On 12/20/05, stevertigo <vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on the
use of relatively neutral terms, and that while the
term "pseudoscience" has its place, and its not clear
that it doesnt have too much of a place in Wikipedia.
Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in
writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the
term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any
discussion around the term in a way which makes NPOV
writing difficult.
I think the above displays the fundamental misunderstanding in
stevertigo's argument. The neutral point of view is *not* largely
based on the use of relatively neutral terms.
It is largely based on the use of accurate, specific, definable terms.
We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms because they're
generally ill-defined, non-specific, and slang. But we do use terms
like [[Black]] and [[African-American]] in articles like [[Bill
Cosby]]. Note that those terms are defined.
Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate (e.g. the [[Richard
Pryor]] article, which I had to edit, since it failed to mention that
he was black...) and link to definitions.
Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that pseudoscience is the
accepted term for stuff that seems scientific but isn't (or isn't
accepted by scientists as scientific), but Wikipedia is not the place
to try to change culture to a person's way of thinking.