[WikiEN-l] SPOV threatens NPOV

[Chris Jenkinson]

stevertigo wrote:
> Something else to talk about:
> 
> Some of our rather intelligent sciency people seem to
> have an unusual inability to distinguish science from
> neutrality. Ultimately, they tend to argue that
> articles should hold a defacto deference to what is
> essentially a Scientific Point of View, rather than a
> Neutral Point of View.
> 
> How best to single these people out and correct their
> behaviour? Any examples of articles in question? Isnt
> the term "pseudoscience" a POV pejorative from the
> SPOV?

Could you give an example of a "scientific point of view" which is not 
neutral point of view?

Pseudoscience is not a POV pejorative term, as pseudoscience has little 
or no actual basis in reality. The fact that pseudoscience is 'wrong' is 
not a POV opinion, as it is true. Scientific observations have 
demonstrated the vast majority of pseudoscientific babble to be exactly 
that - babble.

Wikipedia should accurately reflect truth - if people say something 
wrong, it is not POV for us to point out that it is wrong, and to show 
why it is wrong.

Pseudoscientific ideas deserve a page (for historical value), but they 
don't deserve a voice in what is said in it, and the fact it's all wrong 
should be made crystal clear.

Chris