Talk:Neutral

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested move to neutrality[edit]

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. –Hajor 03:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Object to this move rather strenuously. If you look at the terms on the page, you'll find that most of them relate only to the adjective "neutral" and not to the noun "neutrality". -- SCZenz 07:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If anything should go, it's neutrality, not this. ··gracefool |☺ 08:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality has its own meanings. -- SCZenz 11:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made the proposal on the grounds that encyclopedia articles should have nouns as their titles, and because the current grammar of the introductory sentences is awful. I don't see how most of them relate only to the adjective 'neutral' and not to the noun 'neutrality'; the current wording doesn't determine what the article title should be. I do not understand gracefool's comment that anything ‘should go’ ... nor do I understand SCZenz's response. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 12:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "neutrality" is the noun corresponding to "neutral" in English doesn't mean you can use it in all contexts where you can use the adjective. There is no meaning to a "neutrality" alignment in D&D, a wire with "neutraility", or particle "neutrality". And I would bet, though I don't know for sure, that the Native American group is called "Neutral" and not "Neutrality" as well. So if I put a link to neutral in a particle physics article, and the disambig page talks about neutrality, that is silly. -- SCZenz 13:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: It's revealing to see "What links here" for the main article. DFH 23:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Neutrality itself?[edit]

I propose that we make a neutrality itself, maybe it could be called Neutrality_(concept) and we could discuss the problems and ideas surrounding neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sampi (talk • contribs)

Go for it! You could even call it neutrality, and have it link here and vice versa. -- SCZenz 06:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, there needs to be an article about the concept, which right now is ignored on Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there even ought to be a section on the so-called "myth of neutrality", the philosophical position that a completely neutral point of view is unattainable in principle. DFH 23:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to Switzerland[edit]

I propose that this article redirects to switzerland. Gerardo199 01:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no-one else appreciated your humour enough to leave a comment for the last six months. Very droll! DFH 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...Omgwt..bbq (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]