------------- Original message --------------
Delirium wrote:
Sounds like another POV-pushing PhD holder
who's annoyed that everyone
doesn't just say "oh, you are an 'expert', do with the articles as you
wish".
(And anyone who's read any history articles by 172 can attest to the
fact that they were highly propagandistic, generally turning into
outright apologies, if not screeds, for left-wing dictatorships.)
-Mark
What a load of crap. Ever read the history of Russia? Yeah, that's now a
FA article. You can't GET FA articles that are POV screeds.
TBSDY
Yes, you can get FA articles that are POV, and History of Russia is just such an example.
It's POV language was just recently improved and there are many more
criticisms/changes such as that which are yet to be made. Selection of material or
focus can be a source of POV, and yet can subtlely masquerade as NPOV, because the POV
problem is not with the information included, but with the selectivity of what was
included and what was left out. Strangely, that article also includes superatives, which
should have been a red flag.
There are very citations of sources within the article which, while making for easier
reading, usually indicates that something has limited peer review, perhaps the community
interested in the subject shared the same POV, or there was just lack of interest in
general, allowing authorial territoriality to achieve free reign.
That sounds like a lot of cowardly bullshit. It can't be that bad if
the only thing you can bitch about is what's not there.
The length which some anti-communist hyenas will go to to ensure that
their POV prevails is amazing.
Ec