--- Sascha Noyes <sascha(a)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