2009/9/24 Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>et>:
Typically in a situation like that, unless there are
active supporters of
the person, like Stalin, no one is interested in finding and writing
about their virtues.
Most historically prominent figures, no matter how vile, will have
enough people interested in them to ensure that the article is
reasonably well constructed; this doesn't automatically imply it's
being done for partisan reasons. I think it's a little misleading to
say that the only reason we can have a good, balanced, article on
someone like Stalin is the hypothetical presence of active apologists!
(I mean, we have an A-class article on Nero, and a FA on Diocletian. I
don't think many of their supporters are still around...)
The major problem is with living persons who have had
considerable press
regarding some negative action or series of actions. There may not be
significant published material regarding their virtues or even details
about their life.
Yeah. This is the tough case. You mention below writing about the
event, not the person, and I think this is the best way to go about it
- if the notorious event wouldn't stand up as an article in its own
right, should an article about the protagonist really be able to?
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk