Hagiography

{{media}}
A '''hagiography''' is defined as: "a book about someone's life that makes it seem better than it really is or was" and "a biography that praises someone too much" by ''Merriam-Webster'' online,<ref>{{cite web|title=Hagiography definition(s)|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hagiography|publisher=Merriam-Webster|accessdate=4 June 2015}}</ref> and Wiktionary (the dictionary version of [[Wikipedia]]) defines the term as: "A biography which is uncritically supportive of its subject, often including embellishments or [[propaganda]]."<ref>{{cite web|title=Definition of Hagiography|url=https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hagiography|publisher=Wiktionary|accessdate=4 June 2015}}</ref>

The original term specifically referred to the writings of [[saint]]s, ecclesiastical leaders ''etc.'', and comes from the Greek ''ἁγιογραφία'' ("hagiographia"), from ''ἅγιος'' ("''agios''; 'holy' or 'saint'"), and ''γράφειν'' (''graphein''; "to write").<ref>{{wpa|Hagiography}}</ref>

== Hagiographies on Wikipedia ==
''This list is incomplete; you can help [[RationalWiki]] by adding [[bullshit]] to it.''
[[File:Gandhi_1944.jpg|thumb|left|165px|''All Hail Gandhi''.]]
{{cquote|Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects. Generally, the Wikimedia community protects the projects well against this common problem by deleting or improving hagiographies. 
Or so we claim...
|||The Wikimedia Foundation's policy on hagiographies.<ref>{{cite web|title=Wikimedia Foundation: Resolution on media about living people|url=http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation|accessdate=4 June 2015}}</ref>}}
Various articles have been defined by various Wikipedians as hagiographic at various times, including:
*Wikipedia's article on [[Peter Tatchell]] ("Is this an article, or autobiographical hagiography? Its length is far disproportionate to its subject's importance and it is permeated with what is obviously Tatchell's {{wpl|WP:NPOV|POV}} on himself.");<ref>{{cite web|title=Talk:Peter Tatchell|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Tatchell&oldid=659231378#POV|website=Wikipedia|accessdate=4 June 2015}}</ref>
*Wikipedia's article on {{wpr|Gandhi}} (which had/has "a minuscule criticism section").<ref>{{cite web|title=Talk:Mahatma Gandhi/Archive 4|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_4#i_thought_wikipedia_WASN.27T_the_place_for_hagiographies|accessdate=4 June 2015}}</ref>
{{see also|Bias in Wikipedia}}

==Hagiographies on Metapedia==
[[Metapedia]]'s article on [[Hitler]] could be considered a hagiography, as "a word-for-word comparison suggests that a Metapedia editor or editors might indeed have copied Wikipedia's original article and then modified it to create a text far more sympathetic to Hitler than was the original text."<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Metapedia&oldid=1112543#Critical_analysis Even Conservapedia can be right, once in a while...] ([[Stopped clock]])</ref>

==See also==
*[[Great man theory]]
*[[Historical revisionism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2|90%}}
[[category:Literature]]

Categories: Literature