I wrote
> Danny has an agenda that he's pushing, openly,
and it's affecting
>his editing.
Viajero wrote:
Danny has an agenda? This is laughable. What is it?
His agenda is that RK is a crank, and that his contribution on the
topic in question ought to be deleted rather than edited.
That he is pro-Palestinian? I have yet to see a shred
of evidence of
this. His major failing appears to be that he is not uncritical
enough of Israel in the Manichean worldview of RK and his ilk.
No, it has nothing to do with being pro-Palestinian. It has to do
with summarily deleting perfectly good content, rather than working to
improve it.
Really, not much of the current dispute has anything to do with being
pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. RK has worked to present the varying
views of the Palestinians, and people who don't like the result just
delete it instead of work to improve it.
In their own ways, both Danny and Zero are extremely
well-informed
and have a far subtler grasp of the complexities of the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict than RK.
In that case, they ought to work to improve the article, not to censor
material that they don't like.
And rightly so, they both strongly -- and at times
inelegantly --
resist RK's efforts to insert blatant anti-Palestinian propaganda in
Wiki articles.
In the general case, there may be some truth to that. But focussing
on the current example, it does not seem to be an accurate
representation of the text at hand.
It is _not_ "blatant anti-Palestinian propoganda" to give accurate,
verified, balanced quotes from a variety of sources in an effort to
illuminate Palestinian views on the peace process. Is it? It is
"blatant anti-Palestinian propaganda" to quote Arafat? I don't see
how, particularly when he is quoted multiply to show how his
statements have changed over time.
--Jimbo