User talk:Probelot

"Just a Comment" on Down Syndrom Talk Page
The problem NPOV tries to solve is one that is inherent in your argument. I don't believe in morality. There are things I feel are good and, to an extent, things I feel are evil. However, I also acknowledge that it's unlikely there's any real "force" determining what's good and what's evil, but rather a deeply ingrained societal point of view. Take, for example, the question of whether or not murder is wrong. Most anyone would be suprised at such a question, but when you break it down it essentially becomes a normative statement: it is better to live than die, it is better to let others live than die, and it is better to let others be happy than not. Those three statements are, in essence, what we base our "morality" judgements on regarding the question of murder; they are however, at their heart, simply normative statements that do little more than express an opinion. I have a sneaking suspicion you'll disagree with me on this point and make a case for a real higher determination of good and evil, but no matter what you say it will come down to an opinion. As a result, infusing "morality" into such a discussion will invariably include an opinion. And though you may find this ok, it becomes a problem when you try to reconcile two different "moralities." For example, I think it immoral for someone to declare that "homosexuality is wrong" and that homosexuals are "a blight upon the earth" and other such rhetoric, as it is, to be frank, none of their goddamned business what two adults do together and it interferes, at a basic level, with the homosexuals right to be happy (remember it is better to let others be happy than not?). However, those who espouse said rhetoric are more than likely to consider the homosexuals themselves "immoral" for their actions. How do we reconcile these two "moralities?" That is what the NPOV seeks to avoid. And though yes, in a way, it sweeps "morality" under the rug, this is at times necessary when there are (as there often are) two contradictory moralities. As for "enforcing it's westernized philosophy of NPOV," we would be just as guilty if we were to "enforce our westernized christian philosophy" or "westernized jewish philosophy" or hell, even "westernized monotheistic philosophy" on said countries. The idea of NPOV is to minimize what it is we enforce on them. Though you are in a way correct, and we are enforcing a POV on them in and of the NPOV idea itself, it's the least POV way to do it. I figured i'd reply here, as well, in the case you dont check back at the talk page. it is an interesting point, and one that generally wouldn't even be considered...you're right that NPOV is generally taken as gospel here and not many would even think to question it. jfg284 you were saying? 13:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If I go into a Muslim country brandishing the bible in one habd and a cross in the other and try and convert them, there is a certainty about my ensuing trial and human death sentence. The culture is maintaining itself against my intrusion and my intrusion, even if unwanted, helps to solidify the culture's concept of right and wrong.

If I go into the same country with the POV oF NPOV, my presence does not cause a response - not as far as I am aware anyway. Insidiously, like a cancer, the western philosophy erodes the culture's sense of good and evil by portraying NO MORALITY with the information it portrays to them. So you lead people into, to use your example, homosexuality, because you talk of it as if it weren't a sin, even though it may carry the death sentence in the country whose people may be accessing Wiki.

NPOV portrays a very strong westernised philosophy of good and evil, whether you want it too or not. When you tell me you don't believe in morality, you then go on to voice your own morality and you are fully aware, I believe, that you are doing so!

You need to move beyond this western philosophy of npov, and see it for what it is, just another philosophy that is clamouring to take power and erode the values held by other societies, cultures and, for that matter, most people of the western world itself I dare say.

Got to go, but am enjoying this. Thank you. --Donald 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) (moved from Talk:Down syndrome)

You're right. I did sort of contradict myself in my choice of words. what i meant was that i don't subscribe to this idea of one "correct" morality. There are many different shades of gray (think about the homosexuality argument and the death penalty argument in particular...the Bible, an ever popular source for "morality," will provide arguments on both sides of the argument. The point is, "morality" is a fancy word for "opinion," often with a connotation that it's an opinion that has been endorsed by some greater power (an Islamic government, the Vatican, etc).  As a result, it would be difficult (and unfair) to enforce a particular morality; to say, on the homosexuality article, for example, that it is "a sin against god and those who revel in its sinfulness should be punished" would be a perfectly acceptable post under some versions of a morality, but it paints an unfair picture against gays and is no more right than something saying "homosexuality is a higher form of being, and one heterosexuals are incapable of understanding" (which would be acceptable under someone elses morality.) That all being said, i'll go ahead and contradict myself again. NPOV is, in a way, a tenet of the "morality" of wikipedians - its the opinion endorsed by wikipedia as a whole. the opinion states that a NPOV is good and should be adhered to on all pages. The normative statement "a NPOV is good" is, in and of itself, an opinion (and, hell, everything is, it's damn near impossible to write anything informative without making some opinionated decision somewhere along the way. In that way, you're right...it is a matter of opinion that NPOV is correct.  However, as i said, it's almost not possible to write anything worthwhile without making SOME opinionated judgement along the way, and making it NPOV simplifies the process.  With an NPOV, all POV can be presented...so long as it's clear the page does not affirm or deny the correctness of said POV.  For example, on homosexuality, it's perfectly acceptable for there to be (and i'd be suprised if there isnt) an "Anti-Gay Sentiments" section, or something similar.  In such a section, that POV could be detailed - including the fact that it's punishable by death in some countries (providing, of course, a source could be provided). At the same time, just below it could be an "ultragay sentiments" section (or something with a more appropriate title), detailing the POV that homosexuals are inherently better than heterosexuals. And, of course, under both of these could be a section on "equality" which purports that both heter- and homosexuals are of equal worth. So long as the page makes it clear that these are prevailing societal views and the page does not condone any one of them, it's perfectly fine. In short, it's impossible not to infuse a normative statement or opinion somewhere. NPOV just makes it the most fair one, as all POV can be mentioned somewhere. jfg284 you were saying? 12:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The concept of fair is a pov in it's own right - the npov stance is a definite western philosophy. As I said earlier, to be culturally fair means recognising the needs and values of the culture you are connecting to, not trying to replace their cultural values with NPOV ones. How to get round this? Well, from a democratic perspective, which is POV, let them have a choice of whether they want NPOV or pages written according to their culture's perception, expectations etc. Wiki has the capacity to become far greater than what it is, so why not encourage it to grow in a meaningful way? But that's my POV anyway on what NPOV should be. --Donald 05:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the discussion has sucessfully come around to the point that any judgement is pov, and therefore almost anything meaningful will be slightly tinged with a point of view. As a result, you're right: "fair", "moral", "different", "opinion", "fact"...almost all of these terms are either exclusively pov or, conversely, can be interpreted in different ways from different ps ov. As a result, it's not necessary to point out when something is or is not pov...i think its a safe assumption that it almost always is. Now, on to your suggestion of " have a choice of whether they want NPOV or pages written according to their culture's perception, expectations". The problem with that is that wikipedia is international and open to editing by everyone, but you knew that already. As a result, it's not as though members of a culture which does not subscribe to such "western philosophy" can choose "oh, we'll edit this article to our culture's norms. Furthermore, if you're going to leave it up to a choice of theirs, they can always choose not to read it... Now, as far as "western philosophy," I find it difficult to believe that a "non-western philosophy" lacks the idea of discerning one point of view from another.  And once two points of view can be seperated, there must exist a compromise between the two somewhere in the middle  Though no such compromise will ever be truly NPOV (including the standard wikipedia is currently held to), they can come very close, and it's easier to refer to it as "neutral point of view" than as "a compromise between all different opinions which comes very close to mimicing a theoretical but practically impossible neutral point of view." Plus, NPOV has a better ring than CBADOWCVCTMATBPINPOV. What i'm saying is this..."western philosophy" seems like a buzzword here; not only am I not entirely sure which eastern philosophies are incapable of discerning a point of view (but hey, the idea that the romans had no numeric designation for the quantity 0 seemed unbelieveable to me when i was younger, so maybe this is a more sophisticated version of the same problem), but the term is also unnecessarily wide. I'm not convinced there is a prevailing "western" philosophy any more than a prevailing american national conscience or christian or muslim dogma. There are disagreements within western society on almost every level, and it's very difficult to find something that is a prevailing ideal. Those ideals which are seemingly adopted almost universally in the west - such as "democracy" - can have wildly differnt meanings depending on who's speaking - think of the differences between a democratic republic v. a direct democracy, think of the implications of a nation electing to have a monarchy or dictatorship, think of even the simple argument of a welfare state...it's tough to categorize so broadly. Thusly, NPOV is meant to minimize culture clash, as the encyclopedia is accesable - and editable - world-wide. jfg284 you were saying? 13:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)