On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
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.
Well, I wonder about that (I know nothing about the specific matter, which is a long war from anything I edit on). An omission is "pushing a POV", and about other media? There is a tremendous amount of constructive interpretation behind that. As well as some debatable grammar. Editors "push a POV", articles "fail to be neutral" (third person singular, not first person plural).
Charles
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well, we could just as easily say that the editors who are refusing to let the name be in the article are pushing their POV (that the name should not be published), and that, since the vast majority of reliable sources disagree, the article fails to be neutral because of this. I really don't think that changes the underlying meaning.