Misplaced Pages

talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:21, 30 April 2010 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits FAQ as Policy: background and urging Dreadstar to build a consensus before acting unilaterally← Previous edit Revision as of 16:24, 30 April 2010 edit undoDreadstar (talk | contribs)53,180 edits some historyNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:
:Alrighty, this proposal has been up for ten days without any further objections. In keeping with the , and since this proposal covers any future requests to move material from to another, appropriate Policy page without dispute, then I think it's very safe to 'downgrade' this from Policy to juat a FAQ. I'll go ahead and do that shortly if there are no further objections. Thanks! ] <small>]</small> 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) :Alrighty, this proposal has been up for ten days without any further objections. In keeping with the , and since this proposal covers any future requests to move material from to another, appropriate Policy page without dispute, then I think it's very safe to 'downgrade' this from Policy to juat a FAQ. I'll go ahead and do that shortly if there are no further objections. Thanks! ] <small>]</small> 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Um, no. This was always policy ever since it was spun off from the NPOV article since 2006. And read the archived discussion in 2006 at Talk:NPOV on the spin off; it was only allowed to be spun off on the condition that it remain policy or else it was to be folded back in. ] (]) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC) ::Um, no. This was always policy ever since it was spun off from the NPOV article since 2006. And read the archived discussion in 2006 at Talk:NPOV on the spin off; it was only allowed to be spun off on the condition that it remain policy or else it was to be folded back in. ] (]) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
:::The history of the spin-out of this FAQ from NPOV Policy was discussed at ], and followed up by a discussion at ], which led to discussions on what to move to the actual NPOV Policy page ], and finalized by moving the Policy material from the FAQ to the actual Policy page, ]. ] <small>]</small> 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


Hang on a sec - are you saying there should not be a FAQ for this policy? I'm unclear on what the reasoning is. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Hang on a sec - are you saying there should not be a FAQ for this policy? I'm unclear on what the reasoning is. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:24, 30 April 2010


Archives
Archive 1Archive 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

FAQ as Policy

Consensus from the above discussions appear to show that a FAQ, including this one, should not be Misplaced Pages Policy. Consensus also seems to be that since this FAQ was consindered Policy for so long and that it contained material considered Policy, that this FAQ should remain policy until all the Policy content was moved to WP:NPOV or other Policy pages. Most, if not all of this content has been moved, and what remains does not appear to be Policy material. But, in order to alleviate any concerns that material from this FAQ might still be Policy, I propose that while we downgrade this FAQ from being Policy, we also keep the door open to moving any content from the current version to Policy without dispute. Any new content added to this FAQ should not be considered Policy, but instead any new Policy material should be placed on another, more appropriate WP Policy page. Any objections? Dreadstar 20:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, this proposal has been up for ten days without any further objections. In keeping with the above consensus, and since this proposal covers any future requests to move material from the current version to another, appropriate Policy page without dispute, then I think it's very safe to 'downgrade' this from Policy to juat a FAQ. I'll go ahead and do that shortly if there are no further objections. Thanks! Dreadstar 03:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, no. This was always policy ever since it was spun off from the NPOV article since 2006. And read the archived discussion in 2006 at Talk:NPOV on the spin off; it was only allowed to be spun off on the condition that it remain policy or else it was to be folded back in. Odd nature (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The history of the spin-out of this FAQ from NPOV Policy was discussed at WP:NPOV/FAQ#Why is this FAQ a policy?, and followed up by a discussion at WP:NPOV/FAQ:Is a FAQ a Policy, which led to discussions on what to move to the actual NPOV Policy page Material to be transferred to a Policy page, and finalized by moving the Policy material from the FAQ to the actual Policy page, FAQ as Policy. Dreadstar 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec - are you saying there should not be a FAQ for this policy? I'm unclear on what the reasoning is. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 16:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was part of the original discussion to spin this off and party to the original compromise. And that compromise called for the content spun out of the NPOV policy to the FAQ to remain policy or to be rolled back into NPOV. This stood since 2006 and Dreadstar's unitlateral demotion of this page. Dreadstar, if you want to make such sweeping changes to part of the project's core policy, you're going to need the broad consensus of the community. Until you have that, please stop acting unilaterally to degrade this policy. FeloniousMonk (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording of "Anglo-american bias"

"The Anglo-American focus is in part a reflection of there being so many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them have access to the Internet."

I don't think latter part is a good formulation. It seems to imply that English-speaking people have a better access to the Internet than others. But this is not true: according to statistics, French- and German-speakers have an equally good access to the Internet. The wording should be changed to something like which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many English-speakers like to edit the English Misplaced Pages. Offliner (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)