? again, that's a fact - no logical reason has been presented, and there are plenty of reason's offered why it doesn't fly.
• that this is all just a trick to get the pseudoscience material into policy without establishing proper consensus? ok, that's a claim, but I don't think it's too early to make that claim at all, since it seems patently obvious.

or are you referring to some other claim? please do tell... --Ludwigs2 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the above post to make it clear I was talking about the same thing as the other seven times I raised the point and was ignored. I trust that's sufficient, and does not require you to continue to make bad-faith speculation of what I might have meant. This is precisely why I hate working with you, olive, Dreadstar, and the rest of your group - you're more interested in throwing smoke around than dealing with actual points. See also the FTN discussion, where Olive makes a ridiculously bad-faith assumption, then leaps on one aspeect of my clarification to throw the discussion off-topic, or any of dozens of other interactions I've had with your group. It gets tiresome. Please stop it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, then moderate your comments accordingly. Dreadstar † 05:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. You reopen a two-monh old thread, and immediately claim consensus begin edit-warring to demote it from policy, and all your friends instantly show up to agree with you. You travel as a pack. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker:

1. your argument seems to be that there is no consensus to remove a policy tag from a page that has no consensus to be policy in the first place. reminds me of the time I was 10 and the local bully told me I couldn't have my bike back because he stole it from me fair and square. didn't work on me then, and it doesn't work on me now. This FAQ does not have the consensus it needs to be policy, therefore it is not policy, period. the tag is a formality, so you might as well give it up and let it go.
2. I've made actual and very clear points above about why this shouldn't be considered policy. you, by contrast, have said nothing except to make accusations of bad-faith against me and others. I'm not the one blowing smoke...

I swear, if you and the band of merry skeptics you hang out with spent less time on political games and character assassination, and more time on fruitful, reasoned discussion, we might actually get someplace on this. so I'll leave it up to you: is the next thing you type here going to be a clear, on-topic explanation of why you think this page merits policy status, or is it just going to be another diatribe about how Olive, Dreadstar, etc., and I annoy you? your choice. --Ludwigs2 08:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, your opening comment in this section included don't waste time responding to this if you're just going to spout the same old mindless b#llcr@p, and it doesn't look like your level of civility has changed much. Give it a break. Now, did I miss something, or are your clear points 1) if there is this much contention over whether the FAQ is policy, then there's no point in it being policy; and 2) the idea of an FAQ being policy is ridiculous - what if the questions frequently asked change? who decided what questions were 'frequently asked' in the first place? You'll have to forgive me, but I don't see the clarity.

According to WP:POLICY:

Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. They are often closely linked to the five pillars of Wikipedia.

Now, this FAQ has been a policy since 2006. Maybe that was the wrong call back then, but it happened years ago, and dredging old history and declaring it was the wrong call is not a sensible reason for change now. If it's still wrong, which is all that matters at this point, it should be easy for you to demonstrate that with an RFC or some other attempt to determine a broad consensus for change. At that point, your first point becomes clear to me.

Regarding your second point, the way I see it, the FAQ outlines a standard that, with rare exceptions, all users should follow. However, I wasn't aware of any reason that FAQ's and policies are to remain distinct, so can you point to such a reason in the form of a previous discussion, policy, guideline, etc. so I can see why it's so ridiculous? At that point, your second point becomes clear to me. Thanks. Ben (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Ben: please note that as grumpy as I can get at times, I (almost always) make comments about behavior, not about people. If you want to tell me that my 'b#llcr@p' comment was inappropriate, I'd accept that (I'd disagree, but I'd accept it). however, making a comment about me and my personal 'level of civility' is itself a violation of wikipedia rules of civility. please reframe the comment so that it's about the act, not the person, or redact it entirely. an apology would be nice as well.

now, to your points:

• I wasn't here is 2006, but my first question would be: did this FAQ go through the normal consensus building process to become policy, or was it simply declared policy by fiat (over the objections of the few people who noticed the move)? looking at the objections that have been levied above, and at the page itself, it seems clear to me that it had to have been by fiat - a protracted examination process by the community would have (at the very least) forced the FAQ into some sort of consistent structure, cleaned up obvious inconsistencies, and removed obviously biased statements. the FAQ as it stands is a mess, even for an FAQ, and the community at large wouldn't have tolerated it as policy on the grounds of mere aesthetics. so again, we have political gamesmanship going on - trick it into policy status, and then defend that with your last breath. not very nice.
• again, I wasn't here in 2006, but I am now, and it's clear to me that large sections of this FAQ are not consonant with the 5 pillars of wikipedia. I can give a protracted discussion of that, if you like. it's my obligation as a good citizen of wikipedia to redress that problem, now that I am here.
• as I discussed above (please read more carefully in the future) FAQ's are by their nature applications of policy to specific instances or problems. Policy is supposed to be generalized, as universally applicable as possible, so the contents of an FAQ will not by their nature be up to the standards that are required of policy. this isn't to say that FAQ are useless (they serve a good purpose in helping people learn how to apply policy). nor does this mean that nothing in an FAQ could ever be treated as policy (the answers given to specific problems can sometimes be generalized to a more universal form). what it means is that the FAQ itself should not be policy; anything in the FAQ that's policy-worthy should be extracted out, discussed, modified, and after careful thought added to the policy page.

clear enough for you know, or is there something more I can explain? --Ludwigs2 22:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think I was out of line by noting your level of civility, you are welcome to report it. I think you'll be wasting your time though, and my comment stands.

With respect to your other points, there is no point in speculating what would have happened if past history was changed. Maybe everything would have happened as you predicted, but it doesn't matter now. Furthermore, the claim that 'x was not done right in 2006' might be perfectly true, but it's no reason to start making changes in 2009. Finally, everything you say might be true, for instance maybe large sections of this FAQ are not consonant with the 5 pillars of wikipedia, or policy is supposed to be generalised, but it's not for me or you to decide. Since you didn't point me to anything official that established your claims, I have to assume no-one else has decided this either. To borrow from your observations of poor process in 2006, the correct way to deal with this now is to gain a community consensus for the change you want. Cheers, Ben (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

well, excellent! since you're not interested in disputing any of my points, and you allow the possibility that the process of getting a policy tag on this page was deeply flawed, then I imagine you would have no objection with removing the policy tag and starting again from scratch. that would be the wisest course, if we're concerned about proper consensus, no? I'll count that as a vote in my favor, thank you very much.

I didn't really expect you to apologize for the incivility, by the way. I just thought I'd point it out. it's a new year, and as far as I'm concerned everyone starts out with a fresh slate and a decent line of credit. so no worries. --Ludwigs2 03:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're so terribly clever Ludwigs. Fortunately, your imagination doesn't speak for me. Now run along and start an RfC or something, ok? Ben (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - I also didn't expect you to admit it when you've lost an argument, but after that last comment I don't suppose a formal admission is necessary. I'm content. --Ludwigs2 05:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker. I could have bypassed you comment on the FNI, but I found it offensive, and by not commenting and allowing it to go by unnoticed I in effect agree with it...Editors came in to support the statement which I couldn't agree with either. Its not blowing smoke to deal with what appeared to be prejudice in collaborative situations. It appears that you didn't "mean " the statement and I can accept that. I also attempted to bring the derailed discussion back here to continue with the issues after you explained your position. But ... you made the statement I didn't, so I'm not sure why you lay the blame at my door rather than your own. A simple explanation and then continue on might have been preferable. By the way, because some editors are in agreement on something doesn't make them a group. These editors don't agree with you. That's all... that's pretty simple.(olive (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC))

Common objections and clarifications

The above heading is part of NPOV policy, but the section itself contains only "Common objections or concerns" with links to the clarifications provided in NPOV/FAQ. Essentially these clarifications are part of policy, and so require that standing. As SlimVirgin pointed out above,[31] they were part of the policy until moved by FT2 out of the policy page, June 26, 2006, and were tagged as policy nine hours later after discussion. The policy tag has remained for the two and a half years since then, with the exception of five occasions when the tag was removed then reinstated, mostly within the day but on one occasion after two days. With these brief exceptions NPOV/FAQ has remained in use as policy.

If the tag is to be changed, the supplement tag isn't sufficiently clear that the contents remain in full force as clarification of NPOV and part of that policy. Downgrading the page to a guideline leaves unanswered questions as part of policy, and so the answers would have to be moved into the policy page. I'd have no objection to them being rephrased as statements rather than remaining in the question and answer format. If it helps to overcome the problems some editors have with a FAQ being policy, an alternative acronym could be chosen with the shortcuts being redirected to a new title. . . dave souza, talk 09:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It may be that some, even most of this could be integrated wholesale into the NPOV page, actually. For instance, "There's no such thing as objectivity" easily fits into th e section on what the neutral point of view is, and "Making necessary assumptions" could stand as its own section easily. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why can't we just move condensed portions of the faq back into WP:NPOV? I note, for example, that the pseudoscience bit in the faq is adequately represented in the main article. A check through the WT:NPOV archives shows that FT2 spun out the faqs from the main article for reasons of length, concision, and the impression that the faqs read like chat logs. I don't see why experienced policy editors can't condense and reintegrate these sections back into the main NPOV, while keeping them concise and un-chatlike. Skinwalker (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

with some conditions, this would work for me. I'd like a chance for the community to discuss and debate anything that gets moved over into NPOV (because, as I said, some of the stuff here isn't policy-worthy, and I have no idea what's been added to the FAQ in the last couple of years since - my initial and main objection to all of this was the potential for injecting stuff into policy without proper consensus). the FAQ can and should remain, because FAQS are a good idea in general, but it can't be marked as policy (taking off the policy tag will allow it to grow and change and act like - you know - a real FAQ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

I disagree that something that's been policy for years should require a new debate to be added. I think we should just do it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a discussion would be in any way problematic. if in fact these points are as acceptable to the community as you seem to think, a discussion will reflect that and everything will get added. If not, then a discussion will reveal problems and resolve them. either way, you end up with policy that's stronger and and more clearly based in consensus. rushing to judgement here will only give the impression that someone is trying to push something into policy without proper consensus, and we don't want that, do we? --Ludwigs2 16:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on, you know as well as I do that all that will happen is that every fringe-pusher on Wikipedia, sensing blood, will descend, shout a lot, drown out the much less motivated majority, and nothing will move forwards. Perhaps I'm pessimistic. Anyway, this FAQ was written by the founders of Wikipedia themselves. I think that, perhaps, we can respect their vision. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

well, speaking as someone who is periodically accused of being a fringe POV-pusher - for no readily apparent reason, mind you, except that I irritate some people - you'll forgive me If I can't quite take that category as exactly meaningful. I see no reason to rush ahead with this just to preclude some people from having a voice in the debate. no one ever said consensus was an easy or comfortable to achieve, but I think we all agree that it's important, right? --Ludwigs2 06:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're considered a POV pusher, because you push a fringe POV on numerous articles. Consensus is NOT a system to block ideas--RS and VERIFY rule firstly. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

and so it goes... was that as fun as you'd hoped? --Ludwigs2 07:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't let you get away with your fringe POV stuff before, and I won't now. Since I don't tend to mind read, knowing that it is a fringe belief set, I won't dare guess what you know or don't know, but when I see fringe POV, I see it. That's what I know. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent for clarity) Can I offer a suggestion? It seems to me that a FAQ shouldn't be policy - it should be a clarification of the application of policy. However, it is clear that the current page also includes elements that are deemed policy. How about creating a (temporary) page called something like "Additional Information", moving those parts currently in the FAQ (whose status is disputed) to that page, re-tagging the FAQ as a guideline and then discussing how to re-integrate the removed parts back into the main policy page? Once that is sorted the "Additional Information" page can be deleted.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion began with a single person claiming that this was never intended to be policy, that it never was policy, and that therefore he could do whatever he wanted with the page and we should have no right to ask he get consensus, or even to ask that widespread input be sought before a page was demoted. These actions and the events surrounding this discussion so far do not bode well for any sort of productive discussion; What if, for instance, that person again decides that he is the arbiter of policy, and edit wars again, as he did at the start of this discussion. It just doesn't seem a good or healthy environment for any sort of discussion, so there's a strong inclination to just lock things down, keep the status quo, and return to this at some later date.

I apologise to those of you on the opposite side acting reasonably in good faith, and hope you'll understand that I neither want this to apply to everyone, nor to be taken further than what I said - but I do think that explaining my reasons for concern may, at least, mean that the problems can be dealt with. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess my understanding of this is a little different than Shoemaker's. The Policy tag was added by a single person soon after the original split was made. The attempt to rename the FAQ came after a discussion in which three editors thought the policy could renamed something that reflected the fact that the FAQ was split off because it was not necessary to the original policy, and was more likely an addendum or supplement. There was as far as I remember a three to one ratio. If this is coming back to discussion, I see no reason to suppose that any editor would not be willing to further engage in discussion on the matter, AGF, but I do feel that discussion with the wider Community is necessary given we are dealing with a potential policy/guideline decision. I am busy with another project so may not be able to contribute much, but will comment if I can.(olive (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Although I'm not sure that what we have here is even a guideline, I think FimusTauri makes some good suggestions on how to approach this.(olive (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

Shoemaker: re: This discussion began with a single person claiming that this was never intended to be policy, that it never was policy, and that therefore he could do whatever he wanted with the page and we should have no right to ask he get consensus, or even to ask that widespread input be sought before a page was demoted... that has to be the most twisted representation of something I've said that I've ever seen. I mean, even down to the very first point: note - I didn't start this discussion, but entered it halfway through, following up on another editor's complaint. I don't mind you objecting to my words (that's a good place to start a discussion), but if you're going to do so, please object to my words, and not some heavily warped and fragmented reflection of them. thanks.

otherwise, I agree with Fimus and Olive. let's create a temporary page where we can reach a proper consensus about what belongs in policy and what doesn't. --Ludwigs2 00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig? I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to events a bit before you got here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake - it was close enough to what I wrote above to give me pause. my apologies for the misunderstanding.--Ludwigs2 02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. The big difference is you did not use that discussion to justify an edit war to "correct" the situation, which is the problem that's pretty much the main reason why I'm a bit hesitant to suggest any further action at this time, though I do agree we should revisit this eventually. 'Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines is the consensus about what belongs in policy and what doesn't. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Time for site-wide advertised RfC?

It seems clear from the above that too few editors are involved here and this deadlock does not seem like is going to end anytime soon. Perhaps it's time to put forth 1-2 clear proposals and submit them to the attention of a larger community by advertising the RfC on the watchlist? Xasodfuih (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

that is an excellent idea. give me a bit, and I'll see if I can draft something up. --Ludwigs2 00:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, since you have a rather odd view of what constitutes POV, you should find something else to do. How about you NOT do it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig is capable of writing the first draft. In my experience with RfC, sometimes just crafting the language of the RfC helps work out some issues. If you got the drive then go for it, Ludwig! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

can we have faq related to WP:CHERRY?

I think it will be a good idea to add details on WP:CHERRY to the FAQ. cherry picked quotes can be a POV problem. I want to add a small section on WP:CHERRY at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Balancing_different_views. Can other pls comment and share their ideas? Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)