On 08/08/04 14:37, Jens Ropers wrote:
IMHO nationalist POV has been a problem on Wikipedia for a LOOONG time: U.S. nationalist POV, that is. Examples? I'll give you an example: I've seen an article where it was disputed that the warfare use of napalm constituted chemical warfare, and where the caption to a famous picture showing the consequences of a U.S. napalm attack was changed -- the contributor simply disputed whether the U.S. had been responsible for the Vietnam napalm attack. Later _the same contributors_ suddenly discovered that there were copyright issues with the use of the picture... (See my previous email to AP I cc'd you on.) But of course: It would have been a "Vietcong" trick, right? Bomb their own, have a photo shot, discredit the poor battered U.S. internationally... Yeez... I could not possibly make up a better real world example of George Orwell's [[Doublethink]] (of 1984, see WP article). Really folks, I do rarely, in this day and age, ever see people whose moral compasses and standards of truthfulness are so *seriously* out of whack as a certain group of U.S. "patriots".
Heh. You do realise I'm not American? (Australian living in London.)
- d.