-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Fastfission wrote:
That's not true. They both allow for attributed
POV and analysis.
"Respected scholar John Doe has said that the impact of Pepys on
future literature is incalcuable, and at least 20 books per decade are
published on him."
..and so forth would be perfectly in line with NPOV and NOR. What
would not be appropriate are unattributed, "universalized" statements
of value, but there's nothing in NPOV or NOR which says that all value
statements whatsoever should be stripped out of articles.
And if the hypothetical statement above is only half of the story, it
is easy enough to add a line of "Though some other scholars, such as
Jane Doe, think that he is often overrated, pointing to his lack of
intersubjective hyperbolity in his later work" or whatever the case
may be.
We can push viewpoints, if we identify whose viewpoint it is and we
give them and other relevant viewpoints their own representation in a
neutral and attributed way. We just can't push *our own* viewpoints.
Can the Foundation create another project whose job it is to create
viewpoints that we can then cite?
Or is this the job of Wikisource and Wikibooks?
Or aren't we allowed to cite them, per the "no self-references" rule?
- --
Alphax | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ19CrbMAAH8MeUlWAQgoqQgAozeQmrEb/riTxz3zb9jwgwjFIcw+NM6+
Zs8pY+1sfVWM2jTgT/bNQdeKyAEJBG8czQrtNvqaA6u0PlYW4YYcSooqzpiTmEgh
dQ4wScurQo1Z7mdxA5/Lvv1a4u6kPF9y4TssiSmEQCwrMxcLqzmcGaHHEGMsIt+t
ZuKVgLAEkI+KgWpZ76M+nm/omA9t8mrrjQj09sQOhkloh6W0XqTHPwnGCrPG/AFq
xiwrKAGrSMsBxkZzxuFjnTWxxPWgyLz1y8PFnzv3W++Z9qP/vFzvps/1qyEU4C+t
J9Dgs3iw9qvuF2dPKYKkqKYOaBFvQ6PgbKTFzaFrtVpgOrEoLmSTGg==
=2uWE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----