Welcome, Jim!
--- Jim McKeeth <jim(a)mckeeth.org> wrote:
I agree with Jason but I would add it depends on the
scope of the
article. For example in an article about the
Holocaust you would not get
into the details of the denial, but you might
mention that some deny it and
then link to articles about those groups. This
would hold true for any
false (or generally accepted false) belief or
statement believed or made by
a group.
Exactly. It is a fact that there are Holocaust
deniers. We should not exclude this information from
the encyclopedia; on the contrary, by including it
along with the overwhelming weight of history, we do a
service to our readers by allowing them to see the
nonsense for what it really is.
Your idea about briefly mentioning it and then linking
to the [[Holocaust denial]] article is exactly what we
should be doing.
But I think the reverse should be held true for
religion. I have seen a
number of articles in regards to religion and other
"unpopular" topics that
have the opposition within the article. I believe
that the article should
solely talk about the subject and only mention the
opposition (counter
arguement) and then link to an article that focuses
on it.
Yes. For example, when talking about Christianity,
there's no need to go into great deal about the
historical Jesus. Instead, mention and link to an
article that deals with the question.
<snipped another good example about Pascal>
That is just my $0.02 worth. BTW, I am new here, my
name is Jim and I look
forward to eventually making meaningful
contributions to WikiPedia as time
permits while retaining my day job and my family.
;-)
I have a job, a wife and a young child, and I;ve
managed to hold things together. Good luck. :)
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
http://news.yahoo.com