Talk:Chemical free

This
This entire entry seems to fall afoul of WP:NPOV, especially the subsection on "Word ownership." It seems to be based on the idea that chemists and the chemical industry alone, rather than the English-speaking community as a whole, get to decide what the term "chemicals" means. Rather than having a stand-alone entry, it might be better to fold it into another page (e.g., on marketing of natural foods and/or the chemical industry) that can give a more balanced and NPOV perspective on the issue. Eichhoernchen (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Eichhoernchen,
 * I like your username. Do you ever read the German Wikipedia (here)?
 * On the subject of your real question, well, I think you'll find it a bit more complicated than that. An NPOV article isn't an article that takes an even-Steven or he-said/she-said approach; it's one that follows the reliable sources.  There are sources (like dictionaries and chemistry textbooks) that provide general definitions of "chemical", but the sources that specifically talk about what it means for something to be chemical free (a separate concept) are highly critical of the label.  Therefore, an NPOV article is one that is equally critical of the label.
 * I agree with you that Wikipedia should have an article about natural ingredients. Do you think that Natural product is the same subject?  If you thought so, then you could create a WP:REDIRECT from the one name to the existing article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on NPOV. I still think this kind of language-policing is not the best and highest service that Wikipedia can provide to readers, especially inasmuch as it depends on an a priori assumption that any sources that use "chemical" in a way contrary to the article's preferred usage are by definition non-reliable. Note that a strict interpretation of "chemical" as suggested by the sources cited in this article would require articles like the following to be re-titled: 2014 Elk River chemical spill. I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that the "chemical" in question in that context is likely to be (e.g.) H2O. Eichhoernchen (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)