[Wikipedia-l] Helga again

[Michael R. Irwin]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> 
> Michael R. Irwin wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> The only way we can say that it is uncontroversial that the Holocaust
> was undeserved is if we think that WWII is unworthy of notice?  

No, there is another way.  We can deny or censor that the Nazi's 
or anyone else ever existed who thought the Holocaust was deserved.  
Then it would be "uncontroversial".

We can deny that human cultures which embrace killing outsiders
either individually or collectively for their own purposes have 
ever existed.  Alternatively, we can contend that they "obviously"
knew they were wrong when we judge their behavior by our standards.

Either approach will reduce our workload substantially.  The
result may be in conflict with our presently stated project goals.

>To put
> it another way, are you saying that if we think WWII is an important
> event, we have to regard it _controversial_ to claim that the
> Holocaust was wrong?

Yes.  It provides clear evidence that a significant fraction
of the human beings alive at the time of the Holocaust supported
the leadership or power structure that performed it.  Clearly
they did not think it was wrong.  Hence we have some potential
controversy or disparate views to report.  

Controversy is where you find it.  

I can claim it is "obvious" that the claim "Murder is criminal 
behavior." is "uncontroversial".  

I can also reduce the potential controversy by
categorising some perceived forms of homicide as "collateral damage",
"terrorism", "just war", etc.

If multiple parties show up to contend that abortion, infanticide,
war, chemical dumping, market manipulation, justifiable
homicide, willful endangerment resulting in death, etc. is or 
is not murder (when it leads to death of human beings);  

then controversy exists and the subject is not "obviously" 
"uncontroversial", by definition.

My working definition of "controversy" is:  Disagreement
exists regarding a specific subject.

What is your working definition of "uncontroversial"?

> 
> That's what you said; I'm sure it isn't what you intended.  But I
> think this illustrates the lack of clarity in your thoughts on these
> matters.

Perhaps it demonstrates lack of clarity of common context or 
use of words and phrases.

Obviously it would be my contention that my thinking is as clear 
as anyone elses.  Mistakes in thoughts or presentation are possible 
but should be proven, not merely alleged or assumed.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> This is a straw man fallacy.  Absolutely no one here is claiming that
> we have to inject moral condemnation of the Nazis into "every other
> paragraph".  Pretending that we are merely muddles the discussion to
> no good purpose.  Please don't do that.

Interjecting personal standards such as "obvious" and "offensive"
to shutdown discussion of how to present the unpleasant material
is much more damaging.   If every other paragraph is deleted because
it is "offensive" and not worth "NPOV"ing or leaving in an acceptable
workspace for others to "NPOV" at their leisure, then other methods
will be needed:  such as injecting moral condemnation adequate to
allow the material to sit around waiting for appropriate editing.

Please consider the possibility that I have a legitimate point
that I am attempting to make when I bother to type a message.  

Pretending that I do not make a good faith effort is bordering on 
"insulting" as I have seen the term used previously here locally.   
Errors and fallacies are possible.  In my perception, it is the 
purpose of discussion to detect them, not present them.

> 
> Here's a false alternative: (a) pretend that 'maybe' the Nazis were
> right or (b) engage in random moralizing on every controversial topic
> in wikipedia.  When I say that we must avoid (a), I am not advocating
> (b).
> 

I never proposed a.   My opinion of the Nazi's behavior has no
impact on history or an NPOV presentation of the facts.   

I proposed to present what the Nazis thought they were doing 
(along with the rest of the material presented) from their own 
POV presented in an NPOV context for readers interested in 
the Holocaust.

Regarding b.  I am more interested in discussing our processes and 
how they can be scaled effectively to massive participation.  
Unfortunately there seems little interest in discussing this in 
the abstract.  I am left with participation in the available
controversies to attempt to understand the mechanisms working 
(or not working) within the process forming the community fabric.

> You may think that the NPOV is muddled and self-contradictory.  I
> think that you aren't thinking clearly, as shown by your fallacies and
> non sequiturs.

I am confident that when next we (the community at large) discuss 
the NPOV in any detail or length, some flaws can be detected.
Given the intellectual resources currently at our collective 
command, perhaps the presentation or implementation can be improved.

Is it your assertion or conclusion at the moment that the
statement or presentation of the "NPOV" policy cannot be
improved?

Regards,
Mike Irwin