Facts (was re: [WikiEN-l] Clutch is on a POV tirade)

[Larry Sanger]

"Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com> writes:

> Please try to understand the difference between objective fact and
> neutrality. For example, that North Korea, Cuba, and the Soviet Union
> were ruled by murderous tyrants is IMHO a "fact". Incredible as it may
> seem, there are some contributors who dispute this fact. So, we are
> forced by *our own policy* to step back from asserting "the truth" and
> humbly stating that "According to sources X, Y and Z these lands were
> ruled, etc."

EIian replied:
> No.
> That they have killed xy-thousand people may be a fact.
> That they have suppressed political opposition by censure etc. may be a
> fact.
> That they were "murderous tyrants" is a moral judgement.

Elian is much closer to the truth, but he still doesn't have it exactly
right.  If the North Koreans officially deny having N people, then it
isn't a fact; it's an opinion, regardless of the fact that everyone *else*
in the world has that opinion.  This is why we'd write, "South Korea and
Western sources claim that the Kim Jong-Il regime have killed N political
dissidents; the North Korean and Chinese government officially disagree
with it."  (I'm not claiming such things have been said by these parties,
I'm just going with the example.)

The relevant section of [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view]]

	http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV

is headed "Alternative formulation of the policy: assert facts, including
facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves."

Moreover, it's not the fact that "murderous tyrants" is a *moral judgment*
that makes it not a fact.  According to the operational definition of
"fact," if everyone is united in making a particular moral judgment
(e.g., I hope, bayonnetting innocent babies for kicks is bad), then the
contents of that judgment is a fact, and we might as well simply declare
it to be such.  Of course, it's entirely possible that we couldn't ever
come up with a moral judgment that we (humans) could all agree upon.
Maybe amoralists like Ohio State professor Richard Garner are a standing
rebuke to the suggestion.  But even in that case, it still wouldn't be the
fact that it's a moral judgment that makes it biased; it's the fact that
other people disagree with it that makes it biased (non-neutral).

Larry
-- 
"We have now sunk to a depth at which the re-statement of the obvious is
the first duty of intelligent men." --George Orwell