Image talk:Iraq oil I'm entitled to my opinion fallacy.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NPOV

This diagram seriously violates NPOV. Can you please change it? --Bhuston 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bhuston, you say that the image is highly contentious, but like the other editors who have claimed so on the talk page you have not given any reasons in support of the proposition "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil" and if there are no reasons in favour of that, only objections against, then by definition it is not a contentious proposition. Something can only be contentitous - and you say this is highly contentious - if there reasons on both sides of a debate.

Now I am not aware of any reasons from the other side of the debate, but if you, or anybody else would give me one reason in favour of the contention "The US invaded Iraq to steal its oil", then the image would clearly violate NPOV. Consider an analogy to the flat Earth theory, the proposition "The Earth is flat" is not contentious because nobody can provide reasons to support it.

Quoting from the NPOV page: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." - No conflicting views have been identified.

"We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."" - This is more of a grey area, but the very nature of argumentation in informal logic means that pages dealing with fallacies and other argument patterns necessarily break the letter of this guildline, if not the spirit.

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles was the greatest band is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion." - This is more explicit and seems to suggest that NPOV has been violated, but again the category is informal logic. If that argument map were to be placed on any other page, such as Reasons for the Iraq War, then it would definately violate NPOV.

I am not wikilawyering to claim that I haven't violated NPOV, but I am claiming that I haven't not violated NPOV. In other words it is extremely ambiguous whether it has been violated in this instance. Grumpyyoungman01 21:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Grumpyyoungman01, as I stated, I would be happy to debate the matter, but I feel it is unnecessary. The point is, you are using a diagram in an innocuous article on logic to promote a particular world view. And des[te your defensive dancing, I think you know exactly what you are doing. You are a logician, as am I. Some of my best friends are logicians, thus I know from experience arguments with logicians can be lengthy and frustrating, as logicians can always "prove" they are correct. I really don't want to go there. So, please consider this carefully: If you will not consider modifying the image, I will nominate it for deletion as an NPOV violation. This is NOT the place for this discussion. Thanks for your consideration. --Bhuston 00:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

5 days have passed and you have done nothing. I have thusly nominated the image for deletion. It is clear that your image has caused some mild controversy, both here and here. Please do not remove it from this list. Kyle McInnes (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not realising that you were on a wikibreak. However, I agree with Bhuston in that I believe you know full well why this image is responsible for such debate, and that you are merely arguing for argument's sake (perhaps to demonstrate your ability as a logician?). You would do well now to simply alter the image. I too am not interested in your lengthy arguments; I merely wish to see the inherent problem here resolved for the sake of Wikipedia, and not for the sake of logic. Thank you. Kyle McInnes (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to point out, Grumpyyoungman01 announced his Wikibreak after this discussion began. Had he said, "I will fix the image upon my return", this should be a reason to delay any possible decision to delete. He has had ample opportunity to correct the image, but so far, has not acknowleged the controversy or offered to change it --Bill Huston ^(talk) 22:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir it is quite obvious that the image in question is causing mild controversy as it is biased and presents a conspiracy theory, that is at this point in time is realised as a theory and therefore deemed as an uncorrect realised truth so therefore is an image that should be removed from the site. Please feel free to discuss this with me. NathanJBeal 16:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)