Wikipedia talk:Dealing with fringe science

I didn't write this; I was quoting DESiegel's remarks. Uncle Ed 20:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge
It has been propsoed that Dealing with fringe science be merged with WP:NPOV. While my comments, and indeed the whole issue of dealing with fring since, do derive from the NPOV policy 9and to soem extent the verifiability policy, I feel that this is an imporetant special case. I therefore oppsoe the merge. I wrote the text no present in connection with the debate on Jack Sarfatti, but it applies in a wider context. i intend to expand the current text a bit, making it into a useful essay or perhaps a proposed guideline, a fleshign oput of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V as they apply in this specific and often controversial area. DES (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this should be merged. I think that this area has caused so many problems that a specific set of guides, working within the standard framework of Wikipedia, would help a lot. --Apyule 03:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it should be merged because it will be more accessible for the newuser if it is a section to NPOV. It is very hard to find all these related articles, policies and guidelines. Further, dealing with fringe science is, at its core, no different than dealing with agitprop articles. If the goal is NPOV, then those standards should apply across the board whether the article is about chaos theory or detainees. Joaquin Murietta 08:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)