On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Jonathan Walther wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 02:35:40PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
On controversial topics, such as politics, all we can ever say with certainty is that X said Y about Z. Even then, sometimes X turns around and says Y2 about Z later on!
No, because opinions that contradict known facts have no need to be represented. A propagandist can say "Most of the Arab world firmly believes Jews eat the blood of non-Jewish children", but does that opinion really belong in an article on Judaism? By asserting that some people believe something, without some basis, you give tacit endorsement that "yes, thats one more valid opinion". But I am also opposed to putting such an opinion in just so one can bash the opinion (and in so doing, bash all Arabs by proxy).
The NPOV statement, URL given earlier, actually addresses this.
In describing opinions it's necessary to do so *in a way* with which all parties to the relevant disputes can agree. The declaration, "Most of the Arab world firmly believes Jews eat the blood of non-Jewish children," would not count as neutral, not only because it's obviously false on the view of virtually anyone, but because Arabs could not agree with such a formulation of their own views.
Neutrality requires subtlety and intelligence. Bias is easy, and demonstrates intellectual laziness. Neutrality also sometimes requires extremely in-depth knowledge of the subject matter: it can take a high degree of mature understanding in order to state various views on controversial issues in such a way that all parties to the dispute can agree the dispute has been described fairly.
(Even the above is incomplete; again, see [[NPOV]].)
Larry