Smart lad: these are all good questions. They cut right to the heart of the matter (I'll let the others take a crack at them first).
Lazy Uncle Ed
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Ehrenberg [mailto:name12323@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:30 PM To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] NPOV
I have a few questions about NPOV:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)? Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar) Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view? Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
I have a few questions about NPOV:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
Not if the something is truely a pseudoscience, as for example [[astrology]].
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
No, just a simple fact-based observation.
Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view?
Yes, a lawyer's trick.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?
Yes, Dummy!
Fred
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:52:49 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
No, just a simple fact-based observation.
But one that might be better phrased as: "By commonly accepted measures, no communist regime to date has been successful." The inhabitants of some former Soviet republics might well argue that communism was doing quite a bit better than the current free market/criminal anarchy that they are living under. And from discussions with Chinese students here, China is doing pretty well on most fronts other than political freedom and human rights, give the problems inherent in governing and feeding 1.3 billion people.
If a sentence in Wikipedia that does not refer to someone/thing dead, extinct, destroyed or completed contains the word "never" then it is in need of a rewrite. For example, we cannot tell that there won't be a successful communist regime in the future.
Fred Bauder wrote:
? wrote
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
Not if the something is truely a pseudoscience, as for example [[astrology]].
And say that it's definitely not true? That's POV. I don't think that astrology qualifies as a pseudoscience either, since its practitioners don't traditionally claim to be scientists (although some do *now*).
Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something similar)
No, just a simple fact-based observation.
A simple fact-based observation to prove a universal negative? I'd say that a simple fact-based observation is enough to show that it sometimes does work, but rather than simply stating so, an article should present examples that people claim is communism working in practice.
Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) leading someone to believe one point of view?
Yes, a lawyer's trick.
Also possibly a Wikipedian's trick that we should watch out for. And perhaps the Wikipedian (or even lawyer?) doesn't realise it. After all, if you believe something for certain reasons, then those may be the only facts that you know to put in the article.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interpreted''' as insulting?
Yes, Dummy!
If a person is mentally retarded, then it may not be NPOV to say so, and any way of saying it could be interpreted as insulting. Nevertheless, deprecated terms like "moron" (however correct they may be in their technical senses) should be avoided in favor of those that haven't yet become primarily words of insult, like "IQ below 70". If there is any doubt what you mean by the term that you choose, then you should explain what its neutral meaning is.
IMO.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's definitely not true)?
Not if the something is truely a pseudoscience, as for example [[astrology]].
And say that it's definitely not true? That's POV. I don't think that astrology qualifies as a pseudoscience either, since its practitioners don't traditionally claim to be scientists (although some do *now*).
Claiming to be a scientist is a prerequisite to being a pseudoscientist. Some of those who now claim to be scientists really do try to use scientific methods. If experimental success were the deciding factor in determining if someone is a scientist we would have far fewer scientists.
Is it POV to use words that can be '''interpreted''' as insulting?
Yes, Dummy!
If a person is mentally retarded, then it may not be NPOV to say so, and any way of saying it could be interpreted as insulting. Nevertheless, deprecated terms like "moron" (however correct they may be in their technical senses) should be avoided in favor of those that haven't yet become primarily words of insult, like "IQ below 70".
The multitudes who consider George W. Bush to be a moron tend to apply the popular meaning of that word instead of the technical one.