On 12/20/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@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.