Todd Allen wrote:
I noticed an interesting juxtaposition above. Star
Wars Kid, and the
glaring lack of the real name, was brought up. Charles stated above
that NPOV is not negotiable. I would hope, then, that he is entirely
for including the name in this article. The absolute overwhelming
majority of reliable sources reporting on the Star Wars Kid incident
used his real name. By failing to follow that lead, we are pushing a
POV, that POV being "They were wrong to publish that." Pushing a POV
by silence or removal is no more acceptable than pushing it by what we
do write. Given the number of sources which have so chosen to report,
that is clearly a minority, fringe POV, and has no place dominating an
article.
This is a somewhat anomalous situation, because it's really a single
fact that seems to be neither negative nor positive being omitted, and
the interpretation that it's non-neutral because others include this
fact is a bit of a stretch.
There are much more direct and worrying examples, mainly the omission of
widely-reported, well-sourced negative information which tends to make
the resulting articles non-neutral in that they're more positive than
the consensus view we're supposed to be summarizing.
-Mark