On 12/2/06, Rob Smith <nobs03(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/06, Jimmy Wales <jwales at
wikia.com> wrote:
>
>The day a kind, thoughtful, productive and intellectual person shows up
>to help us with the encyclopedia project while simultaneously asserting
>with all seriousness that the Nazi party of Germany was or is worthy of
>support, we'll have a hell of an interesting case on our hands. But
the
>reality is, that hasn't happened and
seems very unlikely to ever
happen.
--Jimbo
Yes we have the example of Dr. Christina Jeffrey whom the ADL
vindicated with the words, "any characterization of you as
anti-Semitic or sympathetic to Nazism is unfair and unfounded".
http://www.ngcsu.edu/bdf/bfried/cjeff.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n9_v47/ai_16920435
yet it makes up almost entirely the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historian_of_the_United_States_House_of_Repres…
and is probably not adaquately covered there; pity the poor editor who
dares to undertake such a task.
I doubt Dr. Jeffries is an example of someone who thinks Nazi Germany
"was or is worthy of support", probably just someone who advocated
examining history from different perspectives but who chose her words
very poorly.
Why not simply add the ADL information to the article instead of
complaining about it here? I know that had I been aware of that
information I certainly would have added it to the article when I
wrote it, so you can't claim you would have faced resistance inserting
this.
The Epopt did that already. The point being, even when a non-Nazi, non
Anti-Semitic scholar of good will states, ""The Nazi point of view, however
unpopular, is still a point of view"
they are permantly defamed by such authoritive sources as sitting members of
Congress.