Timwi wrote:
Imagine death penalty was universally accepted as an
adequate
punishment. Do you think our articles would mention any concerns of
the moral/ethical implications of it? Certainly not. Not because these
concerns are invalid or anything, but because no POV represents them.
Thus, favouring death penalty *is* *the* NPOV of that hypothetical world.
That's an interesting approach that I think I support. As long as the
supporters of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were the only ones
writing on the subject their views would be NPOV. (In reality that NPOV
would not last.) Similarly, as long as there is only one chocolate cake
recipe it represents NPOV, but this NPOV would have a better
survivability than the one on PEZ.
Where more than one view is made evident it is unlikely that ANY one
such view will be NPOV. NPOV becomes an exercise in tolerance of the
other idiot's POV. ;-)
Ec