From: "Tony Sidaway"
<minorityreport(a)bluebottle.com>
I think you're missing the point somewhat. If I want to represent a point
of view on Wikipedia, say something attributable to Fatah, then of course
the best source for a reference would probably be
http://www.fateh.org/ ,
and if I want to represent a point of view that I attribute to Mr Sharon I
might cite some Israeli government website as my reference. At the same
time the text must be NPOV so that it should draw a clear line between
reporting a point of view and endorsing it.
Similarly, holocaust denial websites are pretty useful for reporting the
views of holocaust deniers, and websites avowing that Israelis are nazis
are useful for reporting the views of people who believe that Israelis are
nazis.
One wouldn't use any of the above sites as authorities on the facts of the
situation, and indeed where the facts are credibly disputed it would be
inappropriate to represent the contentions of any one party to the dispute
as wholly factual.
The problem is not when people want to use a Holocaust Denial site to
represent the views of Holocaust Deniers; the problem is when they want to
use it to represent the "truth" about the Holocaust, or Jews, or Zionism, or
Israel. And the latter occurs infinitely more often than the former. And
while you or I might not use them as authorities on these subjects, many
others view them as the *only* NPOV authorities on these subjects.
Jay.