steven l. rubenstein wrote
For what it is worth, I think we can explain it in a simpler and more direct way.
- NPOV often means multiple points of view. This means providing not
only
the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the
past.
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for articles is to
explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices came to be and took shape.
I note that Steven is in an academic department where these points will be part of the environment. There are some standard approaches in the humanities to which it is well to pay attention. Still, it won't do, from WP's point of view, to be either confused or naive about the issues. There are several that occur to me.
1. NPOV without history is perfectly OK, in some cases. Take an example that is fairly uncontentious. The legal system in Scotland differs from that in England, for historical reasons. One can write about the legal differences in buying a house, north or south of the Border, without addressing the issue of why those are there. NPOV is quite possible without going into the historical side of English common law.
2. History as can of worms. I'm sure people know what I mean. An example that occurs to me is discussion of the Korean minority in Japan.
3. If it is really meant that writing from an ahistorical point of view is going to be labelled POV, then this is going to be used in polemics, without a doubt. It is not a simple matter to say what the historical context is of any one issue - certainly not clear-cut, and worrying excessively about this also goes against good habits of crisp writing.
4. The historical point of view can itself be used as a stick to beat the very idea of NPOV. Any competent Hegelian or Marxist can write the script for doing this.
Charles