2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera <albertoserra(a)ukr.net>et>:
"extending and correcting history" sounds a
bit arbitrary, to say the least.
I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even
evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history book,
not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the
bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand
documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream
view altogether seems wrong to me.
Well, it's not a case of ignoring the mainstream view. However, the
discussion is about whether we are to discuss the mainstream view
(that Boniface was killed by robbers) and then the criticisms of it
(that it might for example have been a planned action of Frisians
resisting christening), or whether we are to spend at least as much
space to this person's private ideas (that Bonifatius was executed
because thirty years earlier he had torn down some holy oaks).
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels