Board Thread:Clean up Concerns/@comment-2059440-20160822192203/@comment-3581997-20161115080527

Though, and articles fall into this a lot. The article itself needs to describe antagonistic activity. Being wary of cultural difference and adjusting as per evolution of morality is one thing, but an antagonist needs to be antagonizing someone. I'll bring this up again because it is a really good show of how far people can get unchecked. Moses was once here. Not a specific dark version of Exodus or anything, -the- Moses. With the article pointing out that he killed babies and was "controlling" and "homophobic" when writing Leviticus. Thing is, the article never gave who he was antagonizing. There was no story for Pharaoh's point of view saying how big bad Moses was a bogeyman to the people of Egypt, there are no Jews who curse the day Moses rose over them like a tyrant, the article was just trying to be contrary little more than "Ya know Moses was a jerk when ya think about it", aside from just leaving out contexts like Leviticus being only written down as little more than a survival guide for wandering the desert.

Most of the issues that come up in separating the change in Values and Culture can, not always do, but can, very easily go the same way. I would encourage we watch out for the same thing in any character from folklore. Robinhood, King Arthur and Anansi could all be made to look like jerks in the right light but being a jerk or projecting authority issues onto them does not make them antagonists. The narrative needs to give us someone oppressed by them and the article needs to describe that.