On 07/30/04 03:32, Delirium wrote:
Even in cases where nearly everyone agrees the
killing was
wholly unjustified, like with the Holocaust, it sounds odd when you use
the term "murdered", as some of our articles currently do---it sounds
like you're going out of your way to say "this is what happened AND PS
IT WAS BAD!" rather than just reporting the facts. I can't think of
many uses of the word "murder" apart from "[person] was convicted of
murder" that don't sound like that, actually.
Yep. As [[NPOV]] puts it:
"Karada offered the following excellent advice in the context of the Saddam
Hussein article:
"You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on
Hitler
does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds
convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust
dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes
name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's
crimes, cite your sources."
Saying that they killed someone for not helping them put an anti-tank
explosive outside the person's house ... does such an action really need
a great big "AND PS IT WAS BAD!"? I maintain that it does not, and that
it does the page discredit to do so.
Understate. Let the facts speak for themselves.
- d.