Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Can the Wikipedia say that a certain person is anti-Semitic? Or must an article step back and say only that the person is "regarded as anti-Semitic?"
Does it serve our neutrality policy to say rather that such a person is "universally regarded" or "all but universally regarded" as anti-Semitic.
"Anti-Semitic", or even the subtly different "anti-semitic", is a characterization which, like "murderous tyrants", has a broad range of interpretations that depend on personal points of view. Even insisting that a person who uses the term must use the term exactly as it is defined in [[Anti-semitism]] doesn't help us. Most of them probably will not have read that article. If they don't read the NPOV article.....!
The phrase "is regarded" is another problem. Like any grammatically passive phrase, it begs the question, "By whom?"
Saying that Joe Blow is anti-Semitic is an ad hominem argument, unlike saying that Joe Blow's statement was anti-Semitic. So characterizing the statement is far more palatable.
Consider the following:
If someone ever quotes a Wikipedia article in a newspaper or book, should they be able to say, "According to Wikipedia, Joe Blow is anti-Semitic".
They can say anything they want, and they will. Adding the words, "According to Wikipedia...", doesn't even prove that it was in Wikipedia unless the reader is astute enough to check his facts. We have absolutely no control over this Jimmy is willing to waste money on lawyers to prosecute people for stupidity.
Is there any difference between stating that a certain person studied at a university and stating that the person "is anti-Semitic"?
Perhaps I am making a fact-value distinction:
- studied at the university (fact)
- is anti-Semitic (value judgement)
There is a difference. The first statement is falsifiable in Popper's sense of the term; the second is not.
I'm not really asking for a chorus of opinions from the list, but an authoritative, once-and-for-all pronouncement from the Founders.
Lots of luck! Authoritative pronouncements tend to be un-Wikipedian.
I would favour a list of words and phrases that carry with them a presumption that they violate neutrality. This does not mean that they would be completely outlawed, but there use would be subject to some restrictions. They could not be used in blanket statements. They must be attributed to an identifiable source, and not to some vague "almost everybody". "Anti-semitism", "murderous tyrant", and "pseudoscience" would all qualify for the list.
Eclecticology