User talk:Alvis/Anthropomorphism
Problem
[edit]It's biased to say that dogs can't exhibit human characteristics. Many people believe that they can and do, even if science says otherwise. And to do this, we'd have to cut out parts of the sources that we use, as they often describe dogs as loving, brave, and the like. I don't even think that they are anthromorphising, just saying that the breed acts in a loving manner, whether or not an animal can actually experience love. -Amark moo! 15:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- What people believe to be true and what is suitable for inclusion in a encyclopedic are two very different things, though. Alvis 19:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... no. If many people believe something, it most certainly should be included in an encyclopedia. It need not be presented as fact, but it should not be presented as being incorrect, either, as that would violate WP:NPOV. The best way to avoid this issue is to phase stuff like this as "X considers these animals to be..." -Amark moo! 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't "is considered to be" quintesential weasel word material? And I'm not suggesting that negative assertations be made (animal X is incapable of human motivation Y) any more than the positive be made - Neither is citable, and neither belongs on Wiki: WP:Verifiability.Alvis 06:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'll have to think on this. But no, "considered to be" isn't weasel wording, as long as you say who considers such a thing. -Amark moo! 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, as long as cites are given and the phrase isn't used just as "people consider..." But that's not what's happening now. Alvis 07:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'll have to think on this. But no, "considered to be" isn't weasel wording, as long as you say who considers such a thing. -Amark moo! 04:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't "is considered to be" quintesential weasel word material? And I'm not suggesting that negative assertations be made (animal X is incapable of human motivation Y) any more than the positive be made - Neither is citable, and neither belongs on Wiki: WP:Verifiability.Alvis 06:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Umm... no. If many people believe something, it most certainly should be included in an encyclopedia. It need not be presented as fact, but it should not be presented as being incorrect, either, as that would violate WP:NPOV. The best way to avoid this issue is to phase stuff like this as "X considers these animals to be..." -Amark moo! 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting
[edit]This is an interesting concept. I suppose there is room for some debate about animals in particular, but not anthropomorphizing e.g. concepts sounds like a good addition to the manual of style. Perhaps you should consider advertising this page, e.g. here and here, and possibly find an existing page in the MOS to which it may be added. >Radiant< 14:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll definetely look into that. I'd love to get some more discussion so consensus can be reached. Alvis 07:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The best place for that is the talk page of the WP:MOS, or of the relevant subpage. If nobody objects to your addition there, go ahead. At any rate a new page like this one isn't needed. >Radiant< 12:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)