Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 27

Pseudoscience cat
Simply put, the pseudoscience cat is appropriate in many cases, but it is abused. If it is to be kept, it must be applied as written: both to subjects and institutions who fight pseudoscience, and those which are or promote it. It must not be applied to subjects with a following, unless properly sourced per the ArbComs which relate to it. It must be applied only to truly obvious pseudosciences without such sourcing. Further, if the cat is to be kept, then the problem stated by jossi must be addressed:

"WP:NPOV, which is non-negotiable, forces us not to assert viewpoints as facts, which we will be doing if we categorize an article as such when that is disputed. As per WP:CATEGORY: Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option."

This is a matter of ArbComs and basic adherence to stated policy and NPOV, and so not merely a matter for voting or even consensus, as the NPOV policy and WP:ATT are not negotiable. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)