Misplaced Pages

talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 03:06, 18 June 2009 (→FAQ as Policy: alrighty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:06, 18 June 2009 by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) (→FAQ as Policy: alrighty)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.


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.

Is a FAQ a Policy

To SlimVirgin's point below, maybe it shouldn't even be a guidiline, but instead just a helpful FAQ page. Dreadstar † 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. Nathan 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Guideline, or less. An FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions, 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. --Ludwigs2 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. SlimVirgin 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.(olive (talk) 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 Making necessary assumptions and Giving "equal validity" 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. . . dave souza, talk 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. --Ludwigs2 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. . dave souza, talk 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. Verbal chat 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse Dave Souza's view above - and the important parts should be moved across. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This page describes and elucidates important points of policy - NPOV is a many-headed beast with multitudinous and subtle ramifications some of which should be explicitly explored at the policy level. Rewriting out of the FAQ style would not actually require that much effort, and I agree that it is not really ideal format for presenting matters of policy. Given that this issue seems to flare up with depressing regularity, it might be worth changing the style purely for that reason. Not that keeping two well-watched pages in harmony is all that difficult, but we might consider redirecting this talkpage to the main one to facilitate managing the pages as one. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Another who agrees with Dave Putting the relevant policy matters in NPOV deals with these issues well. Having a FAQ as a guideline then might make sense in addition to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's fine as policy. Why? Because the content of the FAQ that dreadstar refers to are clauses found in the earliest versions of the NPOV policy all the way until it was spun off as a policy subpage, and the consensus then was that it remain policy, serving to explain policy. It stood that way for years. These clauses were and continue to be historical targets for pseudoscience POV promoters, most now banned, some new ones now around. They have been trying remove it because it is the main stumbling stone from them being able to promote their pet POV as having equal validity as mainstream science. Should key clauses from our policy suffer because POV pushers try to game the system? No. I agree that the clauses would be better rolled back into the NPOV policy proper, but failing that, they should remain at their FAQ page where they've stood for years without meaningful challenge. Odd nature (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I prefer that this page be considered policy because in practice the clarifications given here are treated like official policy. I'm under the impression most of the content of this article would be migrated over to the main page if this page were to become just a guideline. I think it would ultimately be more beneficial to save the work and the bickering over what to move and what not to by just leaving it as is. I really have no opinion on FAQ format; I really don't care if it the format is changed as long as the content remains. In articles where the discussion is hot, these clarifications are vital to prevent articles from becoming lengthy catalogues of debate and rebuttals where deluges of information obfuscate the big picture and ironically prevent the article from being informative. Sifaka 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not policy. A FAQ answers questions about the policy, it provides helpful community discussion clarifying application of policy, but it is not the policy. Why include policy-level content in a FAQ and omit it from the actual policy? If any material from the FAQ is needed as policy and is not substantively included in the policy, it should be added - by consensus - to the policy. If it meets the community's requirements for policy, consensus would agree to include it in the main policy page, or it does not in which case the policy designation is not appropriate. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dave Many parts of the FAQ were actual policy and worked as such. It's nice to have a FAQ page as a guideline, but only after moving the policy parts to WP:NPOV. We must take care that parts of the policy aren't moved or kept here to "weaken" them. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dave, Enric. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It isn't policy, and tagging it "policy" doesn't make it so. It's clarification about what the policy means and how it works. It is more than essay but less than guideline. Perhaps it would help to make this part of Misplaced Pages:Help, because that's really what it is and should be. Rd232 18:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Not policy; Agree with Jack-A-Roe – I don't know about the historic perspective of this page, but it reads as a document that explains a policy—answering confusion people may have with the policy—but not as a policy itself. I was not aware that this page existed, and if it contains important policy information regarding NPOV, the info should be included on that page. This is more like a help page for NPOV and would be better represented as a guideline or essay. Users shouldn't have to come to a FAQ for policy; they should visit a FAQ to gain clarity on the policy if they have addional questions. —Ost (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Material to be transferred to a Policy page

  • Alright, let's use this section to list and discuss the merits of material that editors believe should be considered Policy and therefore moved to an actual Policy page instead of this FAQ. Please take into consideration that a FAQ helps to explain existing policy and this should not be a duplicate of actual Policy, but instead help to answer questions and provide further information on said Policies. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a policy page, so this should be thought of as "material that should be retained in the policy" or simimar. What this page currently contains is current policy, even though it is a FAQ. I endorse Dave's view below (and above, and elsewhere), and feel that these long-standing points of policy should be retained, and that a broad consensus would be required to remove them from policy (though not this page). I agree that this state should change, by moving the policy points to the main NPOV policy page, but denying the facts of this situation doesn't help. Verbal chat 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's temporarily a policy page as far as I'm concerned - if even that. I would have to laugh at anyone saying someone or some material is violating WP:NPOV/FAQ policy, when in actuality they may be violating WP:NPOV policy. This is a silly argument - there's no consensus that a FAQ should be policy, it doesn't even make sense. I'd recommend focusing on the material that needs to be moved instead of continuing to hawk this FAQ as a policy. Dreadstar † 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • From what I see in the above, here is a start to the listing. Let's list then discuss the merits of each one for moving to a Policy page. Please feel free to add to the below list anything from tis FAQ that you believe should be on a Policy page. Dreadstar † 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Discussion of Policy material

  • Giving "equal validity" is a common problem, particularly where an article is focussed on an extreme minority view and we must ensure that this proper attention does not obscure the majority opinion on the subject. The section is a usefully clear explanation of WP:WEIGHT issues in that regard. . dave souza, talk
If someone can rewrite the Religion section into a concise Policy statement, we can move it over. Any volunteers? Dreadstar † 19:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Religion section rewrite

  • Original:
Disrespecting my religion or treating it like a human invention of some kind, is religious discrimination, inaccurate, or wrong. And what about beliefs I feel are wrong, or against my religion, or outdated, or non-scientific?
NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past.
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.
Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. They might prefer that the articles describe their faith, or classify various parts of it, as they see it, which might be from a historical perspective (e.g. the way things are is the way things have always been; any differences are from heretical sects that don't represent the real religion; or, e.g. this story is historical.) Their point of view must be mentioned if it can be documented by notable, reliable sources, yet note that there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means that Misplaced Pages editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain adherents of this faith (say which) believe X, and also believe that they have always believed X; however, due to the findings (say which) of modern historians and archaeologists (say which), other adherents (say which) of this faith now believe Z."
Regarding terminology: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g. fundamentalism and mythology. As an encyclopedia, Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses in order to avoid causing unnecessary offense or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about some particular terms can be found at WP:WTA.
  • Rewrite as concise policy statement:

I've taken the liberty of doing some minor copyediting and moving the religion policy content to this section of NPOV Policy. Dreadstar † 20:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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)