This is one of those occasions where NPOV is
prescriptive as well as
descriptive.
We should point out that the term has been abused to a point where many
people are not aware of its original meanings, but that should not stop
us from, using it correctly.
But how can we use it correctly and at the same time say that "it cannot
be used in a constructive way"?
In the same way, the page on Swastika explains the
origins of the symbol
as well as its misuse, and does not shirk from showing an image of one.
Yes, but the page does not say something along the line "Since the Nazi time,
there is no good reason any more to show a Swastika".
N.B.: As said, I have already kind of resolved it. I have put my own text
in a separate article, with a reference to the "Aryan" article to say that
it's not really etymologically correct usage of the term. I have removed the
line I had a problem with from the article (something that reasonable people
disagree with is POV, and I assume you and I are reasonable people), added a
link to my article and left the rest as it was.
Andre Engels
>I would like to write some stub article on the
Aryan invasion in India
>(ca. 1700 BC). However, when I get to the Wikipedia page on 'Aryan', I read
>"[The term Aryan] can no longer be used in any constructive way."
>
>So what am I to do now?
>1. Make up some new word to describe the concept,
>2. Just delete that text from the page,
>3. Just write my own piece as if this text is not there?