"Raphael Wegmann" wrote
editors need not self-censor, while engaged in writing the
encyclopedia articles. As decent people, they will self-censor in talk
discussion. Self-censorship is of course a basic social requirement.
So decency in article pages is forbidden, even if you
can be decent without loosing any informational content?
The problem with this approach is, that you will loose a lot of
readers and editors that way. Some of you will even be happy about
that, but NPOV is in severe danger, if you are offending
editors, who are members of a cultural resp. religious minority.
In the end you will have an American/British/Christian encyclopedia.
If this is what you're aiming at, I would not be interested.
You'd waste a big chance for intercultural exchange and
a true neutral point of view.
Too many assumptions. I don't know why you think that Christians might not
be offended, at some things: experience suggests otherwise. A secular point
of view itself offends some religious people. I would certainly defend the
idea that you can be secular and 'decent'. Who knows, even Richard Dawkins
might be offended by something here.
I don't want to lose editors from any point of view. But there is a real
problem with modifying articles, in order to incorporate the sensibilities
from any one side. Think for example if we had to write about Armenia, in a
way so as not to offend any Turkish readers. Or Nanjing, in a way so as not
to offend any Japanese readers. The list goes on.
Actually the only way not to offend anyone is to avoid all controversial
topics. It was decided, long ago, not to do that, and not to give the kind
of treatment you might find in government-approved history books.