The Cunctator wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Hum, I pretty much agree with that Meta-Wikipedia article, but I don't see how the *definition* of NPOV is at fault. No article will ever perfectly satisfy the current definition, which is therefore an ideal, and I don't see any proposal for replacing that definition.
That's what "NPOV is an ideal" is.
What's what "NPOV is an ideal" is? A definition? "an ideal" isn't a definition.
Surely you don't want Wikipedia to state as fact that George W. Bush is an awful US President! But if it doesn't, then it won't contain that piece of knowledge; it will at best only contain the knowledge that certain people hold that view for certain reasons. (Well, it might contain that piece of knowledge for a little while, but that would surely be quickly replaced by a more NPOV version, as we strive ever more for the elusive NPOV ideal.)
Exactly.
OK, so again we seem to agree on NPOV -- except that I can't see where this contradicts the definition on [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I mean, I get *everything* (it seems), and basically agree, except the idea that it has to do with any *definition*.
I press because I do want to understand you, and I sense that you have a point in using that word. Please, define "neutral point of view".
(Or tell me where on meta or something this has happened before. I can't find any extensive discussion involving you now, but I'm sure that some must be preserved somewhere.)
-- Toby