`With all due respect, please allow me to disagree with this. Let's take Nostradamus, for instance. We have a user, armed with 5 or 6 books, selectively chosen from about 300-350 books on the same topic. These half a dozen say exactly the opposite of what the rest say. This example is similar to the one where someone takes from the many books written about the Holocaust, only those that support the Nazis and start citing them everywhere. The only difference between the two cases compared is that apologizing Holocaust is explicitly forbidden, while apologizing Turkish attrocities is not explicitly forbidden (yet). To ``write for the enemy`` in these cases means to sympathize with the Turks (Nazis) with what they have done and take their concerns as legitimate which means that we at least partly justify their actions.  I do not see where my strategy violates WP:NPOV. On the contrary, it lays emphasis on verifiability in connection with reliability. It emphasis that POV which is supported by more sources and marginalizes the POV which is supported by less sources. It lays stress on facts, numbers, and details, and less stress on opinions which are subjective by definition. It guards against factual errors by emphasizing native sources, by people who know the country, language, customs, folklore, geography, etc. all of which are very important for the history of a place. It gives more voice to the actual participants in the events, which have written memoirs, for instance. Although memoirs of one person are probably subjective, memoirs of 15 persons are not so subjective. So if you have a better strategy that addresses this issues, I will be glad to hear it.     `