--- The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/20/05, stevertigo wrote: They seem to forget that NPOV is largely based on
the use of relatively neutral terms... Why dont we use derogatively racist or sexist terms in writing articles? Social propriety? No, because the term itself is in violation of NPOV, and shapes any discussion >>around the term in a way which makes NPOV
writing difficult.
I think the above displays the fundamental misunderstanding in stevertigo's argument. The
neutral point of view is *not* largely based on the use of relatively neutral >terms. It is largely based on the use of
accurate, specific, definable terms.
I believe (and responses may bear this out) that the "fundamental misunderstanding" is yours. We can all agree with "based on accurate, specific, definable terms," but to say that choosing neutral terms is not an element NPOV writing (or actually Good writing) carries the problem of being largely incorrect.
We don't use derogatively racist or sexist terms
because they're generally ill-defined, >non-specific, and slang. But we do use
terms like [[Black]] and >[[African-American]] in
articles like [[Bill >Cosby]]. Note that those terms are defined.
True, but NPOV is a rather simple and powerful concept which can solve the issue of terms quite definitively: Does the term color the argument in a POV way for the context of the article? Each of your given criteria are subjective ("ill-defined, non-specific, and slang"), and because each requires explanation, qualification, and interpretation, lacks the basic and powerful simplicity that an NPOV-based argument does not lack.
Again, we use racial epithets where appropriate
(e.g. the [[Richard Pryor]] article, which I had to edit, since it failed to mention that he was black...) and link to definitions.
Yes, in context. Pseudoscience appears to be used in a general way which does not contain the term in appropriate qualification and reference.
Stevertigo may find it really upsetting that
pseudoscience is the
accepted term for stuff that seems >scientific but
isn't (or isn't accepted by >scientists as scientific), but
Yes, it has a definition -- one which is appropriate to use in contexts of fraudulent science. But calling something fraudulent is more definitive (and precise - ie. 'well-defined, specific, and non-slang') than calling something "pseudoscience" which after a hundred thread-count discussion, still appears to be not much more than an socially-acceptable epithet (in these circles anyway).
'Cant make stuff up:' I can point out cases ('Iraq disarmament crisis' comes to mind) where the term (the name of an article even) that was most neutral (i.e. acceptable to consensus) was one that someone (me in that case) happened to conjure up. Wikipedia's 'global localism' in a sense makes using neologisms proper, when the common terms demonstrably fail to meet NPOV. As of 2005, the world still contains localist cultures and concepts --all of which are bound to have conflicts (in a global context) with a globalist-universalist ethos like NPOV. NPOV is a rational too for resolving these, and special cases at times require special terms.
Wikipedia is not the place to try to >change culture
to a person's way of >thinking.
Giving 'all people free access to a wealth of knowledge' doesnt have anything to do 'changing the way people think?' What have I been thinking all these years? Yikes! I should probably just go somewhere else then.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com