To me, history is most fun when it stirs contemporary passions. I'll always prefer a fine tussle over current opinions of the Confederacy over a detailed account of a single battle in 1863.
Critical assesment too is always encouraged.

However, some subjects are simply too political. There is a Backroom on this forum for that, for those who enjoy gritty politics. One needs to become a member, the Backroom is a bit shielded of. The Monastery is more public, the casual visitor can wander in. This will have to be taken into account.

The line between what's political, and what's history is thin, and unfortunately to no small degree entirely subjective. A heated debate over the division of the Ottoman Empire after WWI belongs in the Monastery. The subject 'The creation of the state of Israel' is depending on the tone and focus easily Backroom material. 'The Armenian Genocide' I could well see myself move to the Backroom too. Even if all three subjects are related and about historical events.
The Yugoslav wars in the 1990s are too recent for the Monastery. 'There's no business like Shoah business' is Backroom. Too recent, too political. Golhagen versus Browning is Monastery. The communist orgah can argue the historical necessity of the Wall, the fascist can criticise the claims of the anti-fascists. But emphasis will have to be on history, and there has to be a dignified tone when living relatives are involved (for example, compare what would be appropriate for those disputing the claims of 9-11 survivors).

A critical assesment, preferably by a reputable source, of the memoirs of living persons such as Roma Ligocka is fine.



These are my principles. If you don't like them, I've got others.