<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Ray Saintonge wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040413194304.38A221390FB@mail.wikimedia.org">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial" size="-1">We can only
come to understand that better when we come to
<br>
understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
<br>
propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture.</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial" size="-1">Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a
quote from me, It
<br>
wasn't. Ray writes:
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="arial" size="-1">This seems
like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text,
<br>
or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of
<br>
propaganda for the Israeli POV. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial" size="-1">No, it isn't. Your accusations are
angry and unfounded. On
<br>
Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's
<br>
context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many
<br>
different people, at different points in their lives
<br>
(especially if they offer multiple contradictory
<br>
statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
<br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="arial" size="-1">The word that I objected to was
"duplicity". NPOV requires assuming good faith.</font></blockquote>
I think the objection is fair, but I disagree that NPOV requires
assuming good faith. That's good Wikiquette, but a bad approach to
NPOV. In my opinion, NPOV requires not assuming either way, just
presenting the facts. If somebody is figuratively talking out of both
sides of their mouth, we can discuss the relevant statements. But if
dishonesty or duplicity is alleged and disputed, then we need to
present both sides of that issue as well.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid20040413194304.38A221390FB@mail.wikimedia.org"><font
face="arial" size="-1">I don't dispute that we should include quotes
from many different people at many different times in their lives, but
that too must be an orderly process. If something was said 20 years
ago it may not reflect the person's current thinking.</font></blockquote>
This I have no arguments with. Not only do people change, but they also
have the capacity to believe things that others may find obviously
contradictory. Not just 20 years apart, but even simultaneously. Within
their worldview, most ideologies tend to be internally consistent. We
need to address the views of both the apologists and the critics.<br>
<br>
--Michael Snow<br>
</body>
</html>