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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l