I agree with Rick that there should be no whitewashing of dictators.

There is a significant difference between NPOV and "moral relativism", just as there is a difference between NPOV and "political correctness".

Moral relativism says that there are no values. NPOV does not say this, but as a practical matter insists that no article be used to take a stand endorsing or opposing any values. I hope this is not too subtle a distinction for everyone to grasp. Indeed, I'm sure it's not.

Political correctness is a little tougher nut to crack (partly because some advocates claim it doesn't exist!) Perhaps they should read Lynne Cheney's book about the hundreds of academics who were silenced or fired in America for making "politically incorrect" statements. (Book title supplied on request, let's not go off on a tangent here.)

In general, political correctness means suppressing ideas or their expression on the grounds that someone "might" be offended, or because the ideas run counter to liberal orthodoxy. A raging controversy has been brewing, the last ten years or so, over whether PC even exists, let alone what should be done about it.

Our Wikipedia article about it never got even close to describing the phenomenon, due to what I regard as censorship. I can't fight every battle, so I left it alone. Better a lousy peace than a really horrible war, I guess.

Neutrality at Wikipedia does not mean asserting that all views are okay, or that no POVs are important or true. It does not mean avoiding any mention or description of controversy.

NPOV simply means not using the clout of the Wikipedia to endorse or condemn any concept, action or person. We don't take sides. We just report the facts; and if we can't determine the facts, then we report what the various sides SAY the facts are.

All conclusions are left to the reader.

Ed Poor