On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Phil Nash <[email protected]>wrote:
> Judson Dunn wrote: > >> For your comedy pleasure :) > >> > >> http://xkcd.com/545/ > >> > >> chaos! :) > > It's actually a good point; when one looks at our articles on Adolf Hitler > or Pol Pot, a neutral point of view is somewhat unlikely, because we have > to > report verifiable facts, and such articles cannot be rescued by stuff like > "but he was good to his mother" on that point. Some people seem to think > that NPOV means whitewashing, and that has to be nonsense. Maybe the > examples I've given are extreme, but I do see it on a daily basis. I'll get > me coat. > Neutrality doesn't mean "we don't report negative facts about people". It means that we don't call Hitler a mentally ill puppetmaster who murdered millions of women and children because of his inferiority complex. The facts of the Holocaust and WW2 speak for themselves - we can present them in a neutral manner and let readers conclude that he was a dark, evil, sick bastard all on their own, without us spelling it out. Neutrality has nothing to do with excluding verifyable negative facts. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
