At 04:29 AM 9/4/02 -0700, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Michael R. Irwin wrote:
The totality of the material presented should not be selected to support the frame or view that the Holocaust was undeserved.
But, the Holocaust was undeserved. That's as uncontroversial a fact as "The Earth goes around the Sun".
Exactly. Otherwise we'd need to carefully avoid suggesting--on each of the September 11 pages--that the victims were innocent. Either is absurd and offensive.
Similarly, there were legitimate security concerns that lead to U.S. Japanese internment camps. We should present the concerns, the evidence, the surrounding context, the allegations which revolve around the failure to isolate/intern the large U.S. population of German descent, etc. and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Without turning this into an argument about history, I would say that although *I* think that the U.S. Japanese internment camps were morally unjustified, that there are _legitimate arguments_ about security concerns, etc., that make the situation less clear. The United States did not exterminate the Japanese in gas ovens.
Selection, censorship or propaganda? If Nazi views can be summarily dismissed as inappropriate or incorrect then there are few modern minorities influential enough to justify NPOV presentation.
This is a misrepresentation of what I have said. Clearly, the encyclopedia must report on Nazi views. The ideas of the Nazis are an important part of history, and the encyclopedia must cover just what those views are.
Let me see if I can explain this with an example.
Here's an evil idea, held by at least some Nazis: "Jews are vermin." Now, the fact that those people held that idea is an important historical fact. We should report on it.
We are not required, however, to say, in an article on Jews, "Jews are widely considered great people. Maybe not, though, since some people think they are vermin." This is no longer _reporting on a point of view_, it is _giving credence to this point of view as a legitimate minority opinion_.
Similarly, in an article on holocaust deniers, we must report on the Daily Express article, as an example of the types of things that the deniers say. We must _not_, though, suggest in an article on the holocaust that "maybe" the holocaust was deserved.
Thank you for putting this clearly and calmly.