[WikiEN-l] NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:

> I have a few questions about NPOV:
>
> Is it POV to classify something as a pseudoscience (and say that it's 
> definitely not true)? 

Yes!  Even a noted skeptic like Michael Shermer is very careful about 
using the word.  Pseudoscience literaly means false science.  In reality 
many of the subject areas popularly encompased by the term have never 
been proven true to the satisfaction of the traditional scientific 
community.  To say that not proven equates to proven false is to apply 
the fallacy of the excluded middle that is often phrased "If you're not 
with us you're against us."  A great deal of this material is on the 
fringes of science, and most will likely never become accepted truth, 
but it is presumptuous to know or say exactly what part is false.  Quite 
often there is a tiny kernal of truth that has been distorted out of all 
recognition by supporters and detractors alike.  The term 
"pseudoscience" is as much a pejorative as "kike" or "faggot" which have 
been discussed in a concurrent thread  

> Is it POV to say that communism never works in practice? (or something 
> similar) 

Yes!  Even more because of the word "never" than because of the word 
"communism".  It's beside the point that the statement is dead wrong. 
 "Never" and "Always" are two absolute concepts that challenge an 
opponent to produce a single counterexample   That's all it takes to 
disprove them..

> Is it POV to only list some of the facts (by accident or on purpose) 
> leading someone to believe one point of view? 

A qualified yes.  You can't be expected to produce opposing facts that 
you don't know anything about.  It's also intellectually dishonest when 
you wilfully ignore facts contrary to your belief.  But the attached 
blame is very limited.  If I know Wikipedians, theres's always someone 
ready, willing and able to entusiastically present the opposing POV. 
 The problem comes when you don't give the other person's contribution 
it's due consideration.

> Is it POV to use words that can be '''interperated''' as insulting?

Yes.  Words can be powerful if you use them well.  In a military 
operation between two countries you can say the A annexed B or that A 
liberated B with very different effects.  It is very common for people 
to choose words that will accentuate a point of view.

Eclecticology