Re: Armenian Genocide
Steve Summit <
scs@...>
2008-04-01 02:02:50 GMT
Thanks for reiterating those points, Wiley and Christiano.
Let me take one more stab at making mine.
(I'll rehash the disclaimers, just in case: I do understand that
this genocide really did happen, and that the magnitudes of the
horror and the death toll were as described. I am not trying to
apologize for the Turkish government, or condone its revisionism
and denial. I do understand the Undue Weight clause of our NPOV
policy.)
I believe that the best way of dealing with a minority and wrong
viewpoint, and the way mandated by our NPOV policy, is to present
it simply and factually, more or less as its proponents would
wish (if they could ever limit themselves to simple, allegedly-
factual statements). I believe, as WP:NPOV says, that the (true)
facts will speak for themselves. I don't believe that the
minority view's statements need to be relentlessly challenged
and contradicted right in the very same sentences where they're
presented. I don't believe that by presenting a contrary opinion
in this way (in a *non* forked article which also presents the
majority opinion duly forcefully) that we are condoning the
contrary opinion, or risking being seen as arguing in favor
of it in the eyes of any reader who's undecided.
There is, to be sure, the question of when a minority opinion
becomes so very fringe that it deserves no mention at all. But
when the opinion is one which is (a) eminently sourceable and
(b) supported by a major government, I don't think we can sweep
it under the rug, no matter how wrong it or its sponsor is.
To try to is to invite (as Christiano observes) a depressingly
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed