Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ

< Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) at 22:11, 6 May 2009 (→sections to transfer: agreed, this has been considered policy and...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:11, 6 May 2009 by Dreadstar (talk | contribs) (→sections to transfer: agreed, this has been considered policy and...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Locked

Should this page still be locked? Cheers, Ben (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it's still protected, and I don't see why it's still a policy. There's been sufficient time to move anything that should be policy to WP:NPOV and leave this as a proper FAQ. A page with "Frequently Asked Questions" really shouldn't be a policy, it should be a guide to the actual policy it's a FAQ of. Dreadstar † 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the material at the center of the policy dispute has been moved by consensus to an actual Policy page, I've requested the page be unprotected so the FAQ can be chaanged to a Guideline rather than a Policy. Dreadstar † 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your failure to see why is not a consensus for changing these important provisions from policy to guideline. If you're so fired up to move them to the NPOV policy page, you're welcome to get started, but there's a lot more to this policy than the pseudoscience section which has rightly been moved there. Do let me know when you're moving the various parts, and I'll try to assist when time permits. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The "policy" material has already moved to NPOV policy, so there's nothing to make this FAQ a policy. FAQ's aren't policy, period. Dreadstar † 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It still remains a policy as long as it remains content that was spun off a policy page, which it is. That's not a hard concept to grasp. And the content here content was present in and central to the very first versions of Misplaced Pages's core content policy, so it's only doubly so that it remain policy. Furthermore this content was only allowed to be spun off the main policy page on the condition that it remain policy, the archived discussions there show. This page has documented longstanding policy for years it seems. There's no reason to change that now. Odd nature (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree with your assertion as well as your facts, as has been discussed ad nausium. This FAQ should not be a policy, especially in its current state. Dreadstar † 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is this FAQ a policy?

For a historical perspective, WP:NPOV/FAQ was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added , apparently based on this discussion according to the edit summary; but that discussion acually seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". This "policy" looks to me to be more along the lines of a guideline or even an essay if even one of those and not just a basic, informative FAQ page. For those who may be interested, here are the previous discussions on this issue. Dreadstar † 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was spun out by FT2 at 23:42, 26 June 2006 without a heading, nine hours later it was headed as policy by by Francis Schonken (at 08:41, 27 June 2006), and at 13:07, 27 June 2006, FT2 edited the page leaving the policy tag in place. It's a longstanding policy with provisions which were inadequately covered in the main NPOV page, three of these provisions have now been moved to the main page which lessens the need for this to be a policy. . dave souza, talk

I know what was done, I read the section - as should everyone involved here. What was done by Francis, suggested by JesseW, and seemingly accepted by FT2, does not lessen the impact of the original statements that material was moved to the FAQ because it was not policy material, and was essays and chat; a FAQ page that was made policy by essentially one or two individuals with completely inadequate discussion about the impact and precedent of a FAQ being a policy. One of the problems with a FAQ being a policy is exactly why this page appears to be "longstanding policy," as Nathan points out below: "Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy". We do not want pages with "less attention and scrutiny" to be Policy.

If the material in this FAQ is policy, then you should have no trouble moving it into a highly trafficked Policy page like WP:NPOV. If NPOV policy is too long, then it's certainly inappropriate to move actual Policy off onto a FAQ. "Longstanding" is never an excuse for inappropriateness. Dreadstar † 17:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is a FAQ a Policy

Template:RFCpolicy

Should a "Frequently Asked Question" page for a Policy also be a Policy, or should it be a Guideline to the relevant Policy? Dreadstar † 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To SlimVirgin's point below, maybe it shouldn't even be a guidiline, but instead just a helpful FAQ page. Dreadstar † 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Guideline. Inevitably a FAQ is going to draw less attention and scrutiny than the main policy, which has an impact on the level of consensus a FAQ can enjoy. There is also the potential for conflict between a FAQ and the policy it covers (for those who parse the text like lawyers, and there are many!). There should be no question as to which document controls, and so no policies that are essentially direct duplicates of existing policies in different language. Nathan 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Guideline, or less. An FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions, in case anyone needs a reminder) is explanatory by its nature, and subject to more-or-less frequent change. anything that is policy-worthy should be on the main policy page, not on an FAQ; nothing on an FAQ should be dealing with issues that aren't spelled out on the main policy page. Frankly, common sense would dictate that this page should not have any status at all; it should just be a conventional list of standard answers to questions that get asked with some regularity. --Ludwigs2 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Guideline at most. Preferably nothing, just a helpful FAQ page. In case of inconsistency between it and policy, the policy should take priority. Anything important enough to be regarded as policy should be on the policy page itself. SlimVirgin 00:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum. The material was originally removed from the policy page because it wasn't integral to that policy. How can that same information now be policy in and of itself. It can't. The FAQ helps define and explain the policy beyond the primary explanations the policy includes, an addendum to the policy page, but cannot be considered policy itself, an important distinction.(olive (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

FAQ format not ideal for policy, but within 9 hours of being moved out the policy tag was added to the previously unheaded page, and as a policy it has contained essential clarifications of important aspects which were inadequately covered in the NPOV page. The pseudoscience section was duplicated on this page and the NPOV page by someone, I subsequently deleted the duplicate from this page. Having reviewed the remaining sections, I've moved Making necessary assumptions and Giving "equal validity" to NPOV with minimal modifications as statements rather than Q & A. They can now be deleted from this page, unless someone really wants to keep the questions or add further guidance. On that basis I've no objection to this page being made a guideline or simply a FAQ, but others may wish to review the other sections. . . dave souza, talk 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- sorry Dave, those sections simply don't qualify as policy material; see the discussion below. other sections do, and these might with some drastic rewrites for balance and generality, but as they stand - no. --Ludwigs2 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

These sections are policy, they work and they're general. "Giving equal validity" to fringe views isn't balance, as has repeatedly been discussed with Ludwigs2 amongst others, and "making necessary assumptions" is a common issue on a number of pages. Any proposed changes should be discussed at TALK:NPOV to ensure context. . dave souza, talk 14:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Dave Souza's view above (Guideline/FAQ) having a FAQ as policy isn't ideal, but the important parts should be moved across. Verbal chat 12:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Endorse Dave Souza's view above - and the important parts should be moved across. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This page describes and elucidates important points of policy - NPOV is a many-headed beast with multitudinous and subtle ramifications some of which should be explicitly explored at the policy level. Rewriting out of the FAQ style would not actually require that much effort, and I agree that it is not really ideal format for presenting matters of policy. Given that this issue seems to flare up with depressing regularity, it might be worth changing the style purely for that reason. Not that keeping two well-watched pages in harmony is all that difficult, but we might consider redirecting this talkpage to the main one to facilitate managing the pages as one. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Another who agrees with Dave Putting the relevant policy matters in NPOV deals with these issues well. Having a FAQ as a guideline then might make sense in addition to that. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It's fine as policy. Why? Because the content of the FAQ that dreadstar refers to are clauses found in the earliest versions of the NPOV policy all the way until it was spun off as a policy subpage, and the consensus then was that it remain policy, serving to explain policy. It stood that way for years. These clauses were and continue to be historical targets for pseudoscience POV promoters, most now banned, some new ones now around. They have been trying remove it because it is the main stumbling stone from them being able to promote their pet POV as having equal validity as mainstream science. Should key clauses from our policy suffer because POV pushers try to game the system? No. I agree that the clauses would be better rolled back into the NPOV policy proper, but failing that, they should remain at their FAQ page where they've stood for years without meaningful challenge. Odd nature (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

sections to transfer

I reverted these additions (twice now). these sections were never in serious consideration for addition to policy. see the original proposals here (proposals 3 and 4). the 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections could be included in policy; the 'equal validity' and 'making necessary assumptions' sections are (a) badly written (b) limited in scope to pseudoscience issues, and (c) not particularly neutral.

as I said, I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions). that being the case, we might want to revive the proposals I made earlier (now archived with the others here, and include them in the above discussion, or in a new one. is that acceptable? --Ludwigs2 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should take place on the NPOV policy talk page, in fact they have already started there. As a "fringe" editor you have your own view, but when weakening this from a policy we shouldn't lose the good policy parts that should be put back into the policy. I find your unprovoked personal attack on the NPOV talk page, and the lack of AGF you are displaying in your post above, say something as to your view of NPOV. This contrast quite markedly with the approach Dave took, and I have followed. I feel you should apologise and revert. Verbal chat 12:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my reasoning. your wp:uncivil and mindless assertion that I'm a 'fringe editor' (which seems to be your only actual argument here) merely reflects your personal prejudices, and is not a substitute for proper discussion of the issues. make a reasoned case for the inclusion of these sections in policy so that we can discuss the matter; or if you can't, then please don't stink up the place with mere name-calling.

The discussion is here, because it's about the NPOV/FAQ - let's keep it here so that we don't get things spread out all over the place. --Ludwigs2 13:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You said "I've reverted these additions to policy twice, and I expect a few more skeptical editors will come out of the woodwork to push them in again, because these two passages are central to their particular POV (and as a class they are not given to participating in consensus discussions)", which is a huge failure to assume good faith, not including the attacks you have made on the NPOV talk page. My reference to you as fringe was both ironic, and backed by your editing history. I added quotes to make this clear. This FAQ currently has status as policy. I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over - as they are already policy this isn't making new policy, or an addition to policy. The move was justified above and on the NPOV talk page. It might be best if you take a break and come back when you've calmed down. Verbal chat 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal said: "I agree FAQs probably shouldn't, but we should retain the good parts of this policy FAQ and simply move them back over". This far, I agree with you completely, but I disagree with you about which parts are the 'good' parts of this FAQ. as I noted above, he 'religion' and 'writing for the enemy' sections have a lot to recommend them, but the two sections that got moved over suffer from the following failings

They are specific to pseudoscience issues: perhaps they belong on the Fringe Theories page, and maybe on the FAQ page (without policy status) as clarifications of NPOV for PS issues, but they aren't suitable for inclusion on the broader NPOV policy page. If they could be rewritten to have general scope, they might be acceptable, but that would take a lot of consideration and effort.
The are written in a rambling, 'talky' style: this just isn't suitable for a policy page. they are written in such an explanatory style that I can only see them as FAQ material.
They are not particularly neutral: one is a pointed statement to the effect that pseudoscience issues can be criticized more harshly than other topics, and the other is nearly an incitement to engage in wp:OR. I can see some value in both points, mind you, but as they are written they are a good bit over the top.

I hope that clarifies things. --Ludwigs2 14:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and I don't entirely disagree. (I would still appreciate it if you struck parts of your earlier comments) Verbal chat 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Style and precise wording can be reviewed and discussed at TALK:NPOV, these policy statements give clear guidance on a wider range of issues than pseudoscience, as is clearly stated in their wording. They concern matters that are covered less clearly in the other NPOV policy statements. As stated in the section above, they are both useful and necessary. . . dave souza, talk 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And I do agree with that, and that conversation should happen there. Verbal chat 14:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this FAQ does have the current status of policy, and I don't think it would be right to assume without discussion that text elements from the FAQ can be moved to the NPOV page over objections. My sense is that the issue of whether FAQs should be policies hasn't been ironed out in the past, and the RfC above (which is probably not in the right place for the general question) indicates that they probably should not be. The best approach to adding wording from NPOV/FAQ to NPOV, then, is to propose changes on WT:NPOV and discuss them there. Nathan 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the page it does have the force of policy, and that seems to be practice as well. However, the situation isn't optimal and I agree that conversation about what should be moved should take place on the NPOV page before the policy tag is removed from this FAQ. Verbal chat 14:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Verbal. . dave souza, talk 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Verbal is right. Nathan, have you read the archived discussions that lead to the creation of this page? I played a key role in creating this page originally, spinning these clauses off the main policy, and maintaining it, and the original intent was to pare down a policy page that was getting too long without losing or downgrading key elements of policy. This specific clauses have historically been targets of fringe POV pushers, pseudoscience in particular, because they prevent them from presenting fringe views as being equally valid to mainstream views. The fact is that they has remained policy and not deleted or downgraded because they are strongly supported, seen as key clauses to NPOV. And they are found verbatim in the original formulation of the NPOV policy more than 6 years ago. As someone who has been maintaining the NPOV policy for historical consistency for 5 yeard, they will remain policy here, and be rolled into the main policy at some point, of that I am sure. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your reversions Ludwigs and reasoning given here to downgrade this page to guideline and support Dave's noble effort in the name of reason to roll what were key clauses from the original formulation of the NPOV policy that go back at the very first versions of the policy and have stood as policy for 6+ years now, here and in the main policy page. FeloniousMonk (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the history:The FAQ was spun off with this discussion as support. . Labeling the removed material seems to have been based on this single opinion and comment

I also think it's a good move, but we probably should put the policy tag on the FAQ page also, as I know a number of pieces of that material is cited as policy, and has had the detailed discussion to justify identifing it as that. Otherwise, great work in dividing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

despite FT2's final comment here:

Policies aren't essay or debating articles really -- especially not when the essays are discussion-chats 18 KB long. Thats not sensible. A list of questions with a bolded header saying "answers and discussions in /FAQ"... I don't think anyone's going to miss the point. Those who understand NPOV will understand it, those who don't will see where to go for more information on whatever their pet concern is. What's for sure is that 18 KB of chat just doesn't belong in the main policy. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that moving material back and forth in and out of policy, and the actual and initial labelling of that material as policy needs a much wider community consensus as per WP:POLICY, and this statement, "Policies and guidelines describe standards that have community consensus" than is the case here.

Seems we have several points for discussion :

whether the material should have been moved in the first place... no one seems to disagree with FT2's initial move
whether the material should have been labeled policy at that point... seems that only one editor suggested that
whether the moved material is/was policy
and now whether that material should be moved back onto the original policy page

Since all of these moves affect a "cornerstone" policy, I'd like to suggest we slow down here on moving this stuff around and get some strong community wide discussion and consensus before any moves are made as probably should have been the case from the beginning(olive (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

It's been policy for 6 years... If people disagreed they could have reverted the tagging of this page as policy, including FT2. This page is currently policy. If anything should be removed from policy is the question, and I, and others, think the parts DS has moved should remain policy. To strip them of policy status would require broad consensus in the usual manner. Nothing has been moved in and out of policy, it is being put back into the NPOV page (policy to policy) so that the odd situation of a FAQ being policy can be fixed. Verbal chat 16:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

so your argument is "The mistake has been around for 6 years, and so we should continue to respect the mistake?" yeah, well, that's charming, but I haven't been here for six years, and I'm raising an objection to this mistake now (and have been since I noticed this issue), and so I expect the matter to be discussed reasonably now without reference to bureaucratic errors of the past. do you have a better argument than this, or is this it? --Ludwigs2 16:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving "chat" off a policy page is obviously a clean up move to remove non, policy-like material. Deciding to label that material as a policy was the opinion of one editor. Discussion as to whether that was an appropriate move, that is, whether this material is policy or not has been reopened a couple of times at least, and no consensus seems to have been reached. The argument that material that is policy is being moved back into policy cannot fly, because we haven't determined the base line information; that the material being moved is policy to begin with . This is a cornerstone policy we're mucking about with. It deserves discussion and consensus on a community wide basis. This isn't to negate in any way Dave's efforts but why the rush. I'm a little suspicious when "rush" enters the picture. As well, we are now in the middle of a RfC. The proper procedure is to wait and see how the community weighs in. A few editors does not a community make. What's the hurry? (olive (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

The RfC is about a sudden rush to downgrade this policy, after a couple of months waiting for Ludwigs to pull together proposals for discussion. No need to rush at downgrading the policy, we can discuss and review which parts are moved into the NPOV main page, appropriately at that page as part of a change to that page. Once that's accomplished we can come back to the issue of whether what's left of the FAQ should remain policy. Oh, and the editor who moved this into a new page edited it the next day without removing the policy tag, indicating consensus about the policy status. . . dave souza, talk 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah...I don't buy that. I checked Dreadstar's user talk page, and the tag there says he/she is busy in RL... so he/she comes back in and asks for an RfC - perfectly legitimate. This FAQ has been discussed before and there was strong concerns about the FAQ being named/used as a policy. It would appear those concerns still exist. Moving material around without waiting for the RfC to expire isn't appropriate procedure, and makes me question motive. Not removing the policy tag in one day doesn't indicate consensus in anyway. It indicates that an editor didn't remove the tag. Notifying the larger community, asking for comment, and then keeping or removing the tag based on that input is consensus. As well we all know consensus is not an infinite. It can change. We have editors legitimately asking to discuss and clarify the base line definition of this FAQ. That shouldn't be ignored because this is a cornerstone policy and no small group of editors has the right to "own" the policy and what is put in or out of it.I won't edit war over this, but I note that an RfC and notification at the Village Pump for input in this discussion are in effect being tossed aside -not respectful of the encyclopedia, the other editors, and the process. And how in the name of any kind of common sense can material removed from a policy because it was chat and extraneous to the policy be called policy itself.(olive (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

The FAQ is currently policy. If you want that to change that's fine, but currently this is policy. The moving of things around doesn't seem to have anything to do with the RFC, except in some comments about not losing good policy. If you want anything to be removed from policy you have to show consensus for that - see WP:NOT for an example of removing things without consensus, even if there is a good argument that it doesn't have consensus! The FAQ being a policy is suboptimal, and that is what we are in the process of fixing. You are, and correct me if I' wrong, in effect advocating removing things from policy (The NPOV policy, given by this page and WP:NPOV) without consensus. The NPOV FAQ isn't "chat". I find the "sudden rush" to get this stuff removed from policy, rather than the simple housekeeping that has in fact happened, strange. Verbal chat 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now Verbal. Look what you've done. You've asked me if I was advocating moving material from NPOV without consensus and without waiting for me to answer suggested such a desire on my part was strange. :o)

Now the truth is, as I hope my posts indicate, I am begging for consensus. My concern has more to do with the order in which things are being carried out. Simple housekeeping implies there was no big mess to begin with. However, the archives of this page indicates lots of mess on the topic of whether NPOV/FAQ should be considered policy or not. I would suggest that the logical first order of things to consider before anything was moved should have been to establish that base line, and to do it with community wide discussion. Although Dave has already made a rather substantial move of material into the NPOV policy from the FAQ (and I can't seem to find consensus for that move in the discussion .... maybe someone could point me to it), I would suggest we stop all further housekeeping duties and settle the issue of policy/not policy once and for all. Once we've cleaned up the big mess, then what follows could be the smaller "housekeeping" issues. Right now the procedure is backwards. The assumption is that we can move material back and forth because we are moving from policy to policy, but the suggestion as noted in the archives is that the FAQ because it contained nonessential information to the original policy may not be truly, in itself, policy, in which case we may be moving nonessential material right back into the policy again. If there is a serious question as to whether the FAQ is a policy or not, then assuming we are moving material from policy to policy is wrong, and assuming its just housekeeping is wrong as well. I'm asking to halt the move of material ... to look at what has already been moved.... to make a decision on the policy issue....and then and only then, to begin movement again of material that, dependent on consensus should go back into the NPOV policy. "Chat" is the term FT2 used which I concur with, indicating the nonessential nature of material in terms of the policy itself. If it was essential it would probably still be there.(olive (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

There's nothing more I can say really (famous last words). I have no desire to get into an edit war over this, but if there is discussion on the FAQ itself and what is to be moved, I'll be happy to throw in my two cents.(olive (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

I don't agree with your take on the issues. Among those who have maintained both this policy page and the NPOV policy page historically, IOW, for more than the last year, there is strong consensus that the clauses being challenged by Ludwigs and dreadstar are policy by having been spun off the main policy page. The fact that "suggestions have been made" or that "some have challenged" is not sufficient cause for downgrading multiple paragraphs that have stood as policy for more than 6 years (here and at the main policy page), no matter which page they appear on. Odd nature (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, olive, you refer to the fact "the archives of this page indicates lots of mess on the topic of whether NPOV/FAQ should be considered policy or not." But you need to understand and acknowledge that most of that "mess" was caused by pseudoscience POV promoters, most now banned, trying to remove the main stumbling stone from them being able to promote their pet POV as having equal validity as mainstream science. Should key policy suffer because POV pushers try to game the system? No. So don't them the same weight as good faith contributors. Odd nature (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this section is titled "sections to transfer", not "let's bash each other". Can this section be refactored or moved so the discussion can stick to the main point, which is to identify and decide on what in this FAQ is actually Policy and should be moved to an actual Policy page and off this FAQ - which should not be policy. Dreadstar † 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The RfC asks one question that is really two - (1) should FAQs have the weight of policy and (2) does the text in this FAQ have policy status. I think both questions are unresolved, but Verbal and others operate under the assumption that the answers are no to (1) and yes to (2). I think folks may have difficulty over at WT:NPOV arguing that no one should be permitted to object to inserting new text into that page because the text is already policy, but given that we seem to agree that FAQs shouldn't be policy anything that ought to be policy should certainly be merged into WP:NPOV somehow. The reference to NOT#PLOT is on point - some in the arbitration request have argued that a new consensus is necessary to change a policy, and demonstrating that the current policy lacks consensus isn't sufficient to downgrade or remove it. I find that reasoning a bit strange I suppose, but its relevant mainly to WT:NPOV and not this page.

In any case it may help us to separate these two questions, with the general issue of FAQs and status returned to VPP and the issue of NPOV/FAQ specifically left to hash out here and on WT:NPOV. Nathan 20:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Whatever is in this FAQ is already considered part of NPOV Policy and should be able to be moved there without question. Once moved to WP:NPOV, then consensus can be gauged on whether or not to remove it. I don't advocate merely reducing current Policy to the status of Guideline, Essay or anything less than Policy. I haven't involved myself in the minutia of what specifially should be moved, and have instead focused on the overall goal of Misplaced Pages having a solid heirarchy of documentation that has distinct boundaries and purposes. I think the initial tagging of the FAQ as policy was ill-considered and we need to address it clearly and fairly rapidly.

This same discussion has been ongoing since February, and while there has been good progress made, it needs to be finalized. I disagree with anyone arguing that material from the FAQ shouldn't be considered current policy and therefore handily transferred to a proper Policy page instead lingering here where it creates a strange, confusing gray zone of documentation heirarchy. We have plenty of FAQ Pages that are based on Foundational and Policy principles, yet none of those FAQs are considered Policy. Dreadstar † 22:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Material to be transferred to a Policy page

Alright, let's use this section to list and discuss the merits of material that editors believe should be considered Policy and therefore moved to an actual Policy page instead of this FAQ. Please take into consideration that a FAQ helps to explain existing policy and this should not be a duplicate of actual Policy, but instead help to answer questions and provide further information on said Policies. Thanks! Dreadstar † 19:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a policy page, so this should be thought of as "material that should be retained in the policy" or simimar. What this page currently contains is current policy, even though it is a FAQ. I endorse Dave's view below (and above, and elsewhere), and feel that these long-standing points of policy should be retained, and that a broad consensus would be required to remove them from policy (though not this page). I agree that this state should change, by moving the policy points to the main NPOV policy page, but denying the facts of this situation doesn't help. Verbal chat 20:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's temporarily a policy page as far as I'm concerned - if even that. I would have to laugh at anyone saying someone or some material is violating WP:NPOV/FAQ policy, when in actuality they may be violating WP:NPOV policy. This is a silly argument - there's no consensus that a FAQ should be policy, it doesn't even make sense. I'd recommend focusing on the material that needs to be moved instead of continuing to hawk this FAQ as a policy. Dreadstar † 21:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I see in the above, here is a start to the listing. Let's list then discuss the merits of each one for moving to a Policy page. Please feel free to add to the below list anything from tis FAQ that you believe should be on a Policy page. Dreadstar † 21:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Policy material

No bashing. Please. :) Dreadstar † 19:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Making necessary assumptions covers numerous situations where a controversy is best explored in depth in one article, and it's fully appropriate for sub articles to refer to that as necessary without thrashing out the same argument every time. It's useful, and fits well as a part of WP:NPOV#Neutrality disputes and handling. dave souza, talk 20:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Giving "equal validity" is a common problem, particularly where an article is focussed on an extreme minority view and we must ensure that this proper attention does not obscure the majority opinion on the subject. The section is a usefully clear explanation of WP:WEIGHT issues in that regard. . dave souza, talk