On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 3/31/07 10:43 AM, Ken Arromdee at arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Marc Riddell wrote:
This is in response to several recent posts. For the record, the
concept of
"do no harm" I was presenting to in WP was related to what information
we,
as editors, choose to include in biographies of persons. My point was
that
to consciously include gratuitous, tabloid-like junk in a biographical article is unnecessarily harmful to the person.
"Do no harm" and "do no unnecessary harm" are *vastly* different.
Harm - in any form - no matter how it is phrased - should be unacceptable.
Marc
If I'm not mistaken, there is a lot of bitterness in the Armenian community about the Turkish genocide. Doesn't having an article about the Turkish massacre of the Armenians harm the Turks by supporting the Armenian bitterness against the Turks? Hell, doesn't having any article which objectively states facts that aren't to the liking of somebody harm that entity?
I still fail to see why "Do no harm" should be elevated to the status of a pillar of WP, or above that. It's a good principle, but if it means throwing out NPOV or accuracy, I know what I'd go with.
Johnleemk