Clutch wrote:
We should be more concerned with presenting facts than with opinions. People turn to an Encyclopedia to find out the truth about things.
Just
regurgitating "what everyone knows" is counter-productive when actual facts exist.
Believe it or not, NPOV requires the facts to be presented wherever possible, instead of opinions.
Okay, then the facts are: * Arabs want to eliminate Israel completely. * There are no "Palestinians" other than Palestinian Arabs * Jordan *is* the Palestinian state. * Propagandists like you think lying and murdering are justified.
Now that we're all agreed on that, RK and I will go ahead and ....
Huh? What's that you say? Those aren't the facts?
What are they, then? Just my opinion?
Golly, it sounds like you and I can't agree on what the facts are, even if we both agree that we should present the facts wherever possible.
So what can we do? I guess we have to agree to disagree, and just say that Source A thinks the facts are X, and Source B thinks the facts are Y.
Which is exactly where we were before.
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!
In a spirit of collegial cooperation,
Ed Poor
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).
Jonathan
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
On 11/21/02 2:35 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Okay, then the facts are:
- Arabs want to eliminate Israel completely.
- There are no "Palestinians" other than Palestinian Arabs
- Jordan *is* the Palestinian state.
- Propagandists like you think lying and murdering are justified.
Now that we're all agreed on that, RK and I will go ahead and ....
Huh? What's that you say? Those aren't the facts?
What are they, then? Just my opinion?
Golly, it sounds like you and I can't agree on what the facts are, even if we both agree that we should present the facts wherever possible.
So what can we do? I guess we have to agree to disagree, and just say that Source A thinks the facts are X, and Source B thinks the facts are Y.
We can also have people provide evidence for their assertions. We can only say "Mars is a planet"--and have that have any meaning--because of of how we have defined "planet", and the observational record that correlates with that definition.
Saying that Source A thinks X and Source B thinks Y is just part of that process. It is a valid starting point, but it is not the end.