Tom Haws wrote,
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced material on the page, the solution is to delete it. Well, this is the first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and their ilk. But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
Tom Haws
Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this thread? I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question had been asked for a source several times. The question is, what to do then? Ray Saintonge replied, delete. And that is where my e-mail picks up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is disingenuous and dangerous.
What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?
It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV. I have no objection to including a marxist definition in the article. But it must be accurate. Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?
Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some editors say is inaccurate or simply false?
I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I think it is important. If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? Or do you have a different goal, Tom?
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
Tom Haws wrote,
Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting
unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and their ilk.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote: If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?
Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians), but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a plot to take over the world.
Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: " The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".
Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed. And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases might be factually incorrect or offensive)?
According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion. The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion" and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication. This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding popular opinion to introductions).
Sarah
I want to clarify the e-mail I sent earlier regarding Tom Haws' views at [[Talk:Human]]. Upon re-reading it, I'm worried I gave the impression that Tom is being an edit warrior, and feel I should make clear that his views have been confined to the talk page of [[Human]]. He has not attempted to insert those views into the article itself; the talk-page discussion, which is robust but perfectly civil, is being held precisely to decide whether those views ought to be inserted. I don't agree with Tom, but I respect him as an editor, and he clearly has Wikipedia's best interests in mind. I hope that clarifies what I wrote earlier.
Sarah
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 09:47:30 -0700, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Haws wrote,
Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting
unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and their ilk.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote: If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who
insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia?
Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
Tom has been invited to submit references (e.g. work by theologians), but has declined to do so, arguing that his reference is to popular opinion. He was then invited by several editors, in the interests of consistency, to go and add some popular opinion to the introduction of other articles e.g. to [[Woman]], that women are seen by many people around the world as inferior and irrational; to [[Gay]], that gay sex is viewed by many as wicked; to [[Muslim]], that many see Muslims as a bunch of terrorists; to [[Jew]], that many see Jews as engaged in a plot to take over the world.
Rather than accepting the inconsistency of his position, Tom has defended it by arguing, on [[Talk:Human]], that he simply doesn't have time to add popular opinion to all articles that need it, adding: " The only pertinent sifting question is, "Is it a significant point of view?" In other words, "does it make a difference in the world?" And for all the examples you cite, the answer is "Yes".
Note here that we are talking specifically about the introductions of articles. I do not dispute that these views might be represented in an article somewhere. But Tom wants to see them prominently displayed. And this raises an interesting question about NPOV. When we say a majority view ought to be displayed as such, do we mean the majority scholarly view, or do we mean popular opinion (which in some cases might be factually incorrect or offensive)?
According to NPOV, we would probably have to stick to popular opinion. The NPOV policy qualifies this by using the word "rational," but this is not defined, and there are many people regarded as rational within their own communities who believe, for example, that women need not be given equal rights because they are inferior beings. But if we read NPOV together with [[Wikipedia: No original research]], [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], and [[Wikipedia:Cite sources]], it becomes clear that we mean "published, rational, majority opinion" and, furthermore, published in a credible or reputable publication. This will most often refer to the opinions of scholars, good journalists, and other credible authors, and this defines the range of majority opinion that must be given prominence. (Note: I am throughout this post discussing prominence, not inclusion per se). This is why I argue strongly that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines must be read and understood together, because when viewed jointly, they do form a coherent philosophy, and they provide a solid defense against the introductions-must-reflect-popular-opinion position that Tom seems to be promoting. (Though in fairness to Tom, I think he's simply being inconsistent: I don't believe that he really wants to go around adding popular opinion to introductions).
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Haws takes the view that NPOV means articles must reflect popular opinion, not scholarly opinion. For several weeks, Tom has been arguing that the introduction of the article [[Human]] must reflect religious beliefs (that e.g. human beings have souls and were created in the image of God), and not simply biological and anthropological ones (that we are bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex societies). While no editor on that page disputes that religious views be discussed in the article, a number of us do argue that these views have no place in the introduction.
I don't see why it wouldn't be appropriate to mention these in the introduction. To a vast majority of the world's population, including a number of its philosophers who have specifically considered the question, the main distinguishing feature of humans is not "bipedal primates who engage in extensive tool use and live in complex societies", any more than "have two ears" or "have fingernails" are their main distinguishing features.
If we were discussing an article specifically on the biological species [[Homo sapiens]], I could see that viewpoint, but the article on [[human]] must encompass, both in the body and the introduction, much more than merely the biological definition of the species.
-Mark
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Tom Haws wrote,
steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Some people have suggested that if someone keeps putting unsourced material on the page, the solution is to delete it. Well, this is the first solution to any problem at Wikipedia.
Heh-heh. It is easy to see how this problem got started. Deleting unsourced material is an excellent excuse for POV police, warriors, and their ilk. But it doesn't go over too well in polite society.
Are you being disingenuous, or have you just not been following this thread? I thought it was abundantly clear that the person in question had been asked for a source several times. The question is, what to do then? Ray Saintonge replied, delete. And that is where my e-mail picks up. To then suggest I am a POV cop in this matter is disingenuous and dangerous.
What POV do you think I am pushing, Tom?
It should be clear that this is NOT a matter of pushing a POV. I have no objection to including a marxist definition in the article. But it must be accurate. Otherwise, what kind of encyclopedia is this?
Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some editors say is inaccurate or simply false?
I am getting tired of this discussion that seems to go nowhere, but I think it is important. If Tom Haws is going to label as a POV warrior anyone who insists that our policies, such as Verifiability and Cite sources, must be enforced, then how on earth are we going to write a good encyclopedia? Or do you have a different goal, Tom?
I don't expect Steven to take the flak for what I said. I'm glad to repeat that when a contributor refuses to give a reference for a statement it should be deleted. I'm not questioning that user's good faith, only his understanding of how research.is done.
Tom's statement about POV police only proves that he hasn't got a clue about the difference between polite and impolite society. How polite is the society that reliesa on bullshit as a source for its intellectual capital. I nevertheless do make allowance for the possibility that he may have been using "polite" in an ironic sense.
It's no secret that some people are absolutely schizophrenic when it comes to coping with academia. I am not without criticism about academia, but I will at least give them credit for what they do right. One of the most important things that they do right is demand sources. Failing to give sources is reason enough for failing a freshman term paper.
If something is bounced because it lacks sources it may still be allowed back later ... when someone is willing to provide a source.
When it comes to political terminology it is important to be clear about our terminology, especially when we are dealing with POV-charged terms like "capitalism".
Ec
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:02:07 -0500, steven l. rubenstein rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
Okay Tom, what do you think we should do, if someone refuses over the course of several weeks to provide a source for a claim that some editors say is inaccurate or simply false?
No question about it. If after long dicussion no source is provided, it should be deleted.