User talk:Jamessugrono/TalkArchive/2009/February

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Neutrality

Hi. Looks like the Neutrality Project is dying. Is it because we've done such a good job ferreting out bias that the project is no longer needed? Or have we simply given up? I think neutral writing is important, and I don't think it's impossible. Look at what I did with the Chile coup of 1973, for example. It really is possible to step back from a dispute and describe what each side is saying - even when you (the writer) are convinced one side is completely true. It is very useful for readers to understand why other people disagree with the mainstream. Otherwise, we run the risk of allowing whoever shouts the loudest (or has the biggest voting bloc) to dominate the presentation of a topic. Do we want one-sided presentations in cases where a significant minority have another viewpoint?

If you share my concerns, please help me revive this project. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)