I want to clarify the e-mail I sent earlier regarding Tom Haws' views at [[Talk:Human]]. Upon re-reading it, I'm worried I gave the impression that Tom is being an edit warrior, and feel I should make clear that his views have been confined to the talk page of [[Human]]. He has not attempted to insert those views into the article itself; the talk-page discussion, which is robust but perfectly civil, is being held precisely to decide whether those views ought to be inserted. I don't agree with Tom, but I respect him as an editor, and he clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I hope that clarifies what I wrote earlier.
Sarah
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:47:30 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Haws wrote,
Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting
unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and their ilk.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote: If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?
Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians), but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a plot to take over the world.
Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: " The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".
Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed. And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases might be factually incorrect or offensive)?
According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion. The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion" and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication. This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding popular opinion to introductions).
Sarah