Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 01:45:15 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It strikes me that the recurrence of debates about Brandt is more than anything reflective of an obsessive mania to censor anything about the man.
It strikes me that when censorship is invoked it is very often an indication of lack of a more rational basis for the argument.
Not necessarily. If the intention of some of the people involved is to insure that no such article ever exists let's call a spade a spade.
Have you read the comments of others about this? This is a "biography" teased from numerous sources which are fundamentally about something else. Even if you have no problem with that, others may, and that does not indicate censorship, it indicates a credible concern with the abuse of article space to further an agenda (in this case attacking Brandt, or maybe just having an article because he doesn't want one).
"Teased from numerous sources" would put into doubt some of the copyvio arguments that have been raised.
I have no interest in either attacking or supporting what Brandt is doing, and I would be just as critical of those who would abuse the article for the sake of attacking him as I am of those who would want to completely delete the article. With all that has been said about him I find it hard to believe that there is absolutely nothing that is verifiable and neutral.
I also don't believe that whether a person wants an article about himself should be a major factor in deciding to have one. It should probably be considered where the notability is marginal, and there is nothing but trivial information about the person, but even then it should not be _the_ deciding criterion.
To dismiss valid concerns held by apparently significant numbers of people as "censorship" is at best a gross oversimplification.
It's not the validity of those concerns that I dismiss, it's their inflexibility.
Ec