any information provided _can_ be presented from the NPOV.)
If there is some group claiming that Jews "started" WWII;
or "invented" the Holocaust or
"are a bunch of greedy hypocrites who should be driven into the Sea" or
(insert favorite anti-Semitic idea here) --
then we simply write that Group A _believes_ this.
I don't think so.
Okay, some novelist did some superficial research, and now he claims that Eisenhower killed 6 million Germans. So what? Just say "Novelist XYZ claims in Book B that blah, blah, blah."
Why? What is the point of including outrageous, obvious false material?
On the other hand, if an article has too much information from one side, contributors may want to balance it with other information.
- "Most scholars regard the article as having no significant effect on
Hitler's plans."
- "All but a handful of historians dismiss Holocaust Denial as utterly
absurd."
A false statement in itself, I know of no historian who accepts holocaust denial.
any information is welcome, every person is welcome. We need only _phrase_
contributions neutrally and (if needed) _balance_ articles.
I don't think false information is welcome or people who persist in either putting false information into articles or creating a false impression by selective presentation of facts. How it is to be decided when this is happening may be difficult but I think it's good policy.
Fred replying to:
Ed Poor