On 24/11/2007, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca> wrote:
"NPOV" _is_ "neutrality." The two are synonymous.
That depends how you use it.
I think if you're being anal about it, neutrality is NPOV, but NPOV is not
simply neutrality; in the same sense that all lions are cats, but not all
cats are lions.
NPOV is bigger than neutrality; but if you're using neutrality as a slang
for NPOV, then yes, of course.
But notability and verifiability are, sadly, not synonymous in
their usage on Wikipedia. I think they should be but
therein lies the
great conflict of our time.
No, I absolutely don't think so. Just because something is verifiably true,
doesn't mean it should go in the wikipedia. Plenty of things are
unencyclopedic.
Even accepting that "notability" is going to be with us for the
forseeable future, though, I think it's a bad idea
to be applying it
widely on a sub-article level. We want our biography articles to contain
peoples' dates of birth, for example, but in very few cases is that date
of birth a "notable" fact. Simply a verifiable one.
On the contrary, I find that it's a notable fact if somebody significant
noted it, and that usually happens with a birthdate if the biography is that
of a significant person.
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.