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