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