[WikiEN-l] NOR contradicts NPOV

[Ray Saintonge]

WJhonson at aol.com wrote:
> It isn't  necessary to go so far back. A large part of the important 
> mathematics of  the 1980s and 1990s does not appear in textbooks, or
> does so only  implicitly, because there is little incentive for 
> anyone to rewrite  it.>>
>  
> This is a contradiction.  If work on Number Theory were "important"  than 
> surely my new book on Number Theory would include it.
> If editors are solely referring to old notebooks, than that's their own  
> issue.
> That doesn't prevent the rest of us, from using only the newest textbooks  if 
> we so choose.
> The very definition of "important" is, that many people cite it.
> If no one cites it, it's not important.
>   
This is a bizarre definition of "important"; it might work for 
"influential" or "popular", but that is not what makes something 
important.  Many new ideas are tangential to a general education about a 
subject, but are no less important to the advancement of knowledge.  
Textbooks are instruments for parroting  the party line of received 
wisdom.  They do little to address controversial issues.

Ec