[Wikipedia-l] NPOV and the israeli-palestinian conflict

[elian]

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> writes:

> This really seems like a better discussion for the /Talk pages, but
> it's probably worth discussing a bit on the list, too.  

I think neither the talk pages are adequate for such a general discussion
(they are already much too long to keep track)
nor the list is the right place. It may seem strange, but maybe the best
solution (if there are enough people who want to share in the NPOV-ing
project) would be an extra mailing-list for these disputes.


I didn't intend to start a direct discussion of the examples from my
posting, but anyway some answers....

> Is it generally uncontroversial that the Irgun killed more than 100
> civilians?  If so, then I see no reason for the "supposed to have
> killed them" formulation.  The word "murder" should be used, in many
> contexts, but it should be used cautiously, I think.  

I changed this already by reducing the number of "supposed" 340 victims to
the number approved by the International Red Cross.  

> I'm sure we could have two weeks discussion of just what makes for a
> murder versus other descriptions!  I wouldn't want to open that can of
> worms unless absolutely necessary, so just understand me to be saying
> that such judgments can be difficult and controversial, and that
> sometimes the arguments could be avoided through careful word choices
> to avoid the controversial conclusions.

ACK. This should be general policy. 

> > Or "Palestinians claim that the bulk of Palestinian refugees had been
> > inhabitants of Palestine for many generations": doesn't this obvious,
> > totally trivial fact, recognized by the UNO, earn a formulation as a fact,
> > not a claim?
> 
> I think so, but perhaps it should be bolstered by estimates of the
> percentage of Palestinian refugees who were born elsewhere, etc.
> 
> We might say (and I am making these numbers up, and perhaps valid
> numbers are not available) that 80% of the Palestinian refugees are
> children or grandchilden of people who lived in the area before the
> creation of the state of Israel, and 15% are people from other
> countries with cultural/familial ties that go back further than that,
> and 5% are people who have intermarried into the Palestinian
> population.

First, the sentence in questions is not about the descendants, but the
actual refugees. De facto, the sentence above the cited is a complaint of
the Israelis that also people were counted who immigrated from 1946-48.

If someone could say how many of the 700 000 did that? If they are no
significant number I would leave this out.

> Could we not here simply describe the uncontroversial facts, without
> any _judgment_ as to the status of the property in question?  It might
> be difficult to word properly, but it seems possible to me.

Yes. Could a native speaker try this? Find out, what was actually done and
formulate it properly?

> I think the right answer to this is: whenever there is controversy, we
> do neither.  It is not up to wikipedia to judge the controversial
> moral issues of our day, but to present information agreeable to all
> reasonable parties in a controversy so that both feel that a neutral
> observer will have sufficient data to come to the right conclusion.

as it is written in the NPOV-policy ;-)

> > "In contrast, Israelis and Americans point out that millions of people
> > live in similar and worse conditions all over the world, yet these
> > people never resort to waves of homicide bombings."
> > 
> > Okay, the thing with the schoolbooks should be clear for the interested
> > reader, but what the hell is the "unsatisfactory situation"?
> 
> Would simply fleshing out the details of what Palestinians regard as
> the 'unsatisfactory situation' be enough here?

Yes, but it would maybe better placed in an article of its own, since this
could be very long.

> On the other hand, stepping a bit more into the controversy than I
> like, I would say that most Americans are puzzled about the
> differences between Palestinians and other people with grievances
> around the world.  Why didn't we see suicide bombings and terror
> campaigns by the victims of South African apartheid?  Why didn't we
> see suicide bombing campaigns by Jews in WWII Germany?  Why didn't we
> see suicide bombings against British rule in India?

Dangerous questions.
So I have also to step a little bit more into the controversy and comment
on this sentence I deliberately wrote nothing about. Honestly, I was
deeply shocked by this sentence. So we live, you in the mostly peaceful
and wealthy US, I in peaceful and wealthy Germany. I have never seen
someone shot in reality, have you? I was never beaten by policemen - were
you? Who are we to juge how one should react in an situation of poverty,
political oppression and overwhelming injustice done to him? Who are we to
jugde how the husband of Suha al-Schaer should react, who erred high
pregnant half the night through the hills, barred the way to the hospital
by the soldiers at the Israeli checkpoints, lost her child and fell into a
Koma?

The American President Bush asked after September 11th "Why do they hate
us?" You could possibly say, "they hate us because of arrogant sentences
like this one." (together with the ongoing support of the USA and other
first world countries for their oppression and anti-democratic rulers)  

> It does seem relevant to examine what things, beyond the raw fact of
> grievances, led to this reaction.  Part of this must be cultural and
> religious (Islamic martyrdom).  And part of it is likely due to
> differences in strategy and tactics on the part of Israelis?

*calming down* From a scientific point of view this would be rather
interesting to know. Perhaps in a common effort of psychologues, political
scientists and islam scientists of wikipedia there could be written a
neutral article about it. Any volunteers? A general article about the
origins of terrorism? 

> > Where is the "arguing for the enemy" that the NPOV-policy demands?
> 
> Dig in and do it!  It would be much apppreciated, especially since (a)
> you seem to know a lot about it and (b) you have a sensitivity to the
> demands of NPOV.

Seems, as the articles about the political systems of the european
countries in the German wikipedia have to wait a bit :-(

> > greetings and sorry for the horrible english,
> 
> Horrible English?  I thought it was perfect.

Thank you ;-)
elian, still struggling with the english language