Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 19 November 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Are you in the right place?For questions or discussions about the application of this policy to any specific article(s), please post your message at either the NPOV Noticeboard (any neutrality-related issue) or the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (undue weight given to a minority view).

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

• WT:NPOV

Archived discussions

Archive_001 Discussions before October 2004

Archive_002 Closing out 2004

Archive_003 Discussions begun Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr 2005

Archive 004 July to November 4, 2005

Archive 005 to November 13, 2005

Archive 006 to December 4, 2005

Archive 007 to December 30, 2005

Archive 008 to December 27, 2005

Archive 009 to January 16, 2006

Archive 010 to January 23, 2006

Archive 011 to January 25, 2006

Archive 012 to January 26, 2006

Archive 013 to January 29, 2006

Archive 014 to January 29, 2006

Archive 015 to March 8, 2006

Archive 016 to March 10, 2006

Archive 017 to April 09, 2006

Note: Edit history of 001-017 is in 017.

Archive 018: Apr 2006

Archive 019: Apr 2006 - May 2006

Archive 020: May 2006 - Jun 2006

Archive 021: Jun 2006

Archive 022: Jun-Jul 2006 (moving FAQ)

Archive 023: Jul-Aug 4 2006

Archive 024: Aug 4-Sept 21 2006

Archive 025: Sept 22 - Oct 2006

Archive 26: Nov - Dec 2006

Archive 27: Jan - Feb 2007

Archive 28: Mar - May 2007

Archive 29: May – Sep 2007

Archive 30: Oct 2007 – Feb 2008

Archive 31: Feb – May 2008

Archive 32: May – July 2008

Archive 33: July 2008

Archive 34: July – Sep 2008

Archive 35: Sep 2008 – May 2009

Archive 36: April – Aug 2009

Archive 37: Aug – Nov 2009

Archive 38: Nov 2009 – Feb 2010

Archive 39:

Archive 40:

Archive 41:

Archive 42:

Archive 43:

Archive 44:

When starting a new topic, please add it to the bottom of this page, and please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. This will automatically place a date stamp, which will allow us to maintain this page better.

The principles line

"The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

This line does not appear in the other core policies which have otherwise identical paragraphs warning not to take them in isolation. I don't really disagree with it, but since it's making a claim about all three core policies, it seems strange to only have it here. On a related note, do you think it would be good idea to make the "don't take this in isolation" paragraph into a transclusion for consistency? Gigs (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I think the situation is: The 3 core policies should not be taken in isolation, and none of them can be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consesnsus.

Transclusion would also make sense, I think. Ocaasi (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and zapped this line, as there was a discussion on WP:V about the line and there was a universal consensus not to include it. Gigs (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that a link to that discussion would be in order. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous wording

I'm puzzled by a paragraph in the section "Due and undue weight".

Also, if you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources, it may be appropriately included. See: Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability.

That seems to say that an editor who is able to prove something should take their theory to the page Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources for discussion with other editors to obtain approval for its inclusion in an article. Is the intended meaning that an editor should wait until the theory has been "presented and discussed" outside Misplaced Pages in reliable sources? If so, it should just say "reliable sources", using a piped link to "Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources" so that the word "Misplaced Pages" isn't visible in the readable form of the page. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that it could be taken either way, though this policy page at least, seems to use the Wiki:Page convention without piping. I'll pipe it. Ocaasi (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, but a question. I left Reliable Sources capitalized. Is that splitting the baby? Ocaasi (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think to be consistent, it shouldn't be in capitals. The previous (one-line) paragraph has "reliable sources" in lower case. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, lower caps all over. Ocaasi (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I approve. Good catch. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/FAQ

A long-term consideration that we will need to deal with. wp:NPOV/FAQ has gotten out of sync with the main NPOV page, and is beginning to contradict it in some ways. Partly this is due to long-standing problems with the FAQ, and partly to the fact that QuackGuru has taken to reasserting his preferred elements of NPOV (such as ASF - things which have been removed or rewritten recently) over there. I'd plow in and revise it myself, but I suspect that would create a direct conflict (which I'd rather avoid). So instead, I thought it better to open a discussion here about the future of the NPOV/FAQ. What parts of this should we revise, what parts delete, what parts retain? --Ludwigs2 19:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree it's a mess, but it's main problem is that it's so overwitten. It might be a bit circuitous, but I'd like to try and rewrite it all for clarity before tossing parts. Can you point out some obvious outdated or contradictory parts? Ocaasi (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a bunch of major/minor copy-edits to the common questions. I didn't touch ASF or Pseudoscience, since they seem to be the most touchy. Take a look and see if it does the job with a little less verbiage. Ocaasi (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need two separate pages anyway. It would be far better to have just one page that explains everything in an easily understood manner. There isn't really that much to say about being neutral - the current content of the two pages is really just repeating the same points over and over again (with the occasional dubious or incomprehensible statement here and there).--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that policy should be more simple if possible, but I think we should wait to try and let this current policy status settle in a bit before doing more major scrapping... Ocaasi (talk) 08:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Prevalence and prominence clarification

In NPOV UNDUE we state "that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." We also state "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." I'm in a discussion where these terms have come under question. It centers around a point of view being prevalent or prominent among many reliable sources compared with a view that has less or equal distribution among the sources but is given more space in those sources. Let's say viewpoint A is in 20 reliable sources and viewpoint B is in 15, but viewpoint 15 is given more space in those 15 than viewpoint A. Viewpoint B requires more explanation and has more details. Assuming neither view is a majority view, should weight be applied somewhat equally, or should point B be given more weight, or viewpoint A? Is it the prevalence / prominence (do these mean the same thing?) within reliable sources, or prevalence / prominence among reliable sources? Morphh 21:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't all that helpful, but I think it is actually a mix of both. Also, the relative quality of the sources has to be figured into your decision. If you can not reach a consensus... try an RfC to get more opinions. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I get a little fed up with arguments of that sort. This passage was never meant to encourage a bean-counting approach. As I point out in stats classes, if you use interval-level calculations on ordinal-level measurements, you just end up with highly precise nonsense. The goal here is to give the average encyclopedia reader a well-informed and non-misleading overview of the topic. if we have two minority viewpoints, and it is not obvious on inspection which viewpoint is 'more' minor, we really shouldn't get into the whole 'photo-finish' debate about which one is ever-so-marginally ahead of the other, because that will just mislead the reader. Treat the two as roughly equal, and move on to other things. --Ludwigs2 19:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See what the reference texts and textbooks say about the two views. Balance them accordingly. Leadwind (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sentence replaced re. non-negotiability of the principles upon which this policy is based

RE this edit, I've reverted it.
..... The sentence removed by User:Gigs has been a stable part of this policy for nearly five years now, since early 2006. Here is WP:NPOV at the end of 2006; 2007, 2008, 2009, and 31 October 2010. The "principles upon which is based" are set forth in introductory form in WP:NPOV#History_of_NPOV. .... Kenosis (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with restoring it. I just don't see what harm the sentence does. And I read the talk at WP:V, and, frankly, it seems like a lot of navel gazing, nor does it automatically apply to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Since it's making claims about all three policies, I'd argue that yes, it does apply to all three pages. If it's not appropriate there, it's not appropriate here either. It says "these policies", not "this policy". Are you arguing that WP:NPOV is somehow less negotiable then WP:V? Gigs (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a wikilink principles. (Update: This has since been reverted by another editor.)

Re "It says 'these policies', not 'this policy'." - How about changing it to "this policy"?

Re "Are you arguing that WP:NPOV is somehow less negotiable then WP:V?" - That does seem to be the case that NPOV has less flexibility compared to NOR or V. See for example Founding principles which makes a definite statement about NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay in responding to Gigs over a day later. after discussion has already continued here, but I wasn't back online again until now. IIRC, similar foundational principles were also set forth by Jimmy Wales regarding WP:V as well as WP:NOR, which are core policy, non-negotiable and not eligible to be overruled by consensus. Are they no longer cited at WP:V? I should go review that discussion and give WP:V a thorough look-through--which will take awhile. Will get back to you on this a bit later on. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this does relate to more than one policy, may I suggest a centralized discussion. I think we need to avoid a situation where the editors at V reach a consensus to omit it, and the editors at NPOV reach a consensus to keep it. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it belongs on all or none of the pages. Seems like it needs an RfC of sorts as Blueboar suggested. What exactly does that sentence mean? What about IAR or ArbCom or Jimbo, copyright, blp, etc. Maybe the sentence needs rephrasing. Ocaasi (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply changing from "these policies" to "this policy" and providing the wikilink founding principles instead of "principles" would avoid these problems. Also, Ocaasi raises a good question regarding the sentence as it now stands, "What exactly does that sentence mean?" And just a reminder of the point made in my previous message that NPOV is given prominence in the Founding principles so it could be appropriate to put the modified sentence in WP:NPOV and not in WP:NOR and WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the choices so far.

1. Keep the sentence.

"The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

2. Delete it.

3. Modify it.

a) "The founding principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

b) "The founding principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." Gigs (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Your 3-a option seems fine to me, but I think it should be "these policies" and included in all three, so we need to have that RfC like blueboar suggested. I think we should present something like 3-a as the RfC proposal, noting that a lack of consensus to add 3-a will result in the removal of the current line from NPOV; it's all or nothing. -- I have added 3-b to reflect my change. Gigs (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be having some circular logic. Can we form a consensus to decide the value of our own consensus? My impression is that all three core policies are above ed consensus and we can't form a consensus to change the situation.-Civilizededucation 17:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

They are subject to the normal process of consensus like all our policies. The principles underlying them are not negotiable though. Gigs (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The a) above suggests that even the founding principles underlying two of our three policies can be supreceded by ed consensus.-Civilizededucation 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that you did not intend it that way. But, AFAICS, it does.-Civilizededucation 17:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Simply, your interpretation isn't what it says. I believe your interpretation is an honest one, but it may have been brought on by trying too hard to carefully find something wrong, and that resulted in your seeing something that wasn't there. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One would hope not, although it's hard to say who would enforce those principles in the fact of a "consensus" to vary them. (The page you all keep referring to as "founding principles" is nothing of the sort, of course - it's just another consensus effort by editors to express, after the fact, the principles that they think underlie all Wikimedia projects.) --Kotniski (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Founding principles is " just another consensus effort by editors to express, after the fact, the principles that they think underlie all Wikimedia projects." - Interesting point. How can we find out what their status is relative to Misplaced Pages policy? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles Gigs (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they really have any status, unless (for example) the WMF Board passes a resolution laying down specific principles that it expects projects to adhere to. (After edit conflict: and the same applies to Jimbo's statement - which is also subject to editing by others - and other fundamental principle pages like WP:5P. And policy pages in fact. Nothing we write on any of these pages gains any authority by the fact that we've written it, although all of these pages in practice do a pretty good job of describing the norms which actually are accepted.) --Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "Nothing we write on any of these pages gains any authority by the fact that we've written it, although all of these pages in practice do a pretty good job of describing the norms which actually are accepted." - "in practice" seems to be the key phrase. For example, Misplaced Pages policy has an authoritative influence on debates at articles. Since Misplaced Pages is a subset of Wikimedia, in practice have the Founding principles been an authoritative influence in forming Misplaced Pages policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "Nothing we write on any of these pages gains any authority by the fact that we've written it" - If this were true, there would be little point in arguing about what's written here. But in my experience it's not true at all; in discussions about content people frequently quote from policy and guideline pages to support their arguments, and generally other editors accept this as valid. If you argue against the implications of a guideline, you get told to go away and get the guideline altered if you can. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I suppose that's quite often true in practice, though it's not always done appropriately (for example, when they don't do it to support their arguments, but as a substitute for arguments that they otherwise don't have). I don't see any basis, though, for saying that anything is absolute and non-negotiable - particularly content policies, which the only possible enforcers (admins and ArbCom) are notoriously reluctant to take action to uphold.--Kotniski (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it's a bit much to state "absolute and non-negotiable". It's an editorial policy after all, which requires the exercise of judgement, discretion, choice of sources, words, syntax, etc., by a large number of participants. Presently the sentence doesn't any longer include the words "non-negotiable", which to me is reasonable since the wiki has come a long way since Jimbo and Co. set the project in motion, and the words "neutral point of view" are quite well ingrained in the consciousness of the community. So now it reads like this, without "non-negotiable" which could easily be misleading in the context of a concept that is often debated and tweaked w.r.t. how best to express the basic principle and its manifestations such as WEIGHT, handling controversial or fringe views, etc. Especially without the words "non-negotiable" I don't see a problem with keeping the long-standing statement right up front in the policy--IMO it's a reasonable hedge against losing track of important foundational principles, of which this page is the first and perhaps the most central. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) Whether the principles can be superceded; and 2) Which principles? As pointed above there's Meta's Foundation principles, the NPOV history itself, Wiki 'common law', Jimbo, 5P, etc. These are related but separate questions... Ocaasi (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is not that difficult, and I'm not sure why it has turned into such a prickly issue. Clearly, the principles of the project cannot be superseded. I'm not even sure what it would mean to do that. Consider these statements:

• Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia
• Misplaced Pages ought to try to remain neutral
• Misplaced Pages editors should be civil to each other

Can you imagine any case (short of complete dysfunctional breakdown) where editors would seriously argue against any of these? Sure, everyone has different ideas of how these principles ought to look on project, but no one disagrees with the principles themselves. Policies and guidelines (and etc.) are all efforts to capture some sort of community consensus about how these principles should be implemented, and so policies and guidelines can and do change as community understandings change.

In other words, we never change the principle that we want to be neutral, but we might change our understanding of what it means to be neutral. so where's the problem again? --Ludwigs2 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No issue, just some ambiguity about the referent of 'these principles', since there are multiple potential targets; a wonky hypothetical about whether NPOV itself can be changed through consensus; and the relevant issue of whether NPOV can be overridden by either another policy or guideline, or by a local consensus of editors on a specific article. Ocaasi (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"NPOV changed through consensus" well of course it can be, all there is, is "consensus." Balance of opinion is in the eyes of the beholder. Some beholders are honest enough to be neutral and acknowledge other viewpoints. Others are not and pervert "balance" in the creation of WP content to give baseless/ misinformed/ malevolent fringe theories the semblance of respectability. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

let's table the skeptinoia for the time being, please...

The problem here is that a number of editors (mostly through short-sightedness) try to build particular language bits into particular policies in order to give themselves leverage in particular kinds of disputes. These will inevitably conflict with other language bits that other editors have added into other policies, but rather than doing the sensible thing (which is to sit down and discuss the problem to try to create a general solution), they get all up in arms about it and try to defend their favored little language bits (because they've committed themselves to talk-page arguments based on those language bits, and don't want to lose that little margin of authority in content debates). The result is ugly tempers and messy, inconsistent policies, and headaches all around. The way we should be handling things is like so:

• Types of official pages
  1. Principles - wp:5P, wp:Trifecta - trump everything. We're writing an encyclopedia, we should try to be neutral, we should try to be nice to each other. These things don't change.
  2. Policy gives general statements about how principles should be implemented across the project. Policy trumps everything except principles
  3. Guidelines give more specific statements about how to apply policy in specific cases or arenas.
• Conflicting statements should always be rationalized and removed as they are discovered. This means:
  • Statements on lower-level pages should be removed or rewritten to conform to higher-level pages
  • Contradictory or redundant statements in pages at the same level should be removed or rewritten until there is only one statement in one document.
  • Policy-fork pages should be deleted entirely, unless there's a real need to retain them.

In other words, rather than trying to decide which policy page is 'right' and what can be overridden by editors, we should force people to do the endless basic housekeeping that that this kind of rules system requires. If we keep our official pages neat and tidy, contradiction issues will not arise.

Frankly, I think all our policies could use a good decrufting and decreeping, and after that's done I think all pages marked as policy or guideline should be subject to a higher editing standard (e.g. no one - not even sysops - be allowed to edit them without achieving some level of consensus first). basically we should trim them back to bare essentials and then force future development to be slower and more consensus-based. Not that I think this has a chance of happening, but it's what we really should do. --Ludwigs2 20:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I pretty much agree with you. But since as you admit it's unlikely to happen as a single major reform programme, we should try to move in that direction incrementally. The alternative is just to give up, which is a bad idea. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. The problem, as you mentioned, is the entrenched interests--as well as the fair possibility that decrufting removes something important. But the effort is thoroughly warranted. Ocaasi (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I actually took the time to defrag wp:consensus a few weeks back, and I've been putting some effort into keeping it clean. I've been thinking about doing the same here on NPOV and on wp:Reliable sources, but NPOV is much too active at the moment for me to do major cleanup, and reliable sources is really a policy-fork that should get its pieces farmed out to other policy pages and be deleted. That level of wikidrama I am not up to at the moment. I'm doing what I can, but it can't hurt to bring up the idea.

Maybe what we really ought to do is start up our own on-line constitutional congress: gather together 15 or 20 dedicated editors with a mandate to revise and copyedit all our policy pages. I'd volunteer. --Ludwigs2 22:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I would, but my musket skills are rusty. WP:WikiProject_Policy_and_Guidelines is doing some nice work, although they have yet to put their tag on WP:Policies and guidelines yet, so maybe that's an indication of the level of participation over there. I think your general idea is good but, as you indicated, predictably hell-raising. What about rewriting drafts yourself, taking them to the talk page, trying to incorporate missing elements and them having some good 'ole RfC straw polls about which policy draft is better. Like a policy homecoming queen election. Ocaasi (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

suggestion for resolving this

maybe it's time we rewrote {{Content policy list}} to be a bit more specific - structure it with 'principles', 'policies', and 'guidelines' sections, with a few short blurbs about the relationships between them all (principles are immutable, policy is broad abstract ideals based in principles and established by consensus, guidelines are specific implementations of policy). we can then drop that template on all the major policies and guidelines to keep a consistent overview. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV on Science and Pseudoscience

There exist viewpoints, theories, and methodologies which incorporate both scientific data and nonscientific data. For example, a gambler may follow a methodology that incorporates statistical outcomes (science) with gut feeling or intuition. One aspect is falsifiable, the other aspect is not.

I suggest that a template be created for entries that refer to viewpoints, theories, or methodologies that are inclusive of both falsifiable and non-falsifiable statements. This would remove the need to flag certain ideas or statements as pseudoscience which were never meant to be wholly scientific in the first place. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of an actual article where this template would be used? Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes the specific entry I have in mind is Naturopathy. See my comments on Talk:Naturopathy. Mcmarturano (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The larger issue here at play is that a method is only pseudoscientific if it purports itself to be scientific, but is in fact not. Nonscientific methods which do not make scientific claims should not be flagged as pseudoscientific or have to defend themselves from attacks made under a pseudoscientific flag. Mcmarturano (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Which specific methods are you referring to? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Any of the ones listed in naturopathy#methods but a couple examples would be color therapy or rolfing. I don't think that practitioners of these methods forward them as scientific. Mcmarturano (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The practitioners may not see them as pseudoscience... but critics do. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a policy wonk, but I think that the in discussion template is intended to inform people of a discussion related to major updates in wording or intent for a particular section. Should we pull the template from the policy page?

Mcmarturano, I came here from Talk:Naturopathy#Evidence Basis to link you to the WP:VALID section.

Thanks, I will review this. Mcmarturano (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The question "is my gambler's intuition better than playing the calculable odds?" is very much a falsifiable proposition. chromotherapy and rolfing both make health claims - either they have a verifiable measurable impact on health, or they do not. I think, on balance, this conversation would work better either at WT:FRINGE or one of the relevant wikiprojects. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi 2over0, this is what I am not sure about. The entry should not be treated as WT:FRINGE as it is on a whole medical system. Can you recommend any of the wikiprojects? Mcmarturano (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Naturopathy is covered by Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories regardless - the question whether you are interested in clarifying a point of policy or whether you want to attract the attention of additional editors to the article. I see you already found NPOV/N, so posts to any further venues should point to the centralized discussion. Wikiprojects Alternative medicine and Rational Skepticism are linked at the top of Talk:Naturopathy as being interested in the article. I believe that Wikiproject Medicine is more active than either, and a post there might also find people interested in some aspects of the article. See you back at the main discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. To answer your question: both. I am interested in both clarifying a policy and drawing other editors to the article. I want to know if other users feel this entry satisfies NPOV and if not how it can be improved. There are several positions at conflict within the entry. Naturopathic philosophy and practice, as a whole, draws from both evidence-based medicine and pseudoscience. The entry should represent the most neutral point of view relative to all of these positions. Yes? Mcmarturano (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no... NPOV does not say we should "present the most neutral point of view relative to all of these positions". NPOV says we should present all views neutrally (and with due weight). If the reliable sources say something is pseudoscience, we note this... and if other reliable sources disagree, we note that as well. NPOV means that We don't take a position... we report on the position taken by our sources.

Now... there are reliable sources that label Naturopathy as pseudoscience... so, we report this fact. If there are reliable sources that say Naturopathy should be not considered pseudoscience, we can report that as well. Are there such source? Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mcm, I wanted to be a naturopath once upon a time, but I hate to break it to you: Blueboar has the right call here. Misplaced Pages is only as intelligent as mainstream science and knowledge are. Structurally, it's not capable of giving full credit to anything that works better than science can explain. If mainstream medical science is wrong about naturopathy (or GMOs, or Rolfing, or acupuncture), then WP is dutybound to be wrong in pretty much the same way. Leadwind (talk) 17:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the encyclopedia always dies a little when we fight about whether something should be labeled "pseudoscience". Realistically, where naturopathy makes pronouncements about health (e.g. vaccines are bad, chelation therapy and live blood analysis are good) then we should note that these claims do not enjoy scientific support. On the other hand, some aspects of naturopathy are more akin to a philosophy or belief system, which cannot be "pseudoscientific". Ideally, we'd avoid broad strokes as much as possible - I think we can trust readers to appreciate these gradations without putting words like "pseudoscience" in big letters. Where individuals or organizations have notably described naturopathy as pseudoscientific, we can of course cite them, but I'd favor a more nuanced approach when we use the encyclopedic voice. MastCell  17:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

explain "majority view"

There's a section on Wales's rules of thumb for the majority viewpoint, but there's some confusion about whether an article should treat a contested viewpoint as the majority viewpoint.

Can we add a sentence to the effect of: "If an article describes multiple viewpoints on a topic, it should identify which viewpoint is the majority viewpoint (provided there is one)"?

Defenders of minority viewpoints routinely resist the idea that any particular historical opinion is in the majority. The people who think Jesus never existed, for example, are notorious for saying "the jury is out" or at least "the jury is still out on whether the jury is still out." If the policy stated that it's good for an article to call out the majority view, it would help those of us who are trying to give the majority view the majority of the coverage. Leadwind (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

These things are highly dependent on context. For example, the "Majority view" doesn't mean "we polled the entire world, and 51% of all people believe this, so its what we call the majority view". Basically, your going to have to let us know which specific article has the problem, so we can comment on how NPOV plays out in that article. --Jayron32 17:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

new first paragraph

First sentence should define the term.

Now: Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. This means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Proposed: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views on a topic. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, as found in reliable sources. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

Just a suggestion from someone new to this page. Leadwind (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)