On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>> One thing I'm interested in, is how much
the anger of Palestinian
>> nationalists is due to mistreatment by Israel -- compared to how much is
>> frustration because of rejection by Islamic nations to assimilate refugees --
>> and also how much is due to rabble-rousing by groups dedicated to Israel's
>> destruction. How's that for a "dangerous question"?
> Can people now see why these articles are a big
problem for Wikipedia? This
> how long it took for a meta discussion to get nasty on specific points.
I don't understand: what is "nasty"
about trying to sort things out? If the
nationalists' anger is due entirely to (a) and not at all to (b) or (c), just
say so. I wasn't trying to make a point; I was really trying to get
information to put into the article.
The tone of the paragraph I've quoted is accusing and IMO nasty. Particularly
your sentence 'How's that for a "dangerous question"?'.
I'm not saying your specific point is wrong, or that you are a bad person, or
even that my perception of this makes anything you say invalid.
What I _am_ saying is that even the most level headed and forthcoming
participants here, such as you, are drawn into what amounts to pitched battles
almost immediately.
Even when it's very clear that the issue is not specific points, but how to
solve the general problem that these articles represent. Yes, Elian was the one
who brought specifics into it - but only as examples and part of
"documentation".
These articles have driven a lot of people away from Wikipedia, they're NPOV,
and I don't see them improving (as this thread has demonstrated). Again, I call
for having them (re)moved, and a statement put in their place about how
Wikipedia is not able to provdide this particular service.
-- Daniel