"Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com writes:
Please try to understand the difference between objective fact and neutrality. For example, that North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union were ruled by murderous tyrants is IMHO a "fact". Incredible as it may seem, there are some contributors who dispute this fact. So, we are forced by *our own policy* to step back from asserting "the truth" and humbly stating that "According to sources X, Y and Z these lands were ruled, etc."
EIian replied:
No. That they have killed xy-thousand people may be a fact. That they have suppressed political opposition by censure etc. may be a fact. That they were "murderous tyrants" is a moral judgement.
Elian is much closer to the truth, but he still doesn't have it exactly right. If the North Koreans officially deny having N people, then it isn't a fact; it's an opinion, regardless of the fact that everyone *else* in the world has that opinion. This is why we'd write, "South Korea and Western sources claim that the Kim Jong-Il regime have killed N political dissidents; the North Korean and Chinese government officially disagree with it." (I'm not claiming such things have been said by these parties, I'm just going with the example.)
The relevant section of [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view]]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV
is headed "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."
Moreover, it's not the fact that "murderous tyrants" is a *moral judgment* that makes it not a fact. According to the operational definition of "fact," if everyone is united in making a particular moral judgment (e.g., I hope, bayonnetting innocent babies for kicks is bad), then the contents of that judgment is a fact, and we might as well simply declare it to be such. Of course, it's entirely possible that we couldn't ever come up with a moral judgment that we (humans) could all agree upon. Maybe amoralists like Ohio State professor Richard Garner are a standing rebuke to the suggestion. But even in that case, it still wouldn't be the fact that it's a moral judgment that makes it biased; it's the fact that other people disagree with it that makes it biased (non-neutral).
Larry