Talk:Neutral point of view
SPOV has a secondary meaning that is more "main stream" which is "science point of view", there were some interesting debates at Wikipedia about using SPOV for certain classes of articles but it was rejected. tmtoulouse torment 18:45, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
- The "of" shouldn't be capitalized. In fact, I think that since the intro is broader than wikipedia, none of it should be capitalized, except when referring to the WP policy. ħuman
19:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
- Feel free to change, correct or build on the content of the article. I can't find SPOV or "science point of view" at Wikipedia, but some content about it would be welcome in this article. Weaseloid 04:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's more likely "scientific point of view", and it's probably in talk pages rather than articles. ħuman 06:12, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
- It's more likely "scientific point of view", and it's probably in talk pages rather than articles. ħuman
- Feel free to change, correct or build on the content of the article. I can't find SPOV or "science point of view" at Wikipedia, but some content about it would be welcome in this article. Weaseloid 04:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Wikipedia is in fact pro-western. It has more terms doing profound analysis of Russian and Chinese political corruption and opression than it has from America and Great Britain, even if it does in fact not hide the violations and ambiguities existent in the Western Side.
It shows the existent corruption almost like Tom Clancy does: the grossest defects of America are assumed or said to give more character to it and makes the survivors into winners, while in Russia, China and other un-American places, even the positive characteristics are rendered in a caricatural way, allowing the Western viewer to see other people condescendingly while pretending to be neutral. --Nicoliver (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)