Stephen Bain wrote:
On 3/29/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
He's notable for his academic work. His personal life should be briefly mentioned if at all. "He divorced his wife in a messy court battle" (or however you say that neutrally). The details are not important to an article about him.
If it's something a reader would reasonably expect to be mentioned in an article, because it was a famous incident (even if it's rubbish), then it'll need to be mentioned in the article, because otherwise it'll be readded and readded and readded.
...and that's the substance of NPOV: addressing all significant views on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Not a significant view? Don't include it. Significant, but not prevalent? Don't give it much space.
Significant and prevalent are still subjective concepts. Nevertheless, to the extent that these views are allowable it needn't be all on one person's shoulders to include them all. While it is a great ideal to write from the other person's perspective, this is still best done by a person with that perspective.
If a view has been published only in a small town newspaper, which caters for a local audience, then it's probably not significant, and as such, shouldn't be included.
That's just another level of the arguments about whether to have articles on small towns themselve, their schools or other institutions. In time they are all includible. What makes a small town newspaper any less reliable than one from a big city?
Also remember that when you have only one source on a subject, no matter where it was published, you're going to struggle to fairly address all significant views on the subject by relying on it alone.
You're assuming that differing views exist. You may have only one source, but someone else may have another. If there truly is only one source there is no struggle, and any attempt to describe these views would be original research.
Ec