On 3/31/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 3/31/07 10:43 AM, Ken Arromdee at arromdee(a)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