Talk:Neutrality

One view

This article merely reflects the "take" that Wikipedia and CZ have toward this subject. I ought to know, because I was the main explicator of the concept for Wikipedia. As such, the concept and the sorts of things that you say about it here, Robert, are actually rather idiosyncratic, though they bear a relationship to what has in other contexts been called "neutrality" (or by some cognate terms).

Robert, I recommend that, if you want to do an article on this subject, you actually take a neutral point of view toward its subject!  ;-) And to do that, you'll probably have to do more research into political/diplomatic neutrality, as well as what legal scholars and philosophers say about impartiality.

"Impartiality" is a closer synonym than "objectivity," in my opinion, but that's just my opinion.

Question: will we have separate articles about each of neutrality, impartiality, objectivity, and bias?

These and many other things need to be thought through carefully. --Larry Sanger 09:42, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I now have my required daily meta-headache.  ;-) --Robert W King 09:50, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Using Talk:Neutrality/Notes as a workspace. --Robert W King 11:33, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Current version

Neutrality is the act of impartiality toward a subject matter or situation. Although neutrality requires fair and equal representation of all positions regarding that subject, it is not a compromise, where sacrifices are made on one side to appease another. In the long term, compromises can appear to resemble neutrality(for instance, in the context of border desputes), however this scenario more closely resembles stabalization, and in each case each side must be willing to relinquish a reservation.

The most important part is that there must be no inherent support, either intentional or unintentional, toward any position or point of view. This can be construed as bias. The closest synonym of neutrality is objectivity, where there is no affect upon a subject by personal feelings, emotions, or prejudices. However, objectivity does not require that all sides be presented.

Neutrality can be a difficult position to maintain, given natural human tendencies of preference; the free-will choice of X over Y, due to previous experience either positive or negative with X or Y, respectively. Additionally, neutrality can be affected by ignorance and naivety; that is either nonexposure by choice or by incidence as a result of one's background.

There is a distinct difference, however, between impartiality and morality. In some societies, impartiality is equated with fairness and morality incorrectly. The failure to conform to neutrality in this scenario is that there is a presupposition of 'justice' that consequently invokes an exclusion that is appropriate or warranted. To determine an outcome by coin flip, you exclude either outcome's potential need to represent a 'fair' judgement; resulting in a possible inbalance.

Further discussion

Sorry, Robert, but I just can't see this as being anything like a credible article on this topic. "Neutrality" as used in WP and CZ simply is not a model for understanding what scholars have said about the various topics going under the name "neutrality." --Larry Sanger 11:30, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I think I just don't have enough substantial background in philosophy to develop this article. If I had more direction and understanding I could probably write it; but now's just not a good time--I agree.--Robert W King 11:53, 9 July 2007 (CDT)