On 24/11/2007, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@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.