[Wikipedia-l] Re: MT and pro-Catholic bias

Tue Oct 21 19:34:56 UTC 2003

--- Sascha Noyes <sascha at pantropy.net> wrote:
> I think Erik's intent was quite clearly to say that
> that no factual information pertinent to the subject
should be
> removed, with which I agree. 
> The example you cite is rubbish, not Erik's
argument. 

Well, lets not get confused: 

(why is all this crud on the list anyway? Oh right
--JT's whining to the list --two of them, no less)

The good cause of [[Wikipeida:Abundance and
reduncancy]] --not removing valid material from an
article -- has to be balanced with the state that the
article is in. 

It may be that there is enough for a controversy
article.  Whether that controversy material should be
attached to mother teresa's name, or to the Church
itself -- I cant say yet.

I would suggest removing it all -- allowing for a
glowing review -- and then remove the POV from that.
Deal with the aspect of Reverence as POV --and make
that article NPOV. Keep all the controversial stuff in
a subpage and deal with it when the article has
developed.  The proportion should be perhaps like the
Chomsky article -- critics get paid to blabber -- so
they could go on forever, and be quoted forever.  Fuck
them.  Just keep this article about the person for
now.  

~S~

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com