Viajero,
List me as "abstaining" from the VfD vote: so it wasn't
unanimous, there was at least one abstention. If I thought
VfD was a helpful process, I'd have voted "keep".
I agree that the article wasn't well written, but I don't
think /voting to eliminate it/ is the answer. Perhaps
BLANKING the content and starting fresh, with a stub would
be better.
Part of the problem in politics is that advocates (like
Arafat) espouse various positions. Sometimes the change is
gradual over time, or sudden at a particular point. There
have even been claims that a politician will say different
things to different audiences on the same day!
The hardest political position to describe is one which the
advocate doesn't want to be "caught" advocating; he tells
his supporters one thing and his critics another. The so-
called "secret agenda". In American politics, some people
think Bush and Cheney have a secret agenda in Iraq, e.g.,
of self-enrichment via Haliburton. In Middle Eastern
politics, some people think Arafat seeks the full
elimination of Israel and talks peace only as means to that
end.
It's exceedingly difficult to figure out what a politician
is /really/ saying, in such a case. Is he telling the
truth, and his opponents are TWISTING his words? Or is he
speaking with forked tongue, and his opponents are
REVEALING the deception?
I don't think Wikipedia is called upon to make the ultimate
judgment. Rather, we should say things like:
* Former Israeli prime minister X believes that Arafat says
one thing and does another
* Islamic leader Y believes that Arafat has always
sincerely sought to live side by side in peace with Jews
If it's a question of statements being taken out of
context, we can help by quoting lengthier passages. But
it's up to the /reader/ to decide whether the man /really/
means what he says.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed