"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that encapsulates NPOV perfectly IMO. Except it's been popularised by advocates of Intelligent Design and is strongly associated with them.
Is there a way to put it into [[WP:NPOV]] that wouldn't seem to be pushing ID?
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that encapsulates NPOV perfectly IMO. Except it's been popularised by advocates of Intelligent Design and is strongly associated with them.
Is there a way to put it into [[WP:NPOV]] that wouldn't seem to be pushing ID?
Space in Wikipedia is not limited. Space in a curriculum is. The question is whether the controversy, such as it is, has any place being taught to school children during class time.
I think it would be unwise to recycle an ID motto for use on a Wikipedia policy page. It might give people the wrong idea.
-- Tim Starling
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that encapsulates NPOV perfectly IMO. Except it's been popularised by advocates of Intelligent Design and is strongly associated with them.
Is there a way to put it into [[WP:NPOV]] that wouldn't seem to be pushing ID?
- d.
Well, when ID people use the phrase "Teach the controversy" the primary issue seems to be that they want something like NPOV without the undue weight clause. They don't want a NPOV, they want "balance" (in the classic way that so many reporters seem to think they are being neutral if they present all sides equally quoting exactly as many words from people in all groups regardless of the issue or if there is a consensus or anything of the sort).
On 14/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Well, when ID people use the phrase "Teach the controversy" the primary issue seems to be that they want something like NPOV without the undue weight clause. They don't want a NPOV, they want "balance" (in the classic way that so many reporters seem to think they are being neutral if they present all sides equally quoting exactly as many words from people in all groups regardless of the issue or if there is a consensus or anything of the sort).
Yeah. But it's a nice phrase I think could do with rehabilitating.
- d.
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that encapsulates NPOV perfectly IMO. Except it's been popularised by advocates of Intelligent Design and is strongly associated with them.
Is there a way to put it into [[WP:NPOV]] that wouldn't seem to be pushing ID?
Well, when ID people use the phrase "Teach the controversy" the primary issue seems to be that they want something like NPOV without the undue weight clause. They don't want a NPOV, they want "balance" (in the classic way that so many reporters seem to think they are being neutral if they present all sides equally quoting exactly as many words from people in all groups regardless of the issue or if there is a consensus or anything of the sort).
It's always hard to achieve balance when the kid at one end of the teeter-totter is obese.
Ec
On 14/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Teach the controversy" is a phrase that encapsulates NPOV perfectly IMO.
It doesn't. Controversy is a POV. See oh most of the archives of this mailing list (there is a controversy over this matter no there isn't).
Except it's been popularised by advocates of Intelligent Design and is strongly associated with them.
Is there a way to put it into [[WP:NPOV]] that wouldn't seem to be pushing ID?
Describe don't conclude. "When in doubt hide behind a cloud of facts" probably shouldn't be included but eh can be a useful tactic in some cases.