| Revision as of 15:09, 6 May 2009 editFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →sections to transfer: fmt← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:06, 22 October 2023 edit undoAshvio (talk | contribs)318 edits →NPOV and gender pronounsTag: 2017 wikitext editor | ||
| (152 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |maxarchivesize = 200K | ||
| Line 10: | Line 9: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == NPOV and gender pronouns == | |||
| == Locked == | |||
| Is the proposition "One ought to refer to people by their prefered pronouns" not a proposition Misplaced Pages should remain neutral towards according to NPOV? ] (]) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC) | |||
| Should this page still be locked? Cheers, ] (]) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't see why it's still protected, and I don't see why it's still a policy. There's been sufficient time to move anything that should be policy to ] and leave this as a proper FAQ. A page with "Frequently Asked Questions" really shouldn't be a policy, it should be a guide to the actual policy it's a FAQ of. ] <small>]</small> 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Since the material at the center of the policy dispute has to an actual Policy page, I've requested the page be unprotected so the FAQ can be chaanged to a Guideline rather than a Policy. ] <small>]</small> 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Your failure to see why is not a consensus for changing these important provisions from policy to guideline. If you're so fired up to move them to the NPOV policy page, you're welcome to get started, but there's a lot more to this policy than the pseudoscience section which has rightly been moved there. Do let me know when you're moving the various parts, and I'll try to assist when time permits. . ], ] 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The "policy" material has already moved to NPOV policy, so there's nothing to make this FAQ a policy. FAQ's aren't policy, period. ] <small>]</small> 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Are there any reliable sources that indicate that ] people is useful discourse? Should we consider whether calling other users slurs is NPOV also? Not sure I understand the purpose of this question. ] (]) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It still remains a policy as long as it remains content that was spun off a policy page, which it is. That's not a hard concept to grasp. And the content here content was present in and central to the very first versions of Misplaced Pages's core content policy, so it's only doubly so that it remain policy. Furthermore this content was only allowed to be spun off the main policy page on the condition that it remain policy, the archived discussions there show. This page has documented longstanding policy for years it seems. There's no reason to change that now. ] (]) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And I strongly disagree with your assertion as well as your facts, as has ]. This FAQ should not be a policy, especially in its current state. ] <small>]</small> 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Why is this FAQ a policy?== | |||
| *For a historical perspective, ] was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added , apparently based on according to the edit summary; but that discussion acually seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". This "policy" looks to me to be more along the lines of a ] or even an ] if even one of those and not just a basic, informative FAQ page. For those who may be interested, here are ] ] <small>]</small> 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The page was spun out by FT2 at 23:42, 26 June 2006 without a heading, nine hours later it was headed as policy by by Francis Schonken (at 08:41, 27 June 2006), and at 13:07, 27 June 2006, FT2 edited the page leaving the policy tag in place. It's a longstanding policy with provisions which were inadequately covered in the main NPOV page, three of these provisions have now been moved to the main page which lessens the need for this to be a policy. . ], ] | |||
| ==Is a FAQ a Policy== | |||
| {{RFCpolicy| section=RfC: Is a FAQ a Policy !! reason=Should a "Frequently Asked Question" page for a Policy be a Policy or Guideline to the relevant Policy !! time=23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| *Should a "Frequently Asked Question" page for a Policy also be a Policy, or should it be a Guideline to the relevant Policy? ] <small>]</small> 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To SlimVirgin's point below, maybe it shouldn't even be a guidiline, but instead just a helpful FAQ page. ] <small>]</small> 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Guideline. Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy. There is also the potential for conflict between a FAQ and the policy it covers (for those who parse the text like lawyers, and there are many!). There should be no question as to which document controls, and so no policies that are essentially direct duplicates of existing policies in different language. ]] <sup>(formerly Avruch)</sup> 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Guideline, or less.''' An FAQ (<u>F</u>requently <u>A</u>sked <u>Q</u>uestions, in case anyone needs a reminder) is explanatory by its nature, and subject to more-or-less frequent change. anything that is policy-worthy should be on the main policy page, not on an FAQ; ''nothing'' on an FAQ should be dealing with issues that aren't spelled out on the main policy page. Frankly, common sense would dictate that this page should not have any status at all; it should just be a conventional list of standard answers to questions that get asked with some regularity. --] 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Guideline at most'''. Preferably nothing, just a helpful FAQ page. In case of inconsistency between it and policy, the policy should take priority. Anything important enough to be regarded as policy should be on the policy page itself. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Addendum'''. The material was originally removed from the policy page because it wasn't integral to that policy. How can that same information now be policy in and of itself. It can't. The FAQ helps define and explain the policy beyond the primary explanations the policy includes, an addendum to the policy page, but cannot be considered policy itself, an important distinction.(] (]) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)) | |||
| *'''FAQ format not ideal for policy''', but within 9 hours of being moved out the policy tag was added to the previously unheaded page, and as a policy it has contained essential clarifications of important aspects which were inadequately covered in the NPOV page. The pseudoscience section was duplicated on this page and the NPOV page by someone, I subsequently deleted the duplicate from this page. Having reviewed the remaining sections, I've moved ] and ] to NPOV with minimal modifications as statements rather than Q & A. They can now be deleted from this page, unless someone really wants to keep the questions or add further guidance. On that basis I've no objection to this page being made a guideline or simply a FAQ, but others may wish to review the other sections. . . ], ] 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **sorry Dave, those sections simply don't qualify as policy material; see the discussion below. other sections do, and these ''might'' with some drastic rewrites for balance and generality, but as they stand - no. --] 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::These sections '''are''' policy, they work and they're general. "Giving equal validity" to fringe views isn't balance, as has repeatedly been discussed with Ludwigs2 amongst others, and "making necessary assumptions" is a common issue on a number of pages. Any proposed changes should be discussed at TALK:NPOV to ensure context. . ], ] 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Endorse Dave Souza's view above (Guideline/FAQ)''' having a FAQ as policy isn't ideal, but the important parts should be moved across. ] <small>]</small> 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == sections to transfer == | |||
| I reverted (twice now). these sections were never in serious consideration for addition to policy. see the original proposals ]. the 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections could be included in policy; the 'equal validity' and 'making necessary assumptions' sections are (a) badly written (b) limited in scope to pseudoscience issues, and (c) not particularly neutral. | |||
| as I said, I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions). that being the case, we might want to revive the proposals I made earlier (now archived with the others ], and include them in the above discussion, or in a new one. is that acceptable? --] 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : This discussion should take place on the NPOV policy talk page, in fact they have already started there. As a "fringe" editor you have your own view, but when weakening this from a policy we shouldn't lose the good policy parts that should be put back into the policy. I find your unprovoked personal attack on the NPOV talk page, and the lack of AGF you are displaying in your post above, say something as to your view of NPOV. This contrast quite markedly with the approach Dave took, and I have followed. I feel you should apologise and revert. ] <small>]</small> 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I stand by my reasoning. your ] and mindless assertion that I'm a 'fringe editor' (which seems to be your only actual argument here) merely reflects your personal prejudices, and is not a substitute for proper discussion of the issues. make a ''reasoned'' case for the inclusion of these sections in policy so that we can discuss the matter; or if you can't, then please don't stink up the place with mere name-calling. | |||
| ::The discussion is here, because it's about the NPOV/FAQ - let's keep it here so that we don't get things spread out all over the place. --] 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: You said "I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions)", which is a huge failure to assume good faith, not including the attacks you have made on the NPOV talk page. My reference to you as fringe was both ironic, and backed by your editing history. I added quotes to make this clear. This FAQ currently has status as policy. I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over - as they are already policy this isn't making new policy, or an addition to policy. The move was justified above and on the NPOV talk page. It might be best if you take a break and come back when you've calmed down. ] <small>]</small> 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Verbal said: ''"I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over"''. This far, I agree with you completely, but I disagree with you about ''which'' parts are the 'good' parts of this FAQ. as I noted above, he 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections have a lot to recommend them, but the two sections that got moved over suffer from the following failings | |||
| ::::;They are specific to pseudoscience issues: perhaps they belong on the Fringe Theories page, and maybe on the FAQ page (without policy status) as clarifications of NPOV for PS issues, but they aren't suitable for inclusion on the broader NPOV policy page. If they could be rewritten to have general scope, they ''might'' be acceptable, but that would take a lot of consideration and effort. | |||
| ::::;The are written in a rambling, 'talky' style: this just isn't suitable for a policy page. they are written in such an explanatory style that I can ''only'' see them as FAQ material. | |||
| ::::;They are not particularly neutral: one is a pointed statement to the effect that pseudoscience issues can be criticized more harshly than other topics, and the other is nearly an incitement to engage in ]. I can see some value in both points, mind you, but as they are written they are a good bit over the top. | |||
| ::::I hope that clarifies things. --] 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Thanks for that, and I don't entirely disagree. <small>(I would still appreciate it if you struck parts of your earlier comments)</small> ] <small>]</small> 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Style and precise wording can be reviewed and discussed at TALK:NPOV, these policy statements give clear guidance on a wider range of issues than pseudoscience, as is clearly stated in their wording. They concern matters that are covered less clearly in the other NPOV policy statements. As stated in the section above, they are both useful and necessary. . . ], ] 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: And I do agree with that, and that conversation should happen there. ] <small>]</small> 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not sure that this FAQ does have the current status of policy, and I don't think it would be right to assume without discussion that text elements from the FAQ can be moved to the NPOV page over objections. My sense is that the issue of whether FAQs should be policies hasn't been ironed out in the past, and the RfC above (which is probably not in the right place for the general question) indicates that they probably should not be. The best approach to adding wording from NPOV/FAQ to NPOV, then, is to propose changes on WT:NPOV and discuss them there. ]] <sup>(formerly Avruch)</sup> 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : According to the page it does have the force of policy, and that seems to be practice as well. However, the situation isn't optimal and I agree that conversation about what should be moved should take place on the NPOV page before the policy tag is removed from this FAQ. ] <small>]</small> 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree with Verbal. . ], ] 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I totally disagree with your reversions Ludwigs and reasoning given here to downgrade this page to guideline and support Dave's noble effort in the name of reason to roll what were key clauses from the original formulation of the NPOV policy that go back at the very first versions of the policy and have stood as policy for 6+ years now, here and in the main policy page. ] (]) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:06, 22 October 2023
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
NPOV and gender pronouns
Is the proposition "One ought to refer to people by their prefered pronouns" not a proposition Misplaced Pages should remain neutral towards according to NPOV? 212.55.46.63 (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are there any reliable sources that indicate that misgendering people is useful discourse? Should we consider whether calling other users slurs is NPOV also? Not sure I understand the purpose of this question. Ashvio (talk) 09:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)