--- The Cunctator <cunctator(a)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