[WikiEN-l] Radical redefinition of OR

[Delirium]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I don't have the same faith in "reputable historians".  Being reputable 
> is often nothing more than a mastery of the party line. Historians 
> certainly differ on whether dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a 
> necessity or a war crime.  Of course all agree that it was in fact 
> dropped.  For me NPOV is a far more important principle than NOR.  
> Omitting something just because it has never been considered by 
> "reputable" historians strikes me as unconscionable, and intellectually 
> dishonest.  If a new primary source contradicts the "reputable" 
> historians it should be mentioned in the interests of NPOV; otherwise 
> NOR is nothing more than an excuse for suppressing distasteful 
> information.
>   

To be a little more detailed:

No, NOR is not "an excuse for suppressing distasteful information", but 
fundamental to the very purpose of Wikipedia.  When I go to the article 
[[World War II]], I expect to find any of these:
--- a summary of mainstream historical consensus on the subject;-
--- discussions of points where there is significant disagreements among 
historians;
--- discussions, less prominently placed, of significant minority views;
--- especially on important topics like World War II, discussions of 
small minority views that have nonetheless been published and attracted 
some at least minor attention

But what I most emphatically *do not* expect to see a novel historical 
narrative that some random guy on the internet has pieced together by 
going through archives himself, and never published before anywhere else 
except Wikipedia.  That is no more useful or desirable than going to 
[[Neutrino]] and seeing original physical research that some physics 
crank has decided to publish on Wikipedia.  If you've made novel 
historical discoveries by digging through primary sources, then great, 
but Wikipedia is not the place to publish them any more than it's the 
place to publish your novel physics discoveries.

-Mark