Revision as of 12:06, 22 May 2006 edit Johnleemk (talk \| contribs) Administrators 20,741 edits →Sources and POV ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:14, 22 May 2006 edit undo Aquirata (talk \| contribs) 1,411 edits Pseudoscience and NPOV Next edit →
Line 710: ::You don't get it. The idea is that ''we'', Wikipedia, have to be completely neutral in how we refer to our subjects. However, our sources do not have to be neutral. If they were, it would be difficult to write an article on anything polemical. The important thing is that we ourselves must be neutral; therefore, for instance, it is not neutral to cite sources for only one side of the issue and ignore the other side(s). [[User:Johnleemk\|Johnleemk]] \| [[User talk:Johnleemk\|Talk]] 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC) == Pseudoscience and NPOV == The article on [[pseudoscience]] states: ''The term "pseudoscience" generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science.'' If a term 'generally has negative connotations', can using it for categorization purposes be NPOV? Is there a suitable term that would be politically correct in terms of WP NPOV policy? [[User:Aquirata\|Aquirata]] 12:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: Difference between revisions