2009/9/24 Fred Bauder <[email protected]>: > Typically in a situation like that, unless there are active supporters of > the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing > about their virtues.
Most historically prominent figures, no matter how vile, will have enough people interested in them to ensure that the article is reasonably well constructed; this doesn't automatically imply it's being done for partisan reasons. I think it's a little misleading to say that the only reason we can have a good, balanced, article on someone like Stalin is the hypothetical presence of active apologists! (I mean, we have an A-class article on Nero, and a FA on Diocletian. I don't think many of their supporters are still around...) > The major problem is with living persons who have had considerable press > regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be > significant published material regarding their virtues or even details > about their life. Yeah. This is the tough case. You mention below writing about the event, not the person, and I think this is the best way to go about it - if the notorious event wouldn't stand up as an article in its own right, should an article about the protagonist really be able to? -- - Andrew Gray [email protected] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
