On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jake Nelson wrote:
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > Yes, just put it back on the page. What about the basic question of
> whether
> > Wikipedia should be NPOV, and how we do that? Maybe we should finally stop
> > circumventing that question and actually discuss it. Would be useful, I'd
> > say.
>
> ... what? NPOV is the one absolute of Wikipedia. Now, we sometimes disagree
> about what approach is most neutral (there's a tendency these days towards
> No Point of View, which is quite different), but NPOV is the keystone of
> everything here.
Sorry. I intended to put some irony in my remark, which apparently was not
understood completely.
What I meant was that JT and Eloquence both are convinced that they are
working for NPOV - and yet do exactly the opposite. To me, the question
is not in the first place what to do with the MT article. To me, the question
is in the first place is what to do with NPOV. Or rather, how to define
NPOV, and which NPOV to use.
It's a difficult subject, but also one that needs to be addressed, in my
opinion.
Andre Engels