QUOTE(FT2 @ Tue 2nd September 2008, 10:47am)
There's an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything else starts to look like nails. It might be hard to believe someone could want to visit for dialog, and would want to know at least the views of credible critics, but if some here stopped believing everyone on Wikipedia is in a conspiracy and against them, and others on Wikipedia stopped believing every criticism and user here is disruptive, a lot of people who aren't on the extremes of either view would probably be happy.
Okay, let's see what we can do to start making you and the people who interact with you on WP a little happier.
Some issues are inherrently polarizing, because they involve differences in philosophical/ethical and theological views which are simply not compatable, and never will be. So the question is how to handle them on WP.
In the past the way it's ended up being done, is to summarize competing POVs within the same article while the article is small. As it grows, the various factions need their own space to "get away from" each other, as it will, and lay out their cases in peace. Subarticles are then spun-off. These are by definition NOT POV forks, so long as the various articles contain short summaries of the others, and links, so that walled gardens are not created.
Now, this eventually can work well (or as well as you can hope for, at least). A standard example is the Scientology article, which ONLY works because the various people who have strong points of view have been given 23 subarticles in which to do it. If you want any major POV regarding scientology, it's in there. There are separate articles for Criticism of Scientology, Ethics (Scientology), Scientology controversies, Scientology as a business, and so on.
Now, this process isn't perfect, and articles on religions aren't quite mirrors of each other. You'll find a Criticism of Catholicism and a Criticism of Mormonism article, just as you will for Scientology (these are criticisms of the beliefs themselves). And you'll find Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Mormonism (each with their own articles) defined as the prejudices and bigotries against the people who hold or practice the beliefs. Strangely, there is no Anti-Scientology as an article.
When it comes to other beliefs and actions, we begin to see a non-parallel process in operation. Within homosexuality there are no references to articles about "Criticism of homosexuality" (the ethical or health-related objection to the acts themselves, rather than the people who practice them or are drawn to them), by that term. Instead, we simply have an article on "homophobia" in which all this is defined as "irrational." What? This is very much like definining all objection to any Jewish belief as "anti-semitism" or "Jewphobia".
If you'd like a parallel, there is a long section in the Pork article about health risks in eating pork and there's an entire subarticle on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork
. Incredibly, the parallel article in homosexuality is simply called "religions and homosexuality." What happened to "restrictions" in the header? And there's nothing about additional health risks in men having sex with men, at all, in these days of AIDS (yeah, despite much politicking, it's still overwhelmingly a disease of IV drug users and men who have sex with men, and a gigantic amount of money has been wasted, admits the WHO recently, on "general education of schoolchildren" which should better have been used to target groups at risk). But eating pork chops and having anal sex are fairly parallel activities (though I suspect the pork chop habit is the safer). A decent encyclopedia would organize their discussion in the same ways.
Now, many fights about POV-pushing happen as small articles on things like paraphilias grow. Ultimately, many of these should probably be large enough to have some subarticles on anti-paraphilias and "Criticism of paraphilia X". As well as subs on religious proscriptions, ethics, business, and so on. What people trying to insert this stuff into the "main and only" article are doing, is simply signalling that such a fission is trying to take place. At this point, wise editors can allow to happen (as they did with the religious articles) or they can block it for more drama, as has happened with homeopathy, zoophilia, and so on.
What's not supposed to happen is that some admin who is supposedly familiar with the history of the way controversial articles have grown on WP, and with the appropriate ways of preventing edit wars, to show up on the middle of such a process where a paraphilia article is expanding, and say: "You're POV-pushing, [of course they are!] and since we officially are NPOV on WP, I'm going to block you if you do any more of this!"
That kind of thing speaks of both ignorance of the workings of WP, of the ongoing biases in what actually exists on WP, and (finally) of abuse of power. I believe I've seen you do it. If you come here to WR to defend it, we're going to rub your nose in it. And since there's not much you can do about that here, you can debate it rationally or slink off.
So. Ante up. Dialog(ue) over to you. Why not let the article on NLP grow in the same way as the article on Scientology? What's your problem with a "Criticism of zoophilia" article? Or, for that matter, an Anti-zoophilia article? We have an Anti-circumcision article (now redirected to "genital integrity"), but strangely no "Criticism of circumcision," or "Circumcisionophobia". Probably this is because neither side wants to be caught accusing the other of religious or cultural bigotry, even though it's no more or less bigotry than choosing (or not) to eat pork or choosing (or not) to have anal sex, or sex with animals.
The day you acknowledge that all these things are the same problem, and they can't be looked at as a nail to be pounded at with your banhammer when you meet some editor with a POV you don't like, is the day you start to learn the real difficulties of administration on WP. So, welcome to WR, FT2.
May you find it uncomfortable here.