Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/FAQ and Yellow: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
 
2D (talk | contribs)
m Reverted edits by 65.103.4.62 to last version by DavidWS (HG)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{otheruses1|the color}}
__TOC__
{{Infobox color|title=Yellow
|pic=Image:Color icon yellow.png
|wavelength=570–580
|symbolism=[[Aging (life cycle)|age/aging]], [[warm]]th, [[cowardice]], [[happiness]], [[traffic light|slow]], [[sunshine]], the [[Orient]], [[electricity]]
|hex=FFFF00|textcolor=blue|
spelling=Color|
r=255|g=255|b=0|rgbspace=[[sRGB color space|sRGB]]|
source=[[Web colors#HTML color names|HTML/CSS]]<ref name="css3-color">[http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#html4 W3C TR CSS3 Color Module, HTML4 color keywords]</ref>
<!--c=6|m=0|y=97|k=0|
h=60|s=100|v=100|-->
}}
'''Yellow''' is the [[color]] evoked by light that stimulates both the '''L''' and '''M''' (long and medium wavelength) [[cone cell]]s of the [[retina]] about equally, but does not significantly stimulate the '''S''' (short-wavelength) cone cells; that is, light with much [[red]] and [[green]] but not very much [[blue]].<ref>{{cite book | title = Introduction to Psychology | author = James W. Kalat | isbn = 053462460X | year = 2005 | publisher = Thomson Wadsworth | page = 105 | url = http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0534624626&id=AHBnar7sEIIC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&ots=m3Lzw8xCgQ&dq=yellow-light+long+medium+short+cones&sig=13IGJmaW6EZQPq3yadyxP5ds_QY}}</ref> Light with a wavelength of 570–580 [[nanometre|nm]] is yellow, as is light with a suitable mixture of somewhat longer and shorter wavelengths. Yellow's traditional [[RYB]] [[complementary color]] is [[purple]], [[violet (color)|violet]] or [[indigo]]. Yellow's colorimetrically defined complementary color in both [[RGB]] and [[CMYK]] color spaces is [[blue]]. <!--Discuss blue/violet info on talk page.-->


==Electric yellow vs. process yellow==
== Pseudoscience ==
===Electric Yellow===
I've restored a comment that was in the faq from at least 2004 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=12123234] to about late 2007, when it got removed in a text cleanup. I think it clarifies the scope of the Pseudoscience section in a way that the revised, 2008 wording does not. To whit, "The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science." [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


{{infobox color|title=Yellow|hex= FFFF00|
==Policy?==
r=255|g=255|b=0|rgbspace=[[sRGB color space|sRGB]]|
How can a FAQ on a policy be a policy itself? <span style="font-family: verdana;"> — [[User:Rlevse|<span style="color:#060;">'''''R''levse'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
c= |m= |y= |k= 0|
:It was split off the policy page several years ago, and helps to expand upon and clarify some of the issues involved. Pretty much the entire FAQ page can be found in the first revision of [[WP:NPOV]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=270452#Objections_and_clarifications]. Of course, in some ways, the name is a misnomer. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
h=60|s=100|v=100
:I was wondering that too. As Shoemaker points out, [[WP:NPOV/FAQ]] was spun off the main WP:NPOV policy. Shortly thereafter, the policy tag was added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ&diff=next&oldid=60746798] - apparently based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_022#FAQ_answers_moved_to_.2FFAQ_page this discussion], according to the edit summary, but the discussion seems to indicate the FAQ was spun out of the policy because it "these are really essays and "chat", rather than policy". Looks to me to be more along the lines of a [[WP:GUIDELINE|guideline]] or even an [[WP:ESSAYS|essay]]. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 17:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
|source=[[Web colors#HTML color names|HTML/CSS]]<ref name="css3-color">[http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#html4 W3C TR CSS3 Color Module, HTML4 color keywords]</ref>
::There's at least some important policy in there - [[WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience]], for instance, is the policy basis behind [[WP:FRINGE]]. I'd be inclined to remerge at least parts of the FAQ before downgrading it. The simple fact is that a clear, unambiguous statement like [[WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience]] is the oly way to keep certain parts of Wikipedia at all sane to edit, such as [[Intelligent design]], [[Evolution]], [[Homeopathy]] and so on. Without it as policy, we could pretty much throw out any hope of getting any of those fields looking at all encyclopedic. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 17:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
}}


The color box at right shows the most intense '''yellow''' representable in in 8-bit [[RGB color model]]; yellow is a ''secondary'' color in an additive RGB space.
:::A dilemma. As the FAQ was spun off originally from the NPOV Policy one would think the material was significant but not crucial, possibly an important distinction. In which case, the auxiliary material should probably have never been tagged as a policy but left as an essay or at best a guideline. The Civility policy for example has numerous links to material/essays significant to the understanding of the policy but not critical to its explanation. If critical enough to be part of the policy one would assume that it should have been left on the page where it could be easily accessed. If any material is reinserted into the original policy, I would think a fair amount of discussion and a consensus would be necessary to distinguish what is necessary, from what is useful but not critical. ([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC))
::::Givenm it's BEEN policy for 7 years, I don't think we'd need that much re-evaluation. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 23:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


The measured light [[spectrum]] from yellow pixels on a typical computer display is complex, and very unlike the reflectance spectrum of a yellow object such as a banana.<ref>{{cite book | url = http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN3527405038&id=1oDOWr_yueIC&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&ots=Jrfi5sRwoo&dq=%22measured+spectrum+of+computer+display+yellow+pixels%22&sig=vtsTKGy_bYEuMOhmf23ysJJxuvQ | title = Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation | author = Craig F. Bohren and Eugene E. Clothiaux |publisher = Wiley-VCH | year = 2006 | isbn = 3527405038}}</ref>
First, the pseudoscience bit (the bit in contention at this time) has not been policy for 7 years, but has been in constant conflict and question, and has been changed many times. Some of the users changing it were senior admins, who thought it was not in accord with WP basic policy. Second, the length of time it's been in could as easily be seen as it's being in need of review, as of it's having consensus. Third, it has been edit warred over, which often means it is not a consensus version, but people gave up. Fourth, the status of the FAQ as policy is in question, as above:


===Process yellow===
"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)"


{{infobox color|textcolor=black|
So, I don't think there was any consensus to make it policy. We may need to merge/downgrade.
title= Process yellow (subtractive primary, sRGB approximation)|
hex= FFEF00|
r=255|g= 239|b=0|
c= 0|m=0|y= 100|k= 0|
h=56|s=100|v=100
|source=[http://www.tintbook.com/] [[CMYK]]
}}


'''Process yellow''' (also known as '''pigment yellow''', '''printer's yellow''' or '''canary yellow''') is one of the three colors typically used as subtractive [[primary color]]s, along with [[magenta]] and [[cyan]]. The [[CMYK color model|CMYK]] system for color printing is based on using four inks, one of which is a yellow color. This is in itself a standard color, and a fairly narrow range of yellow inks or pigments are used. Process yellow is based on a colorant that reflects the preponderance of red and green light, and absorbs most blue light, as in the reflectance spectra shown in the figure on the lower right.
Fifth, the point is whether it is correct. There needs to be a discussion on whether some of its parts are actually NPOV in truth, or merely relics or bits which only some editors feel are correct. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Because of the characteristics of paint pigments and use of different [[color wheel]]s, [[Painting|painters]] traditionally regard the complement of yellow as the color [[indigo]] or blue-violet.
:Unless Martinphi provides some evidence, I don't think he accurately portrays the situation. His firststatement, portrayed more accurately, boils down to "The policy was questioned, and consensus said it should stay". If a policy having ever been challenged means it wasn't a policy, then no Wikipedia policy is one. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 00:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Process yellow is not an [[RGB]] color, and there is no fixed conversion from CMYK primaries to RGB. Different formulations are used for printer's ink, so there can be variations in the printed color that is pure yellow ink.
::Somehow, it looks more like edit warring to me [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FFAQ&diff=211714887&oldid=211714048] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FFAQ&diff=211802996&oldid=211802337]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Yellow spectra Abney 1891.png|thumb|240px|right|Reflectance spectra of yellow pigments, as a percentage of white (Abney 1891)]]
:::That's inaccurate. You ignore the [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Archive_32#Pseudoscience|lengthy talk page discussion]] that was ongoing simultaneously. That discussion went on for some time, but eventually died out after some mild constructive criticism of a new suggestion failed to result in any further suggestions. You'll note I was not even involved for much of the last part. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 05:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:PlanckianLocusWithYellowComplements.png|thumb|right|240px|Complements of yellow have a dominant wavelength in the range 380 to 480 nm. The green lines show several possible pairs of complementary colors with respect to different blackbody color temperature neutrals, illustrated by the "[[Planckian locus]]". Three examples are shown: a 580 nm yellow is complementary to a 435 nm [[indigo]] with respect to a 2800 K white; a 580 nm yellow is complementary to a 480 nm [[blue]] with respect to a 5000 K white; and a 575 nm yellow is complementary to an extreme [[violet (color)|violet]] with respect to a 3600 K white.]]
::::shoemaker:
::::#'''an FAQ should ''not'' be policy'''. at best it should have guideline status, and anything on the page that should be more than a guideline should instead be moved over to the policy page proper. otherwise we open a tremendous back door where editors can surreptitiously write new policy without the normal review and consent process, and possibly end up with mutually contradictory policy statements. I second Martin's suggestion that it should be downgraded.
::::#I think it's high time this entire pseudoscience/fringe issue was reopened and revised. frankly, this supposed 'policy' strikes me more as a political move in ongoing ideological warfare than as useful aid in writing wikipedia articles. the whole thing is predicated on a questionable understanding of the nature of science, and on some blatant misconstruals of the original ArbCom ruling (which itself is underspecified).
::::--[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 06:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


==Etymology and definitions==
:::::Yes, something needs to be done, but let's take our time on it. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The word ''yellow'' comes from the [[Old English]] ''geolu'', or ''geolwe'' which derived from the [[Proto-Germanic]] word ''gelwaz''.<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=yellow&searchmode=none Online Etymology Dictionary<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The oldest known usage of this word in English is in the Old English poem ''[[Beowulf]]'', in a description of a shield made of wood from a [[yew tree]].<ref name=OED>Oxford English Dictionary</ref> In the English language, yellow is used to describe objects having the color between green and orange in the visible light spectrum ([[gold]], egg yolks, sunflowers, etc.). The color is associated with age and aging, both with people and objects (e.g. yellowed-paper). Ethnographically, the term yellow has also been used as a slang term for both oriental persons and light-skinned African-Americans. The term is associated at times with jealousy, as well as cowardliness. Lastly, it is associated with sensational journalistic practices, or ''[[yellow journalism]]'', and resistance to militant trade unions.<ref name=OED/>


==Complements of yellow==
The ending of the discussion mentioned above by Shoemaker: "I've changed it in the proposal above, and made some tweaks in the response. See what you think. Any better? Jayen466 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)" ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, Martin, but I'm getting a strong impression that you really want a major war with me. Maybe this isn't true, but I still think that such feelings means the best thing for me to do is to just disengage, and to make a polite request that you do the same, both of us communicating as little as possible with or about each other. If you would, I'd appreciate if you'd make sure that at least one neutral party's comment is said in any thread after I make a reply before you reply, and I'll do the same for your comments. I do not want to be pulled into a war with you, and so a tacit agreement to this sort of disengagement for the immediate future would be far preferred by me. Thank you. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Hunt<ref name=hunt>{{cite book | title = Measuring Color | author = J. W. G. Hunt | year = 1980 | publisher = Ellis Horwood Ltd | isbn = 0-7458-0125-0}}</ref> defines that "two colors are complementary when it is possible to reproduce the tristimulus values of a specified achromatic stimulus by an additive mixture of these two stimuli." That is, when two colored lights can be mixed to match a specified white (achromatic, non-colored) light, the colors of those two lights are complementary. This definition, however, does not constrain what version of white will be specified. In the nineteenth century, the scientists [[Grassmann]] and [[Helmholtz]] did experiments in which they concluded that finding a good complement for spectral yellow was difficult, but that the result was [[indigo]], that is, a wavelength that today's color scientists would call [[violet (color)|violet]]. Helmholtz says "Yellow and indigo blue" are complements.<ref>{{cite book | title = Physiological Optics | author = Hermann von Helmholtz | publisher = Dover | year = 1924}}</ref> Grassman reconstructs Newton's category boundaries in terms of wavelengths and says "This indigo therefore falls within the limits of color between which, according to Helmholtz, the complementary colors of yellow lie."<ref>{{cite journal | title = Theory of Compound Colors | author = Hermann Günter Grassman | journal = Philosophical Magazine | volume = Vol. 4 | year = 1854 | pages = 254–264 }}</ref> Newton's own color circle has yellow directly opposite the boundary between indigo and violet. These results, that the complement of yellow is a wavelength shorter than 450 nm, are derivable from the modern [[CIE 1931]] system of colorimetry if it is assumed that the yellow is about 580 nm or shorter wavelength, and the specified white is the color of a blackbody radiator of temperature 2800 [[kelvin|K]] or lower (that is, the white of an ordinary incandescent light bulb). More typically, with a daylight-colored or around 5000 to 6000 K white, the complement of yellow will be in the blue wavelength range, which is the standard modern answer for the complement of yellow.
::War with you? No idea what you mean. You seem to be continually trying to get me banned from Wikipedia or sanctioned, etc. etc., but for my part I have only wanted to be left alone. Nor have I done anything warlike toward you at all, although once I responded to an attack by going to AN/I. I find no reason not to respond to you, but if you wish to not respond directly to me that is up to you. At any rate, be assured that I have no warlike intentions to anyone on Wikipedia, yourself very much included. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 02:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


==Plants and animals==
Various arguments about content aside for a moment, it seems fairly obvious to me personally that a FAQ page, which is effectively a policy fork where editors have substantially more leeway than they would ordinarily get on the policy page per se, is not properly categorized as a "policy". Plainly this one slipped through one of the many cracks that the diffuse concept of [[WP:Consensus]] quite frequently allows in such a large endeavor as Wikipedia. At best, it seems to me, this type of FAQ page is properly categorized as a supplemental guideline based on the policy page from which it is derived, ''unless'' adequate consensus can be achieved to the effect that it's not merely a convenience but instead is sufficiently central to the policy to merit the community's attention to maintain it with the same degree of diligence as policy pages in general. (I will intentionally avoid any personal judgement here about how well policy pages are typically maintained, except to say that in my observation more attention is typically paid to the core policy pages than is ordinarily devoted to various other pages.) <br>..... That said, this set of arguments is fundamentally a content dispute, which has escalated into an attempt to define or redefine the current balance between [[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight]] and [[WP:Reliable sources]], and perhaps also other policy pages that might be relevant here. Might I suggest that, if participants in this intense debate here can't hone in on what factors the dispute involves, or to the extent that participants disagree about either [[WP:WEIGHT]], [[WP:RS]] and/or other policy issues, that the discussion be moved into a forum where such balances are commonly negotiated? The normal course of resolving such content disputes is [[WP:RFC]], followed if necessary by [[WP:RFArb]], etc.,<br>..... Maybe the most obvious step for longer term participants in WP:NPOV, of which this page is a direct extension, is to seriously consider "downgrading" this page to guideline status, and leave the content issues such as are being brought up here to local consensus about WEIGHT and RS, and if need be to RFCs and Arbcomm. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 05:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
*The '''[[yellow birch]]''' (''Betula alleghaniensis'') is a [[birch]] [[species]] native to eastern [[North America]], from [[Nova Scotia]], [[New Brunswick]], and southern [[Quebec]] west to [[Minnesota]], and south in the [[Appalachian Mountains]] to northern [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]]. They are medium-sized [[deciduous]] trees and can reaching about 20 m tall, trunks up to 80 cm in diameter. The bark is smooth and yellow-bronze and the wood is extensively used for [[flooring]], [[cabinetry]], and [[toothpicks]].
[[Image:YellowbreastedChat23.jpg|200px|thumb|Yellow-breasted Chat]]
*'''[[Yellow-breasted Chat]]s''' (''Icteria virens'') are large [[foraging]] [[songbird]] found in southern parts of Canada, the United States, Mexico, and Central America. They are [[Olive (color)|olive]] with a white bellies and a yellow throat and breast, with a long tail, a thick heavy bill, a large white eye ring, and dark legs.
*A '''[[Aedes|yellow-fever mosquito]]''' is a mosquito in the ''[[Aedes]]'' [[genus]], so named because they transmit [[dengue fever]] and [[yellow fever]], the mosquito-born viruses.
*'''[[Yellow-green alga]]''', also called ''xanthophytes'', are a class of [[algae]] in the ''[[Heterokontophyta]]'' [[Division (biology)|division]]. Most live in freshwater, but some are found in marine and soil habitats. They vary from [[single-celled organism|single-celled]] [[flagellate]]s to simple [[Colony (biology)|colonial]] and filamentous forms. Unlike other heterokonts, yellow-green algae's [[chloroplast]]s do not contain [[fucoxanthin]], which is why they have a lighter color.
[[Image:Gulspurv.jpg|200px|thumb|Yellowhammer]]
*The '''[[Yellowhammer]]''' (''Emberiza citrinella'') is a [[passerine]] in the [[bunting]] family ''[[Emberizidae]]''. It breeds across [[Europe]] and much of [[Asia]]. Most yellowhammers are resident, but some far northern birds migrate south in winter. It is common in all sorts of open areas with some scrub or trees. They are large with a thick seed-eater's bill. The males have a bright yellow head, yellow underparts, and a heavily streaked brown back. Females are much duller and more streaked below.
*'''[[Yellowjacket]]s''' are black-and-yellow [[wasp]]s of the genus ''Vespula'' or ''Dolichovespula'' (though some can be black-and-white, the most notable of these being the [[bald-faced hornet]], ''Dolichovespula maculata''). They can be identified by their distinctive black-and-yellow color, small size (slightly larger than a [[bee]]), and entirely black [[Antenna (biology)|antennae]].
*'''[[Liriodendron|Yellow poplar]]''' is a common name for ''[[Liriodendron]]'', the [[tuliptree]]. The name is inaccurate as this [[genus]] is not related to [[poplar]]s.
*The '''[[Yellow-shafted Flicker]]''' (''Colaptes auratus'') is a large [[woodpecker]] species of eastern North America. They have yellow shafts on their wing and tail feathers.
*'''[[Yellowtail]]''' is the common name for dozens of different [[fish]] species that have yellow tails or a yellow body.
*'''[[Goldenrod]]''' is a yellow flowering plant in the Family [[Asteraceae]]
*A Yellow '''[[Labrador Retriever]]''' refers to the lightest color that occurs in the breed, lighter than chocolate and back Labrador retrievers.


==Yellow in human culture==
*I think it best to keep it policy (as it has been for the last five years or so) until at least a few issues are settled. For instance, I think [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity]] as important for understanding the NPOV policy as "Verifiability, not truth" for WP:V. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Refimprove|date=May 2007}}
{{Original research|date=September 2007}}


===[[Astronomy]]===
::I agree with everything you say, Kenosis, except that we seem to be making some progress here, so give it a chance. I also don't know how it would be brought to ArbCom, as they don't do policy much. The FAQ maybe should be downgraded.... which in itself might solve a problem, as either people would not care quite so much, or else any parts of it moved to NPOV would be given attention by the community. Also, it's easier to say "the guideline doesn't jibe with policy." On the other hand, I'm not sure the issue would get enough attention if it weren't policy, but whatever. But this should not be seen as a content dispute, as it's been brewing for years. We have a couple good suggestions going, I don't see why we should not forge ahead. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 06:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
*[[Star]]s of [[spectral class]] G, such as our [[sun]] ''Sol'', have a color temperature that we characterize as "yellowish".
*The [[planet]] [[Saturn]] is yellowish, like a class G star.


===[[Calendar]]s===
Agree with Francis Schonken, this policy is essential for understanding aspects of the main NPOV policy, in particular [[WP:NPOV#Common objections and clarifications]] which links directly to this rather than providing the answers on the main page. It might clarify things if that section was reorganised to include all essential points from this policy, at which point anything less important could be covered in a guideline, but it's evident from current content disputes that this would be strongly contested and could easily escalate into a complete waste of time. A correction – when this was split from the main page, it was a summary style split into two aspects of the policy, and not a POV fork. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* Yellow is associated with [[Monday]] on the [[Thai solar calendar]]. Anyone may wear yellow on Mondays, and anyone born on a Monday may adopt yellow as their color.
:Dave, just to clarify, I didn't say "POV fork" but said "effectively a oolicy fork" in the sense you just described it, i.e. a fork devoted to FAQs. If it's to remain policy, it should of course be maintained accordingly by admins and other users familiar with specific aspects of NPOV such as WP:UNDUE, the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience, and other relevant aspects of WP:NPOV. At present, the section on "pseudoscience" appears to me to be consistent with the Arbcom decision, though there are many aspects of the section on "Balancing different views" that presently read like an opinion piece, with direct links to guidelines and even to essay pages. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 15:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry to misrepresent that, I think we're on the same wavelength here. My feeling is still that it's not so much a fork as an amplification of aspects of the core policy, which have been left rather cryptic by the split showing the questions without the answers. As you say, it's consistent with the Arbcom decision, and the principles in that decision are important. Items 3a and 4a seem relevant to recent discussions.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#No_original_research] . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===[[Culture|Cultural]] associations===


*In the [[English language]], yellow has traditionally been associated with [[jaundice]] and [[cowardice]]. In [[American English|American slang]], a coward is said to be "yellowbellied" or "yellow".
== FAQ pseudoscience discussion reopened ==
*"Yellow" ("[[giallo]]"), in Italy, refers to crime stories, both fictional and real. This association began about in 1930 because the first series of crime novels published in Italy had a yellow cover.
*Moved from [[Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#FAQ_pseudoscience_discussion_reopened]]
*[[Pencil]]s are often painted yellow, originally because of the association of this color with the Orient, where the best [[graphite]] was found.


*The phrase "Yellow Yellow, dirty fellow" is used by children to mock someone wearing yellow.
For reference, the [[Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience|current intro wording]] is this:
*Yellow movies = blue movies in Chinese (黃色電影) reference:[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1045153.stm]]


===[[Ethnography]]===
{{quotation|''How are we to write articles about [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscientific topics]], about which majority scientific opinion is that the [[Pseudoscience |pseudoscientific]] opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?''<br><br>The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science. Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute ''fairly''.}}


*[[Asian people]] are sometimes referred to as the ''[[Color metaphors for race|yellow race]]''. The use of "yellow" to refer to people of East Asian descent is usually regarded as offensive today in most contexts. In early 20th-century North America, immigrants from China and other [[East Asia]]n nations were derogatorily referred to as a "'''[[yellow peril]]'''."
The question and answer simply don't fit together. In fact, the question the answer appears to answer is this one: What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories? Then our answer would make sense.
*A ''[[High yellow]]'' is [[African-American]] [[slang]] for someone who is a very light-skinned African-American. This term was widely used in the early 20th century but it is seldom heard nowadays.


===[[Games]]===
But the question asked is something else. It is "how to write an article on a pseudoscientific topic" (e.g. astrology). In this context, the sentence "Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, '''and any mention should be proportionate'''" simply does not compute. I said at the time that the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on astrology devotes 4 large, densely printed, double-column pages to describing the history of astrological thought, its cultural standing over the centuries, etc., and that it ''ends'' with the words "In short, modern Western astrology, though of great interest sociologically and popularly, generally is regarded as devoid of intellectual value." In other words, the EB thought it "proportionate" to devote most of its article on astrology to the description of pseudoscientific thought, and surely that is appropriate in the '''article devoted to such a topic.'''
*Yellow is the color of the [[snooker]] [[ball]] that has a 2-point value.
*A semi-popular game in the UK is "Yellow Car", which involves yelling "Yellow Car" and striking someone close to you on spotting a yellow car. There are multiple variations of this game depending on area or group played with, but the above is the common rule between them.


===[[History]]===
I also thought that when it comes to [[Ancient astronaut theories]] and the like, our articles on these theories should ''not'' contain lengthy quotes from primary sources such as [[Erich von Däniken]] & Co. Instead editors should be encouraged to search out mainstream scientific analyses of these pseudosciences as sociological or religious phenomena, like this source here: [http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/art_gruenschloss_2006.html] Where such a scientist quotes Däniken, we can of course quote what he quotes (E. v. Däniken, quoted by X in Y). But where there is a body of secondary literature, editors should follow that, and not be let loose to quote the primary source bits they like best.


*The legendary first emperor of China was known as the [[Yellow Emperor]] or [[Huang Di]] ([[Traditional Chinese character|Chinese]]: 黃帝, [[Simplified Chinese]]: 黄帝).
So, the suggested wording was this:
*The [[Yellow Turbans]] were a [[Daoist]] sect that staged an extensive [[rebellion]] during the [[Han Dynasty]].


===[[Journalism]]===
{{quotation|''I am working on an article about a [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscience]]. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the [[Pseudoscience |pseudoscientific]] opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?''<br><br>If a pseudoscientific theory makes claims related to a field of natural science, for example, and these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. Also check if the theory has been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then scholarly source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large.}}
[[Image:YellowKid.jpeg|200px|thumb|The Yellow Kid]]
*"'''[[Yellow journalism]]'''" was [[sensationalism|sensationalist]] [[journalism]] that distorts, exaggerates, or exploits news to maximize profit. The term came from [[Joseph Pulitzer]]'s ''[[New York World]]'' and [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s [[New York Journal American]], who engaged in sensational reporting during the late 19th and early 20th century, most famously during the [[Spanish-American War]]. The term was derived from the color [[comic strip]] ''[[The Yellow Kid]]'', which appeared in both papers.


===[[Literature]]===
We could of course keep the existing answer as well, but should change the question preceding it, as indicated above. --<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 12:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*[[The Yellow Wallpaper]] written by [[Charlotte Perkins Gilman]].


===[[Medicine]]===
:I agree. I'm inclined to use both your suggested response, and the old one with a new question, yours to emphasize the standard rules on POV-forks, and the old one to make it clear that minority views should not be presented as equally important as the majority ones in main articles. However, what does everyone think about moving both of them into a new section fo the main [[WP:NPOV]] page, with a change of questiona nd answer to more standard text? They're the basis for the important guideline WP:FRINGE, so I do think they should have a simple, policy-level statement. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 12:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*Yellow is associated with [[jaundice]], since someone who has that [[disease]] may turn yellow.
::I'm happy with moving them into a new section either qith a Q&A or with a 'more standard text'. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I have no objections to moving them there. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


===[[Mining]]===
::::Moving anything onto the main policy page should have a fair amount of community input I would think, especially on this topic.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 18:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
*[[Yellowcake]] (also known as urania and uranic oxide) is concentrated [[uranium oxide]], obtained through the milling of uranium [[ore]]. Yellowcake is used in the preparation of fuel for [[nuclear reactor]]s and in [[uranium enrichment]], one of the essential steps for creating [[nuclear weapon]]s.
:::That new version is a lot clearer and ties in well with issues of basing articles on reliable secondary sources rather than giving priority to self-descriptions by pseudoscience promoters, so support the change. Not sure if there's much value in keeping the previous version to supplement it. It could be readily phrased as an instruction rather than a question and answer and so made suitable for a move to the main policy page, which would perhaps help to point out that this is a policy. There's validity in the need for consultation before such a move, but it must be accepted that this is policy regardless of which page it appears on. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Good work, Jayen466. Reads much better and a lot clearer. [[User:Jossi|≈ jossi ≈]] <small>[[User_talk:Jossi|(talk)]]</small> 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Echoing Jossi, this was well-done, and should be incorporated into policy. It is clear. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


===[[Music]]===
:Jayen: I'm inclined to be a bit clearer about the issue. for instance, I'd prefer something like this (using the same question as in your second box, above):{{quotation|An article on a pseudoscience topic, like any article on wikipedia, should strive to present a clear and comprehensible description of the topic's theory, history, and pertinent details. Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. This should not, however, become a central or organizing theme in the article; it should be offered simply as a historical and scientific fact. Wherever possible, source material from mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology should be used to present the idea's history, and indicate its standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Sources from advocates of the pseudoscience and sources from mainstream scientists engaged in the field should be treated as [[wp:PRIMARY|primary research]], with the limitations that entails.}}
:further, if you want to retain the first paragraph as a separate FAQ question, then I'd prefer it to be modified for clarity. something like this, maybe:{{quotation|''What does NPOV mean in the context of pseudoscientific theories?''<br><br>The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; pseudoscience by definition lacks scientific corroboration. However, pseudoscience may have significant social or historical importance which merits its inclusion in articles. Where pseudoscience is presented in comparison to mainstream scientific views it should be made clear that the pseudoscience view is a minority position with limited standing and acceptance; in no case should it be suggested that the pseudoscience view is superior to , equal to, or even in serious competition with established science. Where pseudoscience views are presented on their own, as in articles about the pseudoscience itself, the article should give them prominence, but must note that the view is not currently considered to be a valid scientific perspective; in no case should the theory be presented in isolation from other more accepted scientific views, or suggest that those other accepted scientific views are false, flawed, or otherwise unacceptable. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute ''fairly''.}}
:I think these answer both questions fully and appropriately. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 20:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::I disagree. Both of these make it less clear. Jayen's is much better. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::More comments. First, if an article represents a pseudoscience, and it is well known, then yes, the scientific debunking should be the primary, if not exclusive, theme of the article. And I just cannot support the use of "fairly" in anything, since it's so judgmental. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Sorry Orange (damn, I have an inexplicable urge to call you 'Agent Orange' today {{=)}}) - the article is supposed to be about a pseudoscience, not 'the debunking of a pseudoscience'. the 'debunking of a pseudoscience' wouldn't even be notable enough for an article without an article about the pseudoscience itself. you're forgetting that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for establishing truth. it's our job to present even pseudoscience in a clear, neutral, and fair manner. and '''no''', I '''do not''' think wikipedia wants to establish a policy that says '''wikipedia reserves the right to be brutally unfair to any topic it thinks is stupid'''. that's just wrong, on so many levels. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 21:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::This is the POV which has caused so much damage to the NPOV status of articles on fringe topics. It is this which needs to be specifically addressed and put to rest in a final way per policy. It is this POV which the former FAQ gave some tenuous support, by making the scientific view ipso facto the majority. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Martin, the scientific view is not a majority view. It is the verified and [[WP:RS|supported]] view. If Wikipedia were to work using a majority view, the [[UFO]]'s exist and make [[crop circles]]. Science lacks a POV, it simply is a methodology to ascertain the behavior of the natural world. It can't think. It can't opine. Because humans, who are fundamentally flawed in being that rational, run science, a whole system was created to publish articles, to review them, and to bring them to the forefront fore discussion. Over time these theories are enhanced and developed until they are fundamental facts, like Evolution or Gravity. Psychics or paranormal are both rejected because they cannot be tested scientifically or when tested scientifically were found to be lacking. So, your POV and Ludwig's suggestions actually create a POV, instead of keeping it NPOV. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 21:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Orange, this doesn't quite track. setting aside things that I would heartily love to debate but are out of scope (e.g.: of ''course'' science has a POV - what do you think a methodology is based on, if not a set of pre-binding assumptions?), let me make a few necessary things clear:
::::::#wikipedia is not here to defend science or truth. wikipedia is here to present human knowledge, and this means ''all'' human knowledge, even where it's ''wrong'' knowledge. pseudoscience topics are valid field of human knowledge in their own right, and should be presented as such.
::::::#NPOV does not mean 'lacking a POV' on wikipeida; it means fairly representing ''all'' significant POVs. so even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant. we're not looking for sources that present some 'neutral truth', ever; we're looking for sources that present their own POV, so that we can balance those fairly with other sources.
::::::#you are consistently oblivious to context, and that puts a tremendous strain on the credibility of your arguments. if you can't distinguish the different contexts in which a fringe topic might appear, how could you possibly have any insights in to the contextual nuances that go into establishing neutrality?
::::::--[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 22:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*[[The Beatles]] 1966 album [[Revolver (album)]] features the #1 hit, "[[Yellow Submarine (song)|Yellow Submarine]]."
:::::::Science is a POV, and it is not Wikipedia's job to present information in a way which favors any POV. "Even if science did lack POV (which isn't true) that would be completely irrelevant...we're looking for sources that present their own POV" and we present all the POVs in proportion to their prominence. I happen to believe science is the only way of gaining knowledge, but that doesn't matter. Your take on psychic stuff is uninformed, but it doesn't matter either: Wikipedia is still not in the business of taking sides. Orange, your POV has been discussed and rejected by the Wikipedia community. There is no point engaging you on it. Just don't edit war over it. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
*The March 1967 album by [[Donovan]] called ''[[Mellow Yellow (album)|Mellow Yellow]]'' was very popular among the [[hippie]]s. The featured song on the album, "[[Mellow Yellow]]," popularized during the Spring of 1967 a widely believed [[hoax]] that it was possible to get high by smoking scrapings from the inside of [[banana]] peels, although this rumor was actually started in 1966 by a different [[musician]] popular among the hippies, [[Country Joe McDonald]].
*[[Coldplay]] achieved worldwide fame with their 2000 single "[[Yellow (song)|Yellow]]." It is a song that associates things the singer sees with the color yellow.


===[[Mysticism]]===
::::::::Are you serious? Where has '''MY''' POV been rejected. In fact, it's been supported more times than not. Give me a fucking break. You just can't make broad pronouncements and get away with it. Oh that's right, you used your pseudoscientific psychic powers to divine what I know and don't know. I keep forgetting how much smarter you are than I. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 03:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* In the [[metaphysics]] of the ''[[New Age]] Prophetess'', [[Alice A. Bailey]], in her system called the [[Seven Rays]] which classifies [[human]]s into seven different metaphysical [[psychological types]], the ''fourth ray'' of ''harmony through conflict'' is represented by the color ''yellow''. People who have this metaphysical psychological type are said to be ''on the Yellow Ray''. "<ref>{{cite book | last = Bailey| first= Alice A. | authorlink = Alice Bailey | title = The Seven Rays of Life | location= New York| year= 1995 |publisher = Lucis Publishing Company | isbn = 0853301425}}</ref>
:::::::::Let's be [[WP:CIV|civil]] here, please. [[User:Dreadstar|Dreadstar]] <small>[[User talk:Dreadstar|<span class="Unicode">†</span>]]</small> 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
* In [[Hinduism]], yellow is used to symbolically represent the third, solar plexus [[chakra]] ([[Manipura]]).<ref>Stevens, Samantha. The Seven Rays: a Universal Guide to the Archangels. City: Insomniac Press, 2004. ISBN 1894663497 pg. 24</ref>
* [[Psychic]]s who claim to be able to observe the [[Aura (paranormal)|aura]] with their [[third eye]] report that someone with a yellow aura is typically someone who is in an [[wikt:occupation|occupation]] requiring [[intellectual]] acumen, such as a [[scientist]].<ref> [[Swami Panchadasi]] ''The Human Aura: Astral Colors and Thought Forms'' Des Plaines, Illinois, USA:1912--Yogi Publications Society Page 33</ref>


===[[Politics]]===
*Yellow was also the color of the [[New Party (Republic of China)|New Party]] in the [[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]]), which supports [[Chinese reunification]].
*In the United States, a [[yellow dog Democrat]] was a [[U.S. Southern states|Southern]] voter who consistently voted for [[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidates in the late 19th and early 20th centuries because of lingering resentment against the [[United States Republican Party|Republicans]] dating back to the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] and [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] period. Today the term refers to a hard-core Democrat, supposedly referring to a person who would vote for a "yellow dog" before voting for a Republican.
*The [[Monster Raving Loony Party]] (OMRLP) has made use of yellow, along with black, as its primary party colors.
*In the 1986 [[People Power Revolution]], yellow was the dominant theme, the color being associated with former president [[Corazon Aquino]].


===[[Sports]]===
Good work, you guys. For history's sake, I am against any policy which makes the scientific view ipso facto the majority view. This is used on articles to argue that ''within articles on fringe subjects'' the scientific view has the greatest WEIGHT, and thus should be favored in terms of a) space and b) wording. In other words, it takes over the subject of the article and tends to be asserted as fact or presented with wording which gives a very heavy bias.
*In [[football (soccer)|Association football]] (soccer), the [[referee (football)|referee]] shows a [[Penalty card#Yellow card|yellow card]] to indicate that a player has been officially cautioned.
*In [[American Football]], a yellow flag is thrown onto the field by a referee to indicate a [[American football#Penalties|penalty]].
*Originally in [[Rugby League]] and then later, also in [[Rugby Union]], the referee shows a [[yellow card]] to indicate that a player has been sent to the [[sin bin]].
*In [[auto racing]], a yellow [[flag]] signals caution. Cars are not allowed to pass one another under a yellow flag.
*In [[road bicycle racing|cycle racing]], the [[yellow jersey]] - or ''maillot jaune'' - is awarded to the leader in a stage race. The tradition was begun in the [[Tour de France]] where the sponsoring ''L'Auto'' [[newspaper]] (later ''[[L'Équipe]]'') was printed on distinctive yellow [[newsprint]].


[[Image:folland gnat xr991 arp.jpg|thumb|right|[[Folland Gnat]] T.Mk1 during a display at [[Kemble Airport|Kemble]] Air Day, England, in 2008. This aircraft is painted in the yellow colour of a former RAF display team - the [[Yellowjacks]].]]
I support Jayen's drafts and I think that Ludwig's drafts are very good expansions on it and make the issue clearer. I think we need to make sure the final draft makes clear that per WEIGHT the scientific opinion is not going to take over the entire article, per Ludwigs.
===[[Transportation]]===
*In some countries, [[taxicab]]s are commonly yellow. This practice began in [[Chicago]], where taxi entrepreneur [[John D. Hertz]] painted his taxis yellow based on a [[University of Chicago]] study alleging that yellow is the color most easily seen at a distance.
*In [[Canada]] and the [[United States]], [[school bus]]es are almost uniformly painted a yellow color (often referred to as "[[school bus yellow]]") for purposes of visibility and safety, and British [[bus]] operators such as [[FirstGroup plc]] are attempting to introduce the concept there
*"[[Caterpillar Inc.|Caterpillar]] yellow" and "high-visibility yellow" are used for highway construction equipment.
*In the [[rules of the road]], yellow (called "amber" in Britain) is a [[traffic light]] signal warning that the period in which passage is permitted is coming to an end. It is intermediate between [[green]] (go) and [[red]] (stop). In [[railway signaling]], yellow is often the color for warning, slow down, such as with distant [[Railway signal|signals]].
*Several [[light rail]] and [[rapid transit]] lines on various [[public transportation]] have a [[Yellow Line]].


===[[Vexillology]]===
Thus the previous version has to go. It is not in accord with the NPOV principle.
* In [[International maritime signal flags]] a yellow flag denotes the letter "Q". It also means a ship asserts that it does not need to be Quarantined.


==Yellow pigments==
I think we need to make it clear that the criticism should come either 1) from critics outside the field, in which case it should be Attributed. Or 2) should come from sources within the field (eg Astronomy) in which case it can be presented as the majority opinion, unless there is good reason to attribute-- for example, if the person writing is a noted critic of pseudoscience in general or a member of CSICOP.
*[[Cadmium pigments|Cadmium yellow]]
*[[Chrome yellow]]
*[[Gamboge]]
*[[Indian Yellow]]
*[[Naples Yellow]]
*[[Red ochre|Yellow ochre]]
*[[Orpiment]]
*[[Titanium yellow]]


==See also==
We also need to note, per dave souza above, that pseudoscience sources are perfectly acceptable for describing the positions of fringe ideas. I don't know what he's really getting at, but if he thinks WP should use the secondary sources in order to take their point of view, instead of a neutral POV, then that is an indication that we need to make things clear. When he says "basing articles," it seems as if he would describe a fringe POV from the perspective of a mainstream source, thus cutting out the fringe POV's ability to speak for itself. That's unacceptable. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{wiktionary}}
{{commonscat|Yellow}}
*[[List of colors]]
*[[Lemon (color)|Lemon yellow]]
*[[Mustard (color)]]
*[[CMYK color model]]
*[[RYB color model]]
{{-}}


== References ==
:This makes sense, finally. In a simplistic parallel. If in the fine arts I am writing an article on [[Rauschenberg|Rauschenberg's]] goat sculpture ''Monogram'' which let's say many critics would say is not art, then I can't write an article about Rauschenberg's goat and have most of the article be about how this is not mainstream art. The article is about the goat and no matter my view on it, and although certainly, the article must contain material on the critics' views of the goat negative and positive, the "weight" of the article must be about the topic (or subject) of the article, that goat. That's encyclopedic...([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 22:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))
{{Citations missing|date=February 2007}}
<references/>


== External links ==
::Exactly. We need to make that clear, and also that sources within the fringe POV are good -often best- for explaining that POV.
*[http://www.sensationalcolor.com/content/view/1064/144/ All About the Color Yellow]


{{EMSpectrum}}
:::You can use fringe and pseudoscientific sources to describe beliefs, but you cannot use them to describe reality. Articles on, for example [[time cube]], [[remote viewing]] or a [[flat earth]] need to accurately describe the ideas and their history, but need to also give a clear and thorough account of their relation to reality. It would be unacceptable, for example, to write an entire article on ideas about the flat earth without balancing the claims of advocates with the facts from reliable sources. This also needs to be done throughout much of the text, so that the reader can be given a clear idea about each claim. However, such an account of the relation between claims and reality should not be the sole purpose of the article, since the history and sociology of such ideas need to be covered as well. [[User:TimVickers|Tim Vickers]] ([[User talk:TimVickers|talk]]) 23:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Shades of yellow|*}}
{{web colors}}


[[Category:Optical spectrum]]
::::You're basically right, but I believe you err in your use of the word "reality." We don't do reality here on WP, but sources. Yes, on all controversial subjects we need to describe both sides of any controversy, and who says what. Yet, we should never, ever contrast POV X with ''Reality.''


[[af:Geel]]
::::Controversy should have weight relative to its prominence in the sources. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ar:أصفر]]

[[an:Amariello]]
:::::The sources must be reliable sources, and undue weight must not be given to minority views amongst expert opinion on the subject. Where the subject is claimed to be science, that claim has to be shown in relation to majority expert scientific opinion and the scientific consensus on the subject. Of course that doesn't prevent due weight being given, for example, to majority expert theological views of faith based subjects. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[arc:ܙܪܕܐ]]

[[ast:Mariellu]]
::::::As Dave observes, there is often a close interaction between [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:RS]]. When discussing majority and minority points of view, it needs to be done keeping in mind the reliable sources analysis. If a pursuit such as, say parapsychology or "psychic", such as is at issue here, is asserted by certain of its advocates to be a "science", the majority view of the scientific community must be given its due weight w.r.t. that assertion and the minority view its respective due weight, using also a reliable-sources assessment when making the "due weight" assessment. ... [[User:Kenosis|Kenosis]] ([[User talk:Kenosis|talk]]) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[gn:Sa'yju]]

[[ay:Q'illu]]

[[az:Sarı]]
===No consideration versus rejection===
[[zh-min-nan:N̂g-sek]]
I see a [[WP:NOR]] problem with these:
[[map-bms:Kuning]]

[[ba:Һары]]
:...these claims are not even seriously discussed by present-day scholars in that field, the presentation must clearly state that the theory has found no scientific acceptance. (Jayen)
[[be:Жоўты колер]]

[[bs:Žuta]]
:...Since pseudoscientific theory often make claims related to established sciences, the article must clearly state that the theory has not found scientific acceptance. (Ludwigs)
[[bg:Жълт цвят]]

[[ca:Groc]]
These can be read as: ''Lacking serious/reliable sources you may/should jump to the conclusion that the scientific/reliable sources reject the novel/pseudoscientific theory''. Inferring verifiability from a *lack* of reliable sources? That would be a first...
[[cs:Žlutá]]

[[ch:Amariyu]]
In that case I'd prefer to stay with the present formulation, which is a bit more woolly but doesn't seem to have this NOR related issue. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 05:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[cy:Melyn]]

[[da:Gul]]
:Very good point. In practice, it is almost always the case that this "non acceptance" will be stated in the fringe or mainstream sources (and either are RS for such a statement), and if it isn't stated anywhere that it has been "not accepted" (or rejected), then it is OR just like you say.... but it is non-controversial almost always. And perhaps we should make it clear that "not accepted," or "not considered" is not the same as "rejected." FRINGE already does that, but it could be stated here also. For example, saying that the concept of [[Orgone]] energy is not accepted by the scientific community isn't going to get tagged usually as it's self evident. Saying that [[Psi (parapsychology)]] isn't accepted by mainstream science will not raise any eyebrows. Saying either has been ''rejected'' is contentious, however, and therefore requires sources combined with attribution. That's what you're saying, and the statements above are in harmony with that principle. Maybe we just need to add a sentence? From FRINGE:
[[de:Gelb]]

[[et:Kollane]]
:::However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance] ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 05:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[el:Κίτρινο]]

[[es:Amarillo]]
It's a good point, but a lack of credible scientific sources would mean that the subject is not notable as science, and should not be presented as having any scientific credibility. Thus a [[protoscience]] such as the [[phrenology]] of the 1820s became recognised as a [[pseudoscience]], and it might be difficult to find any modern mainstream sources giving it serious consideration. A more nuanced situation arises where claims are still made for scientific credibility but no evidence has been published in recognised scientific journals, or the little attention it has been given by mainstream science has found it wanting. That still meets the current WP definition that "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." In such cases care has to be taken to ensure that a lack of modern attention is not presented as giving any credibility, or allowed to give undue weight to claims made by proponents. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[eo:Flava]]
:Where is the WP definition that anything which has not received publication in mainstream scientific journals, but claims to be science, is pseudoscience? Oh, well, it's the "otherwise lacks scientific status" bit, I see. Lol. Well, that makes most research, published in little specialist journals, pseudoscience. Not only has it not gained overall "status," it never will because it's only of interest to a sub-sub-discipline which only two or three people in the world know much about. Don't cite WP articles for accurate understanding for use in making overall policy. That last bit should just be taken out. I agreed completely with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ&curid=5728586&diff=243844306&oldid=243843191 this diff]. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 08:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[eu:Hori]]
:: Martin, I don't know what to say about the comment above except that it seems to demonstrate pretty severe misunderstanding of how science works. First, a journal can be "specialist" without being not mainstream. Specialist journals are frequently cited by other journals in other areas. And those aren't the only issues. Reputable journals of all types go through rigorous peer-review by experts in the fields. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 14:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[fa:زرد]]

[[fr:Jaune]]
:::Oh, well if that's what he's getting at then there is no problem. I thought he was saying something different, hinging on the word "recognized." ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[gl:Amarelo]]

[[gan:黃]]
*Perhaps the OR problem Francis raises could be solved as follows:
[[hak:Vòng-set]]

[[ko:노랑]]
{{quotation|''I am working on an article about a [[:Category:Pseudoscience|pseudoscience]]. Mainstream scientific opinion is that the [[Pseudoscience |pseudoscientific]] opinion is not credible and doesn't even deserve serious mention. How am I supposed to write an article about it, and state the mainstream scientific view, if this pseudoscience isn't even discussed by scientists?''<br><br>Check if the theory is notable enough to have been discussed by mainstream scholars of history, sociology, religion or psychology. If it has, then source material from these fields should be used to present the ideas' history, as well as their standing within the scientific community and within society at large. Also check for press sources. If the pseudoscientific opinion has not been discussed by scholars of any field, and there are no other reliable third-party sources discussing it, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}}
[[hi:पीला]]

[[hr:Žuta]]
Any good? :-) <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[id:Kuning]]
:: Except there are clearly notable pseudosciences that scientists won't even bother thinking about. Consider for example [[Electronic voice phenomenon|EVP]] which is so thoroughly rejected that it is very hard to find any scientists even saying "yeah, that's crap". But EVP is clearly notable with many mainstream media sources discussing the idea especially when it comes up in fictional contexts (as it has in many recent movies and television shows). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 18:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[is:Gulur]]
:::See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Appropriate sources]] – "4a) [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources]] require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." – feel free to summarise. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[it:Giallo]]
:::I am not an expert on EVP, but I'm pretty sure there are scholars of psychology, sociology etc. who find this sort of thing an interesting topic for research, especially if it's prominent in contemporary entertainment media. [http://books.google.com/books?id=PaqWk47KQFUC&dq=%22Electronic+voice+phenomenon%22+%22University+Press%22&client=firefox-a&source=gbs_summary_s&cad=0], [http://www.i-c-r.org.uk/publications/monographarchive/Monograph42.pdf], [http://www.ghostlytalk.com/rorke/FAILURE%20TO%20REPLICATE%20EVP-%20BARUSS.pdf], [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/84834921-45024782/content~content=a782790527~db=all]. The thing is, if no one has studied it, not even out of psychological or sociological interest, if the press don't mention it, and not even the Skeptics have a page on it somewhere, then we don't need to have a page on it either. <font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|Jayen]]</font>''<font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>'' 15:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[[he:צהוב]]

[[jv:Kuning]]
::::I think the problem with Jayen's draft above is that, unlike the quote above, it doesn't say "reliable source varies with the topic of the article." It is clear that a RS for the content of a fringe idea will be the proponents of the fringe idea. I really liked Ludwigs expanded version, because it made some of these things clearer. Basically, Jayen's draft may be easier to put in the policy, yet it doesn't cover a lot of things. Still, as long as it can't be used ''against'' policy, it might be alright. I do see that potential though "this isn't a mainstream source which says what fringe people believe, so we can't use it." You might not get the history in a mainstream source at all. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 21:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ht:Jòn]]

[[ku:Zer]]
:::Since a rewrite could be included in the mother policy, NOPV, and since the question and answer format is used very little there, I have transcribed as a statement rather than a question: This is a combination of the work and words of multiple editors, and hope they don't mind my using their words in this draft.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC))
[[la:Flavus]]

[[lb:Giel]]
{{quotation|In an article on a science, where pseudoscience is presented in relation to mainstream, scientific views, the sources must be reliable sources and undue weight must not be given to minority views in relation to expert opinions on the subject. If the subject is claimed to be science, that claim must be shown in relation to majority, expert, scientific consensus on the subject.<br><br>
[[lt:Geltona]]

[[ln:Bondɔbɔ́]]
In an article where the pseudoscience itself is the subject of the article, material concerning the pseudoscience should be given prominence, but the pseudoscience by definition should not be considered a mainstream scientific view, and its relationship relative to more accepted scientific or skeptical viewpoints should be described.<br><br>
[[hu:Sárga]]

[[mt:Isfar]]
Since pseudosciences often have not been considered by mainstream science, mainstream sources on them may be difficult to find. If available, notable sources on the subject by expert scholars in fields such as history, sociology, religion, psychology may be used as historical and or philosophical perspectives to show the relationship of the pseudoscience within the scientific community and society at large. If reliable sources cannot be found on these matters, less reliable sources may be used. However, in each case careful attention should be paid to [[WP:ATT|attribution]], so that the reader will have opportunity to evaluate the reliability of the claims. If the pseudoscientific opinion is not [[WP:NOTABLILITY|notable]], then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.}}
[[ms:Kuning]]

[[nah:Cōztic]]
----
[[myv:Ожо]]
[The above is not by me - [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]
[[nl:Geel (kleur)]]
:::I find Olive's suggestion confusing, paticularly the third paragraph. Also, insisting on attribution could result in situations where you see something like "The Organisation of Psudoscientific Scholars say that there is strong evidence that UtterNonsense exists. Frederick Farrar disagrees, and says that UtterNonsense is not possible under the laws of science." - where Frederick Farrar is representing the majority, scientific view, and the Organization of Pseudoscientific Scholars has only a dozen members. Attribution could easily directly violate undue weight. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 02:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ja:黄色]]

[[ce:Можа]]
:''Per the discussion above'', Actually, I believe it should be possible to find at least some scientific discussion of the [[paredolia]]-like ways that people delude themselves into thinking that EVPs occur on a certain bit of tape. It might be necessary to go back to its earlier form, playing records backwards to find supposed "secret messages", but there's almost surely some commentary out there. And, given parity of sources, the pro-EVP sources are pretty weak, so we need not counter with articles in top-tier journals. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[no:Gul]]

[[nn:Gul]]
::Shoemaker are you on the wrong page, perhaps? I put together the draft above as noted, based on the several drafts and ideas by multiple editors. I am in the dark or at least twilight on why you have introduced EVP into this discussion on a NPOV/FAQ and NPOV policy.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
[[nrm:Jâone]]

[[pl:Barwa żółta]]
:::The first and second paragraphs discuss undo weight in both articles whose topics are science and pseudoscience.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 03:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
[[pt:Amarelo]]
::::EVP was used as an example a little bit above. I just threw in the comment down here as an aside. I'll edit it a little to make that clear. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 03:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ro:Galben]]
:::::Olive, where do you get the idea that we should be using "less reliable sources"? If no reliable third party sources show that it's science, then we don't present it as science. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[qu:Q'illu]]
Attribution violates undue weight? Not if the scientific source is any good, and the reader not a total idiot. Rather, it strengthens it. Anyone else think that attribution is likely to mislead a reader? ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 03:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ru:Жёлтый цвет]]
:Unfortunately there's nothing to prevent total idiots from reading and misunderstanding anything in our articles which is in any way obscure, and some seem to think that fringe or pseudoscientific organisations should be shown as though they match mainstream organisations with titles which are not in common usage by the general public. [[WP:NPOV#Article structure]], [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|Undue weight]] "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view" and [[WP:NPOV/FAQ#Giving "equal validity"]] apply. . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 11:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[sco:Yellae]]
::It's one of those things where I've seen it done - the majority side is carefully attributed to individual scientists, making it look like there's just a few scientists that hold those views. There's a [[WP:FRINGE]] section on Particular attribution which, while it could be done a lot better, does point out a genuine problem: That attribution can be used to imply that widely-held beliefs are only held by a tiny minority, or, by using the names of tiny fringe organisations, you can make fringe theories appear to be much more widely-held. Both are problematic. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 12:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[scn:Giarnu]]

[[simple:Yellow]]
:::I think that as long as there's confusion, the writing is still too complex. If we can't understand it, either will a new editor looking for guidance.To explain, this rewrite includes work from Jayen, dave souza, Ludwigs, and Martinphi. I tacked it together.
[[sk:Žltá]]

[[sl:Rumena]]
:::The reference you make, Dave, to "less reliable sources" is not for science but pseudoscience, and I think attribution implies verifiability. That should be clear if not it should be rewritten.
[[sr:Жута боја]]

[[sh:Žuto]]
:::The third paragraph is saying basically: In the case of a pseudoscience where mainstream sources are difficult to find the editor may use : a notable source by expert scholars to explain historical and philosophical perspective, if necessary a less reliable source well attributed (verifiable), and if not notable the pseudoscience should not be included in Wikipedia.
[[su:Konéng (warna)]]

[[fi:Keltainen]]
:::Doesn't the first paragraph take care of problems with presenting a minority view as if its a majority view, and in the second paragraph as well where it says pseudoscience should not be considered a mainstream scientific view and its relationships to more accepted scientific viewpoints described?([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
[[sv:Gul]]

[[te:పసుపు (రంగు)]]
::::WP:V already takes care of this. The problem I’ve seen is where one or two mainstream scientists have made a comment about a pseudo or fringe science, and that singular comment is presented as being the view of the entire scientific community, while there’s no WP:V source that says the entire scientific community shares that view. Indeed, it has been used in situations where members of the scientific community have not all agreed that something is pseudoscience – a few believe something possible, yet those holding the minority opinion are completely disenfranchised. If only a limited number of the mainstream scientific community have commented on something, then that should be made clear... but the small number of actual comments should not be made to look like it’s a view held by the entire mainstream scientific community. Rare is the occasion where the mainstream scientific community agrees on anything. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; so while the majority or even all members of the scientific community may agree that something is impossible, or stupid, or pseudo or fringe, if it is not Verifiable, then it is not something that can or should be included in Wikipedia. If it is made so that you can do synthesis or original research for pseudoscience and fringe topics, then why not every other subject? It’s a slippery slope and it is misleading to our readers. We need to maintain complete neutrality and verifiability across the board in a predictably consistent manner. Making an exception for pseudo/fringe articles doesn’t do that. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
[[th:สีเหลือง]]

[[vi:Vàng (màu)]]
==Pathological science like Pseudoscience?==
[[tg:Зард]]
Maybe WP:PSCI is also valid for [[Pathological science]], [[Junk science]] and their kin listed under [[Voodoo science] ? Said: [[User:Rursus|Rursus]] ([[User talk:Rursus|☻]]) 17:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
[[tr:Sarı]]

[[uk:Жовтий колір]]
===Practical considerations===
[[vls:Geel (kleur)]]
The approach remains rather theoretical/philosophical – which maybe isn't too bad while we want it to cover a lot of aspects. Nonetheless contributors might want to find more practical recommendations. Here are some ideas, not yet clear-cut policy or guideline text, but let's explore whether such approach might add more practicality:
[[wo:Mboq]]
#Does the theory, approach or ideas we want to describe in a Wikipedia article make ''scientific'' claims or assumptions?
[[yi:געל]]
#* Scientific claims (in this sense) may follow from several indicators: the person proposing the approach may claim to be a ''scientist'' or ''professor''; the terminology to describe the ideas may be hooked in a scientific discourse; the theory may be published in a scientific journal (''Nature'', ''The Lancet'',...); The proposed claims may be discussed by the scientific community; [non-limitative list]
[[zh-yue:黃]]
#* If the described theory, approach, ideas, claims, don't carry *any* scientific claims, no mention of "science" nor "pseudoscience" need to be made in the Wikipedia article describing them;
[[bat-smg:Geltuona]]
#* If there are scientific claims, then,
[[zh:黄色]]
#** The scientific community may reject the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims virtually unanimously: then it wouldn't be too difficult finding reliable sources to that effect: use them to describe the scientific approach, on the same page as the description of the novel theory/approach/ideas/claims, in order to acquire a NPOV.
#** The scientific community may embrace the novel theory (without necessarily ''approving''): then it would not be too difficult to find sources describing the novel theory as a ''scientific'' theory: use the available sources to describe and qualify the novel theory (without leaving out possible reserves scientists my have per the reliable sources).
#** The scientific community may be ambiguous, some approving, some rejecting: anyway, again reliable sources are available to describe these approaches, and should be used in the Wikipedia article;
#** The scientific community at large may remain moot on the point: attention should be given not to describe the novel theory as if it were something the scientific community is involved in: depending on circumstances e.g. the Wikipedia article could indicate that the theorist proposing the new ideas is a ''science fiction'' author, that the expression "speed of light" as used by the theorist is not 299,792,458 metres per second (take care not to suggest the contrary e.g. by using wikilinks "[[speed of light]]" in that case). Sometimes the "broader picture" should be given, summarizing conventional scientific approaches on the subject (take care not revert to [[WP:NOR|''original research'']], by adding something like "...therefore the [novel theory] is wrong" if no reliable source states thus - let the reader come to his/her own conclusion).
# "In universe" aspects: some novel approaches/theories/... may carry a distinct artistic (or otherwise) in-universe component, e.g. [[’pataphysics]] - in which case [[WP:INUNIVERSE]] should be observed in writing an article about such approaches/theories.
--[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 06:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
:A general rule might be "If insufficient sources exist to discuss the scientific community's response to a fringe theory, which claims to be scientific or makes claims obviously related to a scientific field, then the theory ''should not be on Wikipedia''. [[User:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday]] ([[User talk:Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday|talk]]) 12:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

:: I would think, this rule would be so open to interpretation and other difficulties as to be impossible to handle in any contentious environment:
::What constitutes insufficient sources could be debated.
::Science does not sufficiently deal with fringe, if at all, by definition ... fringe to what.... fringe to science. Since peer-reviewed science becomes by definition the mainstream, and what makes something mainstream could be, at the least, peer-review, a relatively closed loop is created that would not include notable, albeit, not mainstream science topics - fringe to science topics.
::In an article on a so called fringe science or a pseudoscience, references to science can and should be made as long as the pseudoscience is not shown to incorrectly be mainstream, since the terms fringe science and pseudoscience refer in part to a relationship the topic has to science, however slight that might be. In an article, material might be included to show the topic's non-association to science, the debunking of the pseudoscience in relation to science, as long as it is appropriately weighted, and attributed. All of this is possible in a well sourced, well written complete article but would be disallowed by the above suggestion, seems to me.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Revision as of 17:17, 12 October 2008

Yellow
 
Wavelength570–580 nm
Common connotations
age/aging, warmth, cowardice, happiness, slow, sunshine, the Orient, electricity
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#FFFF00
sRGBB (r, g, b)(255, 255, 0)
HSV (h, s, v)(60°, 100%, 100%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(97, 107, 86°)
SourceHTML/CSS[1]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Yellow is the color evoked by light that stimulates both the L and M (long and medium wavelength) cone cells of the retina about equally, but does not significantly stimulate the S (short-wavelength) cone cells; that is, light with much red and green but not very much blue.[2] Light with a wavelength of 570–580 nm is yellow, as is light with a suitable mixture of somewhat longer and shorter wavelengths. Yellow's traditional RYB complementary color is purple, violet or indigo. Yellow's colorimetrically defined complementary color in both RGB and CMYK color spaces is blue.

Electric yellow vs. process yellow

Electric Yellow

Yellow
 
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#FFFF00
sRGBB (r, g, b)(255, 255, 0)
HSV (h, s, v)(60°, 100%, 100%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(97, 107, 86°)
SourceHTML/CSS[1]
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

The color box at right shows the most intense yellow representable in in 8-bit RGB color model; yellow is a secondary color in an additive RGB space.

The measured light spectrum from yellow pixels on a typical computer display is complex, and very unlike the reflectance spectrum of a yellow object such as a banana.[3]

Process yellow

Process yellow (subtractive primary, sRGB approximation)
 
About these coordinates     Color coordinates
Hex triplet#FFEF00
sRGBB (r, g, b)(255, 239, 0)
HSV (h, s, v)(56°, 100%, 100%)
CIELChuv (L, C, h)(93, 103, 80°)
Source[1] CMYK
B: Normalized to [0–255] (byte)

Process yellow (also known as pigment yellow, printer's yellow or canary yellow) is one of the three colors typically used as subtractive primary colors, along with magenta and cyan. The CMYK system for color printing is based on using four inks, one of which is a yellow color. This is in itself a standard color, and a fairly narrow range of yellow inks or pigments are used. Process yellow is based on a colorant that reflects the preponderance of red and green light, and absorbs most blue light, as in the reflectance spectra shown in the figure on the lower right.

Because of the characteristics of paint pigments and use of different color wheels, painters traditionally regard the complement of yellow as the color indigo or blue-violet.

Process yellow is not an RGB color, and there is no fixed conversion from CMYK primaries to RGB. Different formulations are used for printer's ink, so there can be variations in the printed color that is pure yellow ink.

Reflectance spectra of yellow pigments, as a percentage of white (Abney 1891)
Complements of yellow have a dominant wavelength in the range 380 to 480 nm. The green lines show several possible pairs of complementary colors with respect to different blackbody color temperature neutrals, illustrated by the "Planckian locus". Three examples are shown: a 580 nm yellow is complementary to a 435 nm indigo with respect to a 2800 K white; a 580 nm yellow is complementary to a 480 nm blue with respect to a 5000 K white; and a 575 nm yellow is complementary to an extreme violet with respect to a 3600 K white.

Etymology and definitions

The word yellow comes from the Old English geolu, or geolwe which derived from the Proto-Germanic word gelwaz.[4] The oldest known usage of this word in English is in the Old English poem Beowulf, in a description of a shield made of wood from a yew tree.[5] In the English language, yellow is used to describe objects having the color between green and orange in the visible light spectrum (gold, egg yolks, sunflowers, etc.). The color is associated with age and aging, both with people and objects (e.g. yellowed-paper). Ethnographically, the term yellow has also been used as a slang term for both oriental persons and light-skinned African-Americans. The term is associated at times with jealousy, as well as cowardliness. Lastly, it is associated with sensational journalistic practices, or yellow journalism, and resistance to militant trade unions.[5]

Complements of yellow

Hunt[6] defines that "two colors are complementary when it is possible to reproduce the tristimulus values of a specified achromatic stimulus by an additive mixture of these two stimuli." That is, when two colored lights can be mixed to match a specified white (achromatic, non-colored) light, the colors of those two lights are complementary. This definition, however, does not constrain what version of white will be specified. In the nineteenth century, the scientists Grassmann and Helmholtz did experiments in which they concluded that finding a good complement for spectral yellow was difficult, but that the result was indigo, that is, a wavelength that today's color scientists would call violet. Helmholtz says "Yellow and indigo blue" are complements.[7] Grassman reconstructs Newton's category boundaries in terms of wavelengths and says "This indigo therefore falls within the limits of color between which, according to Helmholtz, the complementary colors of yellow lie."[8] Newton's own color circle has yellow directly opposite the boundary between indigo and violet. These results, that the complement of yellow is a wavelength shorter than 450 nm, are derivable from the modern CIE 1931 system of colorimetry if it is assumed that the yellow is about 580 nm or shorter wavelength, and the specified white is the color of a blackbody radiator of temperature 2800 K or lower (that is, the white of an ordinary incandescent light bulb). More typically, with a daylight-colored or around 5000 to 6000 K white, the complement of yellow will be in the blue wavelength range, which is the standard modern answer for the complement of yellow.

Plants and animals

Yellow-breasted Chat
Yellowhammer
  • The Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) is a passerine in the bunting family Emberizidae. It breeds across Europe and much of Asia. Most yellowhammers are resident, but some far northern birds migrate south in winter. It is common in all sorts of open areas with some scrub or trees. They are large with a thick seed-eater's bill. The males have a bright yellow head, yellow underparts, and a heavily streaked brown back. Females are much duller and more streaked below.
  • Yellowjackets are black-and-yellow wasps of the genus Vespula or Dolichovespula (though some can be black-and-white, the most notable of these being the bald-faced hornet, Dolichovespula maculata). They can be identified by their distinctive black-and-yellow color, small size (slightly larger than a bee), and entirely black antennae.
  • Yellow poplar is a common name for Liriodendron, the tuliptree. The name is inaccurate as this genus is not related to poplars.
  • The Yellow-shafted Flicker (Colaptes auratus) is a large woodpecker species of eastern North America. They have yellow shafts on their wing and tail feathers.
  • Yellowtail is the common name for dozens of different fish species that have yellow tails or a yellow body.
  • Goldenrod is a yellow flowering plant in the Family Asteraceae
  • A Yellow Labrador Retriever refers to the lightest color that occurs in the breed, lighter than chocolate and back Labrador retrievers.

Yellow in human culture

Astronomy

Calendars

  • Yellow is associated with Monday on the Thai solar calendar. Anyone may wear yellow on Mondays, and anyone born on a Monday may adopt yellow as their color.

Cultural associations

  • In the English language, yellow has traditionally been associated with jaundice and cowardice. In American slang, a coward is said to be "yellowbellied" or "yellow".
  • "Yellow" ("giallo"), in Italy, refers to crime stories, both fictional and real. This association began about in 1930 because the first series of crime novels published in Italy had a yellow cover.
  • Pencils are often painted yellow, originally because of the association of this color with the Orient, where the best graphite was found.
  • The phrase "Yellow Yellow, dirty fellow" is used by children to mock someone wearing yellow.
  • Yellow movies = blue movies in Chinese (黃色電影) reference:[[2]]

Ethnography

  • Asian people are sometimes referred to as the yellow race. The use of "yellow" to refer to people of East Asian descent is usually regarded as offensive today in most contexts. In early 20th-century North America, immigrants from China and other East Asian nations were derogatorily referred to as a "yellow peril."
  • A High yellow is African-American slang for someone who is a very light-skinned African-American. This term was widely used in the early 20th century but it is seldom heard nowadays.

Games

  • Yellow is the color of the snooker ball that has a 2-point value.
  • A semi-popular game in the UK is "Yellow Car", which involves yelling "Yellow Car" and striking someone close to you on spotting a yellow car. There are multiple variations of this game depending on area or group played with, but the above is the common rule between them.

History

Journalism

The Yellow Kid

Literature

Medicine

  • Yellow is associated with jaundice, since someone who has that disease may turn yellow.

Mining

Music

Mysticism

Politics

Sports

Folland Gnat T.Mk1 during a display at Kemble Air Day, England, in 2008. This aircraft is painted in the yellow colour of a former RAF display team - the Yellowjacks.

Transportation

Vexillology

Yellow pigments

See also

References

  1. ^ a b W3C TR CSS3 Color Module, HTML4 color keywords
  2. ^ James W. Kalat (2005). Introduction to Psychology. Thomson Wadsworth. p. 105. ISBN 053462460X.
  3. ^ Craig F. Bohren and Eugene E. Clothiaux (2006). Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation. Wiley-VCH. ISBN 3527405038.
  4. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary
  5. ^ a b Oxford English Dictionary
  6. ^ J. W. G. Hunt (1980). Measuring Color. Ellis Horwood Ltd. ISBN 0-7458-0125-0.
  7. ^ Hermann von Helmholtz (1924). Physiological Optics. Dover.
  8. ^ Hermann Günter Grassman (1854). "Theory of Compound Colors". Philosophical Magazine. Vol. 4: 254–264. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  9. ^ Bailey, Alice A. (1995). The Seven Rays of Life. New York: Lucis Publishing Company. ISBN 0853301425.
  10. ^ Stevens, Samantha. The Seven Rays: a Universal Guide to the Archangels. City: Insomniac Press, 2004. ISBN 1894663497 pg. 24
  11. ^ Swami Panchadasi The Human Aura: Astral Colors and Thought Forms Des Plaines, Illinois, USA:1912--Yogi Publications Society Page 33

External links