Now this turned into a discussion...
-- Alvaro On 20-02-2009, at 22:12, George Herbert <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
