The introduction states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This is further clarified as all significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one, that readers are left to form their own opinions, that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each, and that we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone.
This is in direct conflict with what follows under the Pseudoscience heading:
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false... The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view.
There are two problems here:
1. The entire subsection is written from a scientific point of view, which is by definition cannot be NPOV.
2. The article supposes that the scientific point of view represents the majority, which cleary may not generally be true.
I would suggest a serious NPOV reword, including the title, which in itself is POV. Aquirata 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line regarding pseudoscience & the NPOV policy appears to be (at least it appears thus to me) that wikipedia recommends to describe pseudoscience as ... ehm... err... pseudoscience. Do you have a problem with that? --Francis Schonken 15:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is also that "significant minority" views are often claimed to be "extremely small / tiny /extreme" views, and excluded completely. --Iantresman 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, @Aquirata:) Well, about your second point, I think in fact you are right, example:
So maybe the paragraph could be changed to
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their scientific/pseudoscientific validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in reliable sources. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
But I don't completely agree with your first point. You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a POV assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself. It shouldn't, in the same way that Popper's demarcation criterion (i.e. falsifiability - [2]), is itself not "scientific" according to its own criterion. The criterion is philosophical (duh! - Popper was a philosopher). In the same way Wikipedia's NPOV policy describes, among other wikipedia policies and guidelines, how (and/or "what selection of") human knowledge Wikipedia attempts to contain (see also wikipedia:what Wikipedia is not) - that is never Point Of View-free, see also wikipedia:neutral point of view#The neutral point of view, second paragraph: "[..] the neutral point of view is a point of view [...]". --Francis Schonken 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, pseudoscience should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience.
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of pseudoscience. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on view: for example the neo-positivist views of the Wiener Kreis on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, Karl Popper's unique demarcation criterion, falsifiability. Note that Wikipedia is not equipped to test the scientific validity of a theory (see wikipedia:no original research), but can only record and summarize what reliable sources have contended regarding the topic at hand.
I'll second Francis Schonken on that - there is a line between NPOV and being so inclusive of minority points of view that you repeat their own framing of an issue, which is an inherently biased point of view again - in other words, some points of view are opposed to the official Wikipedia point of view of using a neutral point of view. Minority points of view often go farther than advocating that their position is equally valid or equally scientific, but declare Opposite Day and characterize the mainstream or consensus point of view or scientific paradigm to be fringe and pseudoscientific - for example, as Cardinal Schönborn did in his NYTimes op-ed characterizing "intelligent design" as the only scientifically valid theory for the origin of species and organic evolution as pseudoscience, or this guy advocating that it is unscientific to believe that the Apollo missions actually landed on the Moon. At some point, choosing objective facts over arbitrary impressions is taking a point of view. Otherwise, we're reduced to the sort of "he said she said" that allows all arbitrary opinions to share equal billing with observable reality. There is no way to please the ubiquitous segment of the population that thinks reality has a well-known liberal bias, nor should we try. Rather, if we make discerning selections from reputably referenced sources to accurately characterize mainstream and minority points of view as such, we'll be in good shape. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl) 23:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
How are we to write articles about alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscientific' topics)?
If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we will be describing alternative views without asserting whether they are true or false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, alternative views were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority view as the majority view and the minority view as the minority view; both (or "all" if there are more than two) views can be qualified according to their scientific/alternative validity, that is, balanced according to the respective weight of such qualifications given in reliable sources. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.
The existence of alternative bodies of knowledge can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant. However, alternative views should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportional to the rest of the article.
There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of alternative bodies of knowledge ('pseudoscience') can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to believers of those alternative views. Further, the "demarcation" of what is science and what isn't can be very different, depending on view: for example the neo-positivist views of the Wiener Kreis on what defines "science" are fairly different from, and basicly incompatible with, Karl Popper's unique demarcation criterion, falsifiability. Note that Wikipedia is not equipped to test the scientific validity of a theory (see wikipedia:no original research), but can only record and summarize what reliable sources have contended regarding the topic at hand.
You're kind of making an assumption (in all clarity: *also* a POV assumption) that the NPOV policy should by definition be NPOV itself.
Some of the relevant content is being pushed to support fraud. This will increase as WP looks like a credible reference, and if it is unchecked (for instance by prefacing such articles "This is a fraud") WP's credibility as a reference will decline again as it slumps into a mass of spam. Conversely, in respect of some of these frauds, quackeries etc, such as Rife "science", multiplication of websites and therefore Google hits is a part of the multi-level marketing or other apparatus of the fraud. To take it that if there are some number of Google hits this indicates a level of belief that requires aWP appear credulous is not a good idea. The suggestion above that a scientific attitude to (scientific) topics excludes all but the mainstream view is not born out by experience, however, if someone persists in claiming that vibrations of th right frequency can explode bacteria and cure disease, for instance, this is not material which should be placed in a WP article, unless it is clearly labelled, and moreover labelled where it will show in the minimal snippet that Google shows for hits, that it is untrue/bad data/a health fraud/scam etc. Explain what is without weight, but not what is notMidgley 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Aquirata 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I see the arguments by the pseudoscience crowd to rewrite our bedrock policy have been resurrected. In fact, it all looks very familiar. Almost as if I've read this before. FeloniousMonk 03:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
— Dunc|☺ 11:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, (a) you can't possible know whether those who present such an argument are part of the "pseudoscience crowd", even though are are entitled to your opinion (b) However, labelling such editors as such apears to be an example of an ad hominem, as described in Wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attacks.
I will also point out that Wikipedia policy is not your bedrock policy, but the policy of all who contribute to Wikipedia. I suspect that such arguments will be raised time and time again, until a more contructive solution can be found that doesn't involve name-calling. --Iantresman 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch, your comment that certain groups find "science to be scary and bad" seems similar to the counterpart, why do scientists find "neutrally describing minority views, to be scary and bad" --Iantresman 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is, for Wikipedia's purposes, at best an extreme minority opinion. The sources for pseudoscience do not qualify as reliable sources, so excluding them from pages about science is not a violation of the NPOV policy. Hutton Gibson may promote a pseudoscientific geocentric view of the solar system, but since he is not a reliable source, and his views are extreme minority opinions, this viewpoint does not belong in the Solar System article. Of course, it can be (and is discussed) in the Modern geocentrism article, which is an article specifically about this pseudo-scientific theory. Jayjg (talk) 18:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, Aquirata is doing what newbies are expected to do: going to talk rather than revert warring.
Maybe the verbiage can have a salutatory affect. Add: "Insofar as an SPOV implies giving prominence to reliable, peer and editorially reviewed work, it accords with the broader aim of presenting neutral information" before "However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy" (perhaps also add: "or change to the name of this policy").
This doesn't answer Aquirata's concern (sorry) but it more clearly explains why the supposed contradiction does not exist. Marskell 18:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Look. Pseudoscience is plainly an ideological slur. Is creationism pseudoscience? Some would say yes. Others no. Somehow, creationism rises above this SPOV/NPOV fray because it is seems to have powerful and notable adherents, despite the sheer number of Darwinians who discard it out of hand.
Creationism and flat earth are prime examples of what exactly NPOV is. You point out the belief, and you point out the antitheses of the belief. You don't make assertions or content exclusions based on which one you like best, or even which one most people like best. MPOV is not NPOV.
An encyclopedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Even false knowledge, duly opposed by the presentation of contrary knowledge. And more to the point, vice versa.
SPOV changes over time. NPOV doesn't. We look back at the work of Galileo and realize he was right. But his opinion was not the SPOV of the time. It was, rather, the pseudoscience of the time. The question becomes: would the 1600s Wikipedia have included Galileo's solarcentric nonsense? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Even though I'm not a psychologist, it is interesting to observe how a logical argument about the core of Wikipedia disintegrates into a political debate. Looking at the discussion, it is clear to me that no consensus exists with respect to this matter. What we have yet to see is a logical argument addressing the original issue at hand (i.e. contradiction within NPOV policies). As far as I'm concerned, all other questions that have been raised so far are secondary in nature, and so must take a back seat. If we cannot resolve an internal contradiction in logic, how are we to credibly write about anything at all? Granted, some of you may not care too much about my point of view, which is fine. A self-contradictory policy is also fine as long as we recognize the situation and take steps to correct it.
In summary, I look forward to your logical arguments directly addressing the original matter. Aquirata 20:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for logical arguments to prove that the following statements of fact, deductions and lines of reasoning are faulty in some way.
The term 'pseudoscience' must be replaced with a suitable alternative so it becomes NPOV
The Pseudoscience section must be rewritten so it becomes NPOV
Unless somebody comes up with a reasoned reply expressly pointing out the fault in the above line of reasoning, we will have no choice but to conclude that Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory in nature. So I may add:
Wikipedia NPOV policies are self-contradictory
And even worse:
The Wikipedia community is practicing hypocrisy
I see very serious issues here that have not been properly addressed. You can talk about secondary questions all you like, but that won't make the problems highlighted here go away. Aquirata 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Aquirata, better articles are our goal, not better policies. Wikipedia exists to create and publish articles. Our policies exist only to expedite that process. [4] Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. KISS is an important underlying philosophy of Wikipedia. The WP:NPOV policy is clear to most editors, perfect wording is not important (or even possible.) FloNight talk 03:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. Again - but this time I'll be less subtle ~:-O
The first item is not a contradiction. It adds deductions where none are needed (use in practice) and leaves out an important step: the consensus process. This is how things go in practice:
Options are:
The second item: Wikipedia NPOV policy is non-negotiable and therefore not subject to the NPOV policy.
Only option:
AvB ÷ talk 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
AvB, Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out. Let me try to paraphrase your post to see whether I understand it correctly:
Is this correct?
As for the options:
Aquirata 20:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, let me paraphrase:
Please bear with me as this is leading to the basis for Wikipedia's existence. Aquirata 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
With no direct response from AvB, I have to conclude that my assumptions above are correct. Essentially:
Moreover, it was asserted that this represents consensus opinion.
The first point is in direct contradiction to the WP:CG guideline, in which it is stated under 4.1 Category naming: "Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles", and also: "make sure [categories] do not implicitly violate the neutral point of view policy". It also implicitly contradicts Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people: "Use the most neutral and/or generic name", and Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality: "Terminology must be neutral".
Furthermore, WP:NPOV states:
"This policy in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes reader-facing templates, categories, and portals." Please note the word categories.
With respect to the Pseudoscience section within WP:NPOV, the current wording has essentially been in existence since the second draft. The Pseudoscience section has only been seriously debated in Archive_005. The non-neutral wording never came into question, although one attempt by User:FT2 was made to amend the text with four paragraphs, starting with Science doesn't know everything. This change was reverted and never debated.
The assertion that the neutrality of the Pseudoscience section of WP:NPOV has been debated at length doesn't appear to be supported in the archives.
Furthermore, the first line of the second draft reads as follows: This is an old page--the draft has been developed into an article, which can be edited here. Please note the word article with respect to WP:NPOV.
WP:NPOV also states: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." This wording doesn't appear to imply that the policy is non-negotiable.
Since WP:NPOV is an editable article, and the policy applies to all articles, it follows that the policy itself must reflect the neutral point of view.
I hope that the two conclusions above have been shown now to be true to everyone's satisfaction. The only saving grace that the community has left is the objection: but this represents consensus opinion. However, the history of the Pseudoscience category and the lack of debate about the Pseudoscience section in WP:NPOV do not seem to bear this out. There may be resistance to change, but that doesn't equal consensus opinion. If it did, the Wikipedia community would be in serious trouble because it is enforcing naming conventions and wordings in direct contradiction to its own bedrock policies and guidelines. In which case resolving this issue belongs to a higher level within the Wikipedia hierarchy. Aquirata 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to once again explain another faulty premise: the idea that the editing of policy-related pages is subject to the WP:NPOV policy. It is subject to consensus between Wikipedia editors and to intervention by Jimbo et al. Policy-related pages must be kept consistent with WP:NPOV, a policy whose text is negotiable—except for its core, which is given at the top of this article: "NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias". AvB ÷ talk 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I see only one aspect here that looks (but isn't) recursive: the definition of pseudoscience (which is technically a part of the policy) is currently relegated to the Pseudoscience article. The latter has to conform to WP:NPOV. Which is fine, and gets us to yet another false premise: the idea that Wikipedia editors are required or allowed to create the pseudoscience definition. We have to report it. AvB ÷ talk 12:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, what Aquirata sees as the bottom line is, in fact, a misunderstanding of the top line of this policy page. In Aquirata's defense I will say that the text (but not the use in practice) just conceivably could lead to exactly this type of misunderstanding, so I have slightly copyedited it, bringing a fundamental aspect present in the text markup (visible in the edit window) into plain view on the page as displayed to the reader. I would not have thought of this improvement without Aquirata's input. AvB ÷ talk 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following two sentences from the section "Characterizing opinions of people's work":
The latter statement is simply false. No reputable scholars argue that there is such a case to be made; a tiny number of unreputable scholars believe it. There should be an example like this, but this is not it. NPOV does not mean, as Jimbo has stated many times, including information believed by a tiny and marginal minority, and the policy page should not make it seem like it does. Chick Bowen 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Reverting, please find talk page consensus *first* (that's not something that usually happens in 24 minutes between two of your own comments on a talk page).
Here's your version:
A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions. Wikipedia articles about art, artists, and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have tended toward the effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. We might not be able to agree that so-and-so is the greatest guitar player in history, but it may be important to describe how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts. Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For example, William Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus has been considered one of his most interesting plays by some readers,[1] a relative failure by others,[2] and by a few to have been written by someone else;[3] a proper article includes the history of these interpretations without passing judgment on them. Note that determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research, but once determined, a clear statement of that reception is far more useful and in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia than a mere statement of opinion.
A remark: this version doesn't contain any external references to support its Shakespeare example by factual evidence, so the example is not nearly as good as the one you deleted. It doesn't show editors how to go about such things, but promotes weasel wording like "has been considered" without evidence. --Francis Schonken 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
All right, I've now put the references into my version above; I'd welcome any comments. Chick Bowen 04:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, should have spelled it out: I still object like I did before. Too long, isn't as clear as the previous version (I mean in the sense of not making clear how Wikipedia's NPOV policy is intended), and confuses while a bit wishy-washy about the "truth seekers" thing (I mean, compare Wikipedia:verifiability#Verifiability, not truth).
Chick Bowen's only argument has been thus far "I know the truth and the truth is that there is no reputable scholar that ever argued that there is a strong case to make that the author of much of the work still attributed to Shakespeare was his contemporary Christopher Marlowe."
Sorry, seems like you're missing the point of the NPOV policy, and want to mold it to something else. Note that the NPOV policy page is not an article about Shakespeare, but err, ehm, ... a page on the NPOV policy. Don't start to change it before you're sure to understand. --Francis Schonken 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I tried, Will, I tried. Apparently Larry Sanger was right after all. Chick Bowen 03:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Francis removed the Tacitus quote, stating "Augustus/Tiberius seems quite out of place here".
I originally added this as a parallel to the quote in WP:V. This is where the famous "sine ira et studio" is found - people are acknowledging the "neutral point of view" since antiquity. See Gaius_Cornelius_Tacitus#Approach_to_history for more context.
OK, if this is removed then this either needs elaboration or shouldn't be here at all. Dr Zak 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Zak,
Anyway, if it would be included in the NPOV policy (which all in all I'd support), I'd put it here with the Augustus/Tiberius part taken out (so the format as it is in the Tacitus article currently). --Francis Schonken 07:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy says that NPOV is a viewpoint. This means that the objective is NOT to make an article neutral sounding as if nobody knows what the truth is about any subject. It is a viewpoint because NPOV only comes into play when dealing with the reliable sources and the data given us about the subject at hand by them. This means that if you find 10 reliable (verifiable) sources all saying a positive thing about the subject, that means that the resulting "Neutral Point of View" is positive. It does not mean we should take that positive and neutralize it so that anyone who comes along will feel that it is neutral (meaning neither positive nor negative). The "N" in NPOV only means that we must rely accurately on what the reliable sources give us. Saxifrage and Schonken apparently have not understood this up until now. The "Neutral" in NPOV means to heed fairly what the reliable sources say. If all reliable sources say something negative then NPOV results in negative. If reliable sources are split and oppose each other, then the NPOV comes out neutral. My edit emphasized this because many people misunderstand it and it needs to be made clear. It is the cause of lots of problems on WP. NPOV should ultimately be renamed because it was a mistake to use the "N" and is throwing everyone off by making people falsely think the resulting articles should always sound neutral no matter what the reliable sources contain. This is a disaster. --Diligens 13:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Diligens wrote: "Your view of NPOV is a common mistake. NPOV can be positive, neutral or negative depending upon the reliable source data. That is NPOV." - Diligens, could you please explain how you arrived at your definition of the NPOV c.q. your interpretation of WP:NPOV? I think it would be illuminating to learn if you are basing this on your interpretation of the current policy language, or perhaps on your observations of how things are done in practice. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I think I've figured out what the problem here is: You are confusing verifiability of support with verifiability of truth. To be neutral, we must include any position that is verifiabily held by at least a significant minority. We do not, however, require that their opinions be verifiably true. In other words, we say Booth assassinated Lincoln, and it is neutral. Not because it's true, but because no one opposes us. If that's not what you are talking about, then you're apparently just ranting about something that is already covered: under the verifiability criteria, content cannot be included, POV or not, if it is verifiable. In other words, the NPOV guideline is subordinate to verifiability already. --tjstrf 04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Near the top we have this summation: "It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject."
Later: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone...Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically."
I realize there is a difference between having having a sympathetic tone (not deriding something) and being sympathetic to (actually being partisan) and I don't think we have a flat contradiction here. However, the opposed uses of sympathy is a weakness I think. Perhaps drop sympathy in the last. Marskell 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 00:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
in the back of ones brain.
spin or bias. In other words; propaganda tools are disallowed.
Thats "sympathetic" only in that it is exclusive specifically of "negative." To put it a very different way, neutrality forbids straw man arguments.
Theres a big problem in reconciling reporting on a view or position that a person or group takes that is negative. The biggest meltdown point is determining the difference between interjecting ones own spin, and reporting some body elses spin as they spun it, not as you might spin it.
is trying to involve that group on that isue more like piecing together a brand new position paper and original research? Should the Greens get only 1 percent of the air time, as i am sure the Republicans and Democrats would like? (Or, better yet, just freeze all of american politics into the tyranny of a duality false dillema.)
There is currently a dipute on Talk:Muhammad as to how Muhammad should be described in the introductory sentence. The academic view is that he is the founder of Islam; the Muslim religious view is that he is the final prophet of God, but not the founder of Islam because Islam is eternal. So, some editors advocate that only the academic view must be presented in the introductory sentence, although the Muslim view must be given full credit elsewhere in the article, including the intro. Other editors argue that both academic and Muslim views must be presented in the first sentence, or alternatively, the first sentence must be formulated in a neutral fashion without giving advantage to either view. The root of the dispute, it seems, lies in the way WP:NPOV is presented now; namely, that the policy deals mainly with the conflicting academic POVs, but not with views stemming from two entirely different discourses. I'll be glad to hear input on that issue. Pecher Talk 09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)