[WikiEN-l] Letting a group speak for itself

Fri Aug 13 15:36:04 UTC 2004

Christiaan writes:
> Well no. Maybe they're right, who really knows? 
> It's a point of view.  Maybe he does want to kill all
> Muslims (Bush doesn't necessarily let on what he
> actually thinks) and maybe he does "deserve" to die.
> They're all point of views, and that you think such
> people who think such things are "wrong" is another
> point of view.
> Jayjg may not be an angel to work with but to
> productively collaborate on a Wikipedia article an
> understanding of the above is crucial it seems to me.

I'm glad that we agree with each other, but JayJg does not
seem to agree with this (at least not in practice).  You
offer a crucial point: There is a difference between what a
person says (e.g. George Bush) and what critics of that
person claims they really believe (e.g. certain Muslim
groups.)

We must accurately describe what George W. Bush and the
White House present as their policy.  We must also
accurately describe the POV of critics of the Bush White
House. If someone wants, we even can present the POV of
extremist groups that hate Bush and wish that he would be
killed. (But to be fair, we would also have to note that
such groups are not mainstream and are considered violent.)

But we must never present the view of Muslim terrorist
groups AS IF they were the views of George W. Bush! That is
intellectually dishonest.

The same is true for describing the beliefs and teachings
of religious groups, like Conservative Judaism, Reform
Judaism, the Catholic Church, etc. We must never present
the view of their most angry critics AS IF they were the
views of the group itself! That is intellectually dishonest

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 