Talk:If NPOV is science, how do I deal with cases where the US 'science' is at odds with at least 80% of the world?
Predicted: if the issue was known to be fluoridation and the tongue english, users wouldn't give advice.
Fact: it is now listed to be fluoridation, and users don't give advice. I shouldn't have gone into details and give generic theorical outline instead. Rats!
So for a *theorical* product, other than fluoridation(I'm more curious of how wikipedians handle such thing than the fluoridation issue itself), how can a user mention in an article that one thing is widely accepted as scientific in a country (any country or group of countries) and widely viewed an unproven (i.e. might be true, but no proof present) by other countries or group of countries?
Also, what happens if wikipedia says something is unscientific in one tongue and that is generally supported as NPOV by users with that tongue, can I use that as a reference just like I'd use any other web link? Or does english is some kind of de facto reference?
- General advise may be strictification of "serious" science criteria. In Russian Wikipedia they are baseв mostly on official Russian documents concerning Russian science. So, English Wikipedia with that criteria would differ. (American science is approved in Russia, but with much criticism). Of course, "wrong" theories then would be kept as notable issued ones. Конст. Карасёв 01:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My advice, both in the specific and in the theoretical case, would be to:
- Cite your information thoroughly.
- When it is removed, politely point out, on the talk page of the perpetrators, why this is vandalism. If this needs to be done a lot, you might want to use a subst template for this.
- When the perpetrators persist, try to get them banned from editing Wikipedia forever. People who do things like that are not useful for the project anyway.
Just my €0,02 - I'm not exactly sure whether it's useful to you, but you asked for our views, so you got it. 188.8.131.52 18:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Teach the controversy
I hate to repeat a phrase from those hacks who call themselves creation scientists, but that's what neutral point of view really is. Not taking a side. If there are multiple sides, say what they are, say how they disagree. "The US is in love with water fluoridation, but Europe sees it as nonsense." Not like that, but I think you get the point. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 13:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)