[WikiEN-l] In development--BLP task force

[Phil Nash]

Emily Monroe wrote:
>>> We're encyclopediasts and sometimes you have to say that Hitler was
>>> bad.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> But what if the only verifiable information in the article is the
>> negative stuff, in spite of having other, less widely-reported
>> information available? If I had ran across that as a new page
>> patroller, I'd probably tag it as an attack page if it was severe
>> enough, but what about less severe, and/or older pages? Do we delete
>> and start over, or do we merely add the positive information?
>>
>> Hitler is an extreme example. Everybody in the mainstream knows
>> Hitler was bad. We just state why.

I agree. I've seen attempts to introduce claimed NPOV into [[Adolf Hitler]] 
by saying, for example, that he revitalised the German economy, was a 
dog-lover, loved [[Eva Braun]], was a fair watercolourist, for example, but 
this is not what NPOV is about since they fail the test of comparative 
relevance. He is known for what he is known for, and there's no getting over 
that. Contrariwise, I've not seen attempts to amplify [[Stalin]]'s training 
for the priesthood, as if that would mitigate his later actions. 
Common-sense balance should suggest that we should report the major thrusts 
of a person's life and career, without seeking such mitigation simply to 
satisfy NPOV.

As you say, Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. When it comes, for 
example, to [[O J Simpson]], it becomes more moot, although I could suggest 
others, such as [[Gary Glitter]] and [[Phil Spector]].