Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> We can only come to understand that better when we come to
>>> understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
>>> propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture.
>>
>> Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It
>> wasn't. Ray writes:
>>
>>> This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text,
>>> or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of
>>> propaganda for the Israeli POV.
>>
>> No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On
>> Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's
>> context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many
>> different people, at different points in their lives
>> (especially if they offer multiple contradictory
>> statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
>
> The word that I objected to was "duplicity". NPOV requires assuming
> good faith.
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.
> 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.
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.
--Michael Snow