Dan Drake wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Taking writings out of context, and trying to
direct the reader into an
interpretation of those texts in a manner contrary to what the original
author intended would be a reprehensible imposition of your own POV.
Unless the original author was in fact asserting things as fact that are
questioned by oneself and other persons not certifiably loony, in which
case presenting an interpretation that questions that of hte author is or
can be a highly desirable editing out of POV. (I'm not defending things
taken improperly out of context (Duh).)
Perhaps we should not _assume_ that all these articles are good NPOV work?
Perhaps we should not assume that they are not?
Perhaps this is pretty elementary stuff about NPOV to be spendint the time
of this list on?
What a lot of cult leaders express is a matter of doctrine rather than
fact, and in that regard they can believe whatever they want and express
whatever they want. If their expression is far removed from reality,
they will prove their case far better than you ever can.
If the author was factually wrong, editing out his POV is substituting
your POV for his, which puts us no further ahead. That's not NPOV; it's
censorship. I don't support directed interpretations; I like to give
credit to the reader for being able to have his own interpretation of
what he reads. If a text is too liberally sprinked with phrases like
"He claims..." or "He alleges..." I start to question the motives of
the
interpreter. Even a favorable interpreter can distort doctrines. St.
Paul was notorious for doing that. Any interpretation is a second hand
statement.
It is much fairer if a section of such an article is devoted to a fair
presentation is made of a group's doctrines as presented in their own
writings and statements. There is always adequate room in following
sections for opponents to present their case.
Where there are allegations of abusive behaviour, these are often not
part of the doctrine, but doctrine is often used to justify such
actions. This kind of claim should be treated separately from the
doctrine. Those who extricate themselves from these cults tend to lose
objectivity in their comments when they deprecate the theology at a time
when their problem was (with or without cause) personally in relation to
those interpreting the doctrines. It is often impossible to evaluate
their claims. We have seen this sort of problem here with certain
people who are too quick to take issue with the casual comments of
another Wikipedian.
Before I read an article I should begin with the presumption that it
will contain good NPOV work. To read otherwise would be to put POV in
my reading. Of course I know from experience that much writing will not
be NPOV, but I can't honestly reach that evaluation until I have read at
least some of the article.
As for being too elementary for spending time on the list, I again
disagree. These elementary discussions are at the heart of the matter.
If NPOV were to become too rigidly defined, it would be lost. That is
both the blessing and the frustration of NPOV.
Ec