[WikiEN-l] No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word

Sun Jan 25 15:20:57 UTC 2004

In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace
process", Martin Harper is still censoring historical facts
and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make
improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds
inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable.

On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo 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."

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo also wrote:

"I don't really see how it's original historical research
in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well
documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where
people have chosen to delete rather than work for
neutrality." (End quote)

The problem is that certain people here are violating NPOV
by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of
people, in a limited number of situations. Viewpoints that
he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority
views, are censored and deleted.

In stark contrast, the material I have contributed 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. In the recent past,
others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin
Harper is doing this all over again. That is unfortunate.

In support of the range of views presented within the
article, Jimbo writeson Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004

"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."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/