User:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/RfCpoints

This is a compilation of questions and statements that might be used in an RfC on NPOV--Filll (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How should it be decided that a subject is a FRINGE topic?
 * How should the mainstream position be determined?
 * How is WP:Prominence determined? Number of people who subscribe to the views? In academia? In the public? In the media? In science? In which countries? At what time periods? Is it by comparing market share of products and services? Is it by number of practitioners? Is it by number of books? Journals? articles? peer-reviewed articles? Prestige of journals articles appear in ? Number of consumers? Research dollars? Court decisions? In which courts? In which countries? Laws? In which countries?
 * What does "appropriate reference" mean?
 * Is it necessary to include critical material in a FRINGE article?
 * Is it necessary to include critical material in a FRINGE article LEAD?
 * Should the critical material in a FRINGE article be all in one section?
 * Should the critical material in FRINGE topics be collected and placed in separate articles?
 * Should the mainstream be determined by academia, by the public, by scientists, by reliable sources and if so, in which community or country or at what time ?
 * does the N in NPOV mean that articles should be neutral, with no critical material?
 * Does labelling something as pseudoscience unfairly blacken it, so the term pseudoscience should be removed from Wikipedia?
 * Should all templates and categories referring to pseudoscience be removed from Wikipedia?
 * Should all references to quackery be removed from Wikipedia?
 * Should all discussions of double blind tests be removed from Wikipedia since pseudoscientists claim they are unfair since they come up with negative results?
 * Is disagreeing with a pseudoscience proponent uncivil?
 * Is it uncivil to call someone a pseudoscience proponent?
 * Is it uncivil to call someone a homeopathy promoter ?
 * is it uncivil to say someone is self promoting?
 * Is it uncivil to disagree with someone? With a science proponent? With a pseudoscience proponent only?
 * Should FRINGE topics like ESP and intelligent design just be described the way their proponents want them to be, with no input from the mainstream or outside views?
 * The Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. True or false? Should this be?
 * Should the current level of academic acceptance of FRINGE views be described? In detail? With a sentence? A link only? Should this include unaccredited schools? Schools in 3rd world countries only? Specialized private schools?
 * Should competing approaches exist on the same page when reputable sources disagree with each other?
 * Is a self-published website promoting a FRINGE subject balanced by an article in the New England Journal of Medicine?
 * Is a self published website lauded by the New England Journal of Medicine equal to or less equal than an obscure Alternative Medicine Journal on a FRINGE topic?
 * Is a creationist journal where all the reviews are by other creationists peer reviewed?