Talk:Criticism of Holocaust denial: Difference between revisions
imported>Stephen Ewen (neutrality comment) |
imported>Lise Sedrez No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:Agreed, too. I'd like to add that any articles that are Holocaust related are going to among those that we simply ''must'' get right in terms of neutrality. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 18:40, 9 February 2007 (CST) | :Agreed, too. I'd like to add that any articles that are Holocaust related are going to among those that we simply ''must'' get right in terms of neutrality. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 18:40, 9 February 2007 (CST) | ||
::Okay. Maybe the best solution is then to delete these articles (which I had pretty much thought as placeholders, anyway), and I will try to come up with a good article on Holocaust denial by next week. --[[User:Lise Sedrez|Lise Sedrez]] 18:59, 9 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 18:59, 9 February 2007
There's not need for an article copying the (faulty) structure of the way things are in Wikipedia. Ori Redler 08:28, 8 February 2007 (CST)
- I admit it was mostly a reminder to work on the article later. How would you suggest we proceed? Just a single article on Holocaust denial and include the criticism on it?--Lise Sedrez 00:18, 9 February 2007 (CST)
I'll start by saying that I'm not an expert on this subject (my experience is limited to a BA seminary work and some articles in popular press) so my comments should be taken with more than a pinch of salt.
That noted, I think the stuff in WP is there anyhow, so we can always go back to it if and when we think it's good and helpful for our purpose. Since we do not want to start off trying to "jump over our belly-button" this naturally leads to trying to write a good article about Holocaust denial. The current one, also from Wikipedia, seems rather horrible, as it lacks any discrimination between what's important and what's not. listing Robert Faurisson alongside a common internet troll like Matt Giwer as "notable holocaust deniers" is typical, as is the total lack of historical prespective in this article. Of course, there may be a legitimate need for an extended article about Criticism of Holocaust denial, but that should be determined once we have a good, solid start with Holocaust denial and feeling that there is a real need for it. I think that when we copy from WP, we also copy the whole history of this article and the "politics" of the articles, with which we should not be burdened. Ori Redler 18:26, 9 February 2007 (CST)
I have to agree with pretty much everything you've here said, Ori. --Larry Sanger 18:32, 9 February 2007 (CST)
- Agreed, too. I'd like to add that any articles that are Holocaust related are going to among those that we simply must get right in terms of neutrality. Stephen Ewen 18:40, 9 February 2007 (CST)
- Okay. Maybe the best solution is then to delete these articles (which I had pretty much thought as placeholders, anyway), and I will try to come up with a good article on Holocaust denial by next week. --Lise Sedrez 18:59, 9 February 2007 (CST)