Ed, This is the very thing that Im arguing against:
Some people think that 2 opposing sides can battle it out, and let the best man win. A sort of zero-sum game.
We want STALEMATED zero sum games, like a stalemate in chess or the outcome of the Iraq-Iran War! This only happens when the power, luck, and strategy of both sides balances out! Im saying that RKs absence would weaken his side to the extent that the pattern of stalemates would shift to a pattern of best man winning (i.e. Sv). I dont favor Wiki Darwinism! I only say that its acceptable in this context for a number of reasons stated in the earlier postings: it yields a unique perspective, it yields NPOV by stalemate, and we cannot expect anything else (BTW, I provided an analysis in an earlier posting illuminating why flame wars are unavoidable for these sets of articles).
Yes, there are some articles that are not the product of conflict, stalemate, and synthesis, but this cannot be avoided. An article on, for instance, lists of Palestinian villages destroyed, is inherently a pro-Palestinian, and an article on, for instance, anti-Semitic statements attributed to Palestinian figures, inherently the domain of RK. However, their tensions will check for accuracy, but not change the orientation of the article. I'm referring to the pivotal articles (e.g., Israel, History of Israel, PLO, Hamas, Arafat, Sharon, etc.). That's where the tension (and the equal strength of the opposing forces) is needed.
_________________________________________________________________ Add MSN 8 Internet Software to your existing Internet access and enjoy patented spam protection and more. Sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/byoa