On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:39:52 -0500, "Alec Conroy"
<alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overstock.com&diff=156282353&…
1: ArbCom has not ruled on this 2: please explain how NPOV applies on talk page
As you say, damnatio memoriae was swiftly rejected-- but the next time
somebody makes an orwell references, remember there was a time when
some people really said "absolutely no *reference* to unpersons
allowed in Wikipedia", and we went to arbcom over it.
Actually, as that last link shows, it was an "anonymous website" -
did we have a source for it being Bagley at the time? I thought he
only admitted it later. And the content mentions that the site
existed, so actually the encyclopaedia covered it. Not well, but
it covered it.
Oh, and the "unperson" had a whole article to himself, which is not
quite how I understand not *mentioning* the supposed unperson.
Plus it was over two months ago, and you appeared to be suggesting
that this was still an issue now, which as far as I can tell it is
not. Do you have a more recent example?
So much is down to detail and nuance, isn't it?
Guy (JzG)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG