Now this turned into a discussion...
--
Alvaro
On 20-02-2009, at 22:12, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Phil Nash
<pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
Judson Dunn wrote:
> For your comedy pleasure :)
>
>
http://xkcd.com/545/
>
> chaos! :)
It's actually a good point; when one looks at our articles on Adolf
Hitler
or Pol Pot, a neutral point of view is somewhat unlikely, because
we have
to
report verifiable facts, and such articles cannot be rescued by
stuff like
"but he was good to his mother" on that point. Some people seem to
think
that NPOV means whitewashing, and that has to be nonsense. Maybe the
examples I've given are extreme, but I do see it on a daily basis.
I'll get
me coat.
Neutrality doesn't mean "we don't report negative facts about
people". It
means that we don't call Hitler a mentally ill puppetmaster who
murdered
millions of women and children because of his inferiority complex.
The facts of the Holocaust and WW2 speak for themselves - we can
present
them in a neutral manner and let readers conclude that he was a
dark, evil,
sick bastard all on their own, without us spelling it out.
Neutrality has nothing to do with excluding verifyable negative facts.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l