From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michelet wrote:

This POV may be shared by a number of experts - who cares? It is still POV, ...

You appear to be using the term "POV" as a synonym for "not NPOV". Since I was not using the term in this way you have almost certainly misunderstood some of my above remarks. As I was already aware that you were apparently using the term in this way, I should have been more conscientious in making my meaning clear, and apologise for my carelessness. I have tried to make my usage of the terms "POV" and "NPOV" conform to that of the wikipedia articles WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVT. Please read these articles carefully and take particular note of the following:

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

– From WP:NPOV

Thus the answer to your question "Who cares?" depends on what you mean by "POV" in the above quotation. If "POV" is understood in the sense in which it is used in the above-mentioned wikipedia articles, then the answer is that wikipedia policy makers and anyone else who would like this policy to be followed all care. Exclusion of a POV held by several prominent experts on any issue is by definition a violation of wikipedia NPOV policy.

What you appear to have meant, however, is that the opinions of the experts I cited are not NPOV because they are, in your opinion, "not factual". That claim still seems to me to be unwarranted. Your opinion appears to be based solely on your own analysis and synthesis of primary sources (as outlined above), and, as such, it is not entitled to be included in the article unless it can be directly confirmed by some reliable secondary source:

An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.

– From WP:NOR

Your argument clearly violates the second of these conditions (see below for direction to details).

Since you appear to be so certain that what I have written is erroneous, there is one other option you have for showing that it is not NPOV. While my summary of the opinions of the experts I have cited was made in good faith there always remains the possibility that I have allowed my own biases to colour the particular wording I have chosen. Naturally, I don't believe this is the case, but if you think it might be, you always have the option of reading the references I provided for yourself (Sharratt, 1996, pp.127-131, McMullin, 2005a—or, even better, McMullin, 2005, p.89, where an almost identical wording to my own can be found). However, if you do this and do decide that my description of these experts' opinions is inaccurate, you will need to support that claim with a much better argument than the one you have given above.

In my opinion, there are numerous problems with this argument, ranging from at least one serious outright error to various other unsupported and unwarranted assumptions and conclusions. Rather than further clutter up this page by arguing the point, however, I have outlined some of the problems with the argument on a subpage of my talk page.

The evidence is, for instance, in the very quotations you gave:

Evidence of what? I disagree that any of the texts you have singled out either contradict anything I have written above, or support any of the assertions of yours which I have challenged. But again, the same subpage of my talk page is a more appropriate place for a detailed rebuttal, so I will not provide one here. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on LEAD of Galileo Galilei article

[edit] Discussion of primary source analysis

[edit] Discussion of earlier text from LEAD

Your argument appears to be that since the statement whose accuracy you are disputing has omitted some of the conclusions you wish to draw from these texts it therefore implies that:

• the Church has neglected evidence "to preserve the scriptures",
• the Church interefered in scientific debates without good reason, and
• the Church only considered the literal sense of Scripture.

I categorically deny that the statement in question carries any such implications. Saying that the Catholic Church prohibited "the advocacy of heliocentrism as potentially factual, because it considered this contrary to Scripture" does nothing more than provide an accurate summary of the edict of the Congregation of the Index which promulgated the prohibition. It implies nothing at all about the evidence, principles of exegesis, or any other factors which the Church relied upon to reach its conclusion that heliocentrism was contrary to Scripture.

I would point out to you that this edict itself also omitted all three of your "points". Would you argue that by omitting the first of these points the Congregation of the Index was presenting the Church as "neglecting evidence to preserve the Scriptures", that by omitting the third it was presenting the Church as "arbitrarily interfering in scientific debates with no reason", or that by omitting the second it was suggesting that "the Church considers the literal sense only, like fundamentalists would". If not, why do you think that their omission from the Wikipedia article carries those implications.