[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Michael R. Irwin]

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".

Only if one considers a major World War beneath notice.  To me
that seems a bit controversial if one is presenting an NPOV
as a neutral reporter.

I reviewed the NPOV last night.   It is lengthy and internally
contradictary.  It also attempts to assume/conclude in circular
arguments that many/most are inherently neutral or well practiced
from their jobs in presenting material in a neutral fashion.

Despite these flaws there seems to be a lot of support for
my position that all views, information, evidence etc. should 
be presented and the reader allowed to draw their own conclusion.

When we start assessing situations as "obvious" and "offensive"
then I suspect a personal frame of reference is in use.

> 
> > 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.

No we used firestorms in Tokyo and the Atomic bombs in 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Civilians dead are dead.  How much the leaders enjoyed issuing
the directives which provided the results or the victims suffered
seems almost another entire topic to me.

> 
> > 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.

Agreed.

> 
> 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.

Agreed.

> 
> 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_.

I agree the wording quoted is above poor.  It appears to quote several
opionions and give them "credence".    

The NPOV policy specifically or implicitly states in several places
(If I recall or interpret correctly) that we are not to choose the 
legitimate option or frame of reference.   Our job as neutral writers
is to present the facts in a neutral way for the readers critical
assessment.  We are not attempting to indoctrinate the reader into
any specific "legitimate" view.

> 
> 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.

Agreed.  

OTOH It is not "offensive" to report the facts on the 
Holocaust without mentioning in every other paragraph that the
Nazi's were obviously to all right thinking people sick and evil.  
Just as it is not necessary every time the Bible is quoted to point 
out that it reports the Jews were practicing Genocides along with 
most other identifiable or surviving tribes or religions at various 
times and places who were organized well enough to keep verbal or 
written histories.

OTOH2 We should not be implying that every Nazi involved in
the Holocaust was an automaton who was merely following
orders unenthusiastically.  No government capable of continent
spanning warfare has one guy with a gun pointed at millions
of unbelievers directing all traffic.

Somebody thought the Holocaust was deserved or it would
not have happened.   Likewise, post war analysis by some
parties have a hard time justifying the "strategic" bombing
conducted by the Allies.   Its primary effect seems to
have been to kill civilians.   Somebody thought this was
justified or it would not have occurred.

The NPOV (to me) seems to advance the proposition of 
staying off the slippery slope of telling other people
what to think; by proposing to stick to informing them 
of the facts in the best neutral summaries we can provide.
It suffers a bit from assuming that scholarly academics
are obviously capable of neutrally weighing the relative
relevence of "facts" and minority or radical views.  
However, it recovers nicely by stating that all should
be presented.

If neutrality is to be presented in the context of personal 
judgements such as "obvious" or "offensive" then (IMO) some
editorial guidelines or criteria beyond the existing
"NPOV" policy will be required.

Regards,
Mike Irwin