It looks like there was a very long thread over the weekend, and I couldn't possibly weigh in on all of it. I *will* read all of it, though.
But from the outset, remember that Vicki has very well summed up my a priori position, with this:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as NPOV, which is our policy.
That's exactly right.
NPOV statements are a subset of statements that I think are true. Which subset? The set of statements that I think are true, and which almost everyone would also agree are true.
This usually means that NPOV statements are "softer" than we might like if we strive to speak the whole truth. I might want to say that China has a terrible human rights record. It's true, after all! But it is "softer" to say "China's human rights record has been criticized by X, Y, and Z."
Is China authoritarian? Sure it is. But it's not necessary for us to actualy make the claim ourselves.
--Jimbo