2006/4/10, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk>uk>:
Surely anything can change if there is the will. It is
VERY simple. A
one line clarification in the NPOV Undue weight section.
Then editors can get on with editing, rather than policy-making decisions.
It's not as simple as that. A one-line clarification can only clarify
this much. One still can debate what is undue and what is not undue
weight. Some POVs are given undue weight by mentioning them on another
place than in the article of the group holding that opinion (for
example, as far as I know there hasn't been a serious flat-earth
movement in over 50 years, and I don't think they deserve a place in
the [[Earth]] article), others are given too little weight if they are
NOT mentioned in the appropriate article. Some can do with a short
remark (I think it would be good to add to [[blood transfusion]] that
Jehovah's witnesses and some other christian groups reject it on
religious grounds, but there's no need to spend two or three groups on
arguments for and against their point of view), others would need an
extensive and balanced treatment of two opposing points of view. Who
am I to decide what is and what isn't balanced treatment? And even if
I somehow get to be the judge on it, how on Earth could I state it in
a single line?
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels