Emily Monroe wrote: >>> We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was >>> bad. >> >> I agree. >> >> But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the >> negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported >> information available? If I had ran across that as a new page >> patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe >> enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete >> and start over, or do we merely add the positive information? >> >> Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows >> Hitler was bad. We just state why.
I agree. I've seen attempts to introduce claimed NPOV into [[Adolf Hitler]] by saying, for example, that he revitalised the German economy, was a dog-lover, loved [[Eva Braun]], was a fair watercolourist, for example, but this is not what NPOV is about since they fail the test of comparative relevance. He is known for what he is known for, and there's no getting over that. Contrariwise, I've not seen attempts to amplify [[Stalin]]'s training for the priesthood, as if that would mitigate his later actions. Common-sense balance should suggest that we should report the major thrusts of a person's life and career, without seeking such mitigation simply to satisfy NPOV. As you say, Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. When it comes, for example, to [[O J Simpson]], it becomes more moot, although I could suggest others, such as [[Gary Glitter]] and [[Phil Spector]]. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l