I really think what is happening right now is a double standard per your own
political views. Your examples are meaningless in the context of this
discussion.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The specific facts of the issue are key to the issue.
When this
specific issue is presented as "two equal sides" the article looks
horrible - the same is true of [[Earth]] when we present flat-earthers
and spherical earthers as two equal sides, or of anything in
[[Category:Biology]] when we present Creationism and Biological
science as two equal sides. If this was a case of "He said, she said"
between Armenia and Turkey, the article would be horribly unbalanced.
But it's not.
Overall, we know (fairly well) how to deal with this kind of thing.
[[Evolution]], for instance, handles it very well. But until we
clearly establish that this is "One government's official position and
a few nationalists" against "Twenty two government's official
positions (plus many more subnational ones) and the relevant
historical and legal scholarly positions" we can't see why we have to
just present the truth with a footnote about denial (actually, we've a
whole article on the subject). The general principle are well
established.
And since White Cat asked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
Cheers,
WilyD
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM, White Cat
<wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Per COI I would prefer not to get involved more
than this discussion on
the
mailing list. I will say that a pre-determined
approach calling one
side as
a minority opinion may be problematic. You may
know this but both sides
on
such controversial issues exaggerate their
claims. You even see
fake/forged
documents... So it is important to have an open
mind and avoid
pre-determined views.
No one would call the atomic bombings of Japan as a mere picnic.
Likewise
not everybody would call it a genocide. A
balance is important.
Classification and recognition of Armenian Genocide may be a seperate
article just like in the deal with atomic bombings - just an idea.
I really do not envy the task in front of you.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was
this thread that got
me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to
debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the
event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that
issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk
about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the
meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious
article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost
certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and
uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly
"fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l