Hmmm
The *2 of you* had been doing exactly *3 reverts*.
Plus, there was not much discussion in the talk page.
There was *no reason* to think discussion would start eventually,
without a little bit of help.
Plus, I had never edited that article.
So, I think I was acting fairly.
Robert, I would like to clarify something.
I have nothing against your faith.
You would be amazed at the depth of my ignorance with regards to the
Palestinian conflict and various positions on the matter. I think you
would not find anyone more neutral than I on all Wikipedia :-)
Please, do believe I know you are undoubtely more knowledgeable than I
on the topic. I am convinced of your expertise.
Now, I think the right place for you to head to is the discussion page :
and the right thing to do is to go on with the discussion with your peers.
Perhaps a neutral mediator might help all of you to reach an
understanding ? Would anyone feels like helping Robert and Mirv ?
Robert wrote:
Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She
has
picked one version of an article which deleted and censored
all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist
views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous
behaviour from a Sysop.
I understand that many people here hate Israel and Jews who
support it, that much has been clear for some time. But
such hatred is rarely so blatant as this: To falsify
history by deleting entire historical accounts and quotes,
to spin a fantastic pro-Arab, anti-Zionist storyline, and
to lock the article, is just too much.
Recall that on Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 Jimbo Wales writes about
this very situation:
"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem.
There is no question that a full understanding of the
Palestinian situation requires understanding what
Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There
is no question that one point of contention is whether
Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process
as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they
view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a
longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting
information on that question is unacceptable. This is an
important part of one of the major questions of our time."
He is right. That is what Martin (MyRedDice) had been
doing, and that is now what Mirv and Anthere are doing.
It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only
mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a
limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that
Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority
views, are censored and deleted. That is outrageous and
dishonest. It is also anti-Palestinian; Anthere and Mirv
are effectively saying "You Palestinians can go fuck
yourselves'; we'll tell the world what you believe, even if
we have to erase your own quotes."
In contrast, the material they censored shows a wide range
of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that
Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up
their own mind. That, by definition, is Wikipedia NPOV
policy.
In support of the range of views presented within the
article, Jimbo writes:
"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good
precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing
viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes
are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views
and background information is given.
Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of
information because it doesn't comport well with the
prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely
victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians
are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and
expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is
simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because
it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels
fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily
arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I
think that the material is good, though not excellent, but
my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as
something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It
should be *improved*.
In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the
majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of
Israel.
We can only come to understand that better when we come to
understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
think censorship is too strong a word."
Jimbo is correct. Stop the censorship, and stop the
explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV
policy. If your hatred of Israel gets in the way of
following NPOV, then I would suggest working on other
articles.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/