New subject: Zero and NPOV: He is avoding the issue by trying to ban me

20 Jul 2004

Again, Zero is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He
said that he wanted to engage in moderation. Yet at the
same time he pushs Shahak's anti-Jewish propaganda as
facts, he deletes vast chunks of multiple articles when
they include info he does not agree with, and has started a
web page dedicated to banning me from Wikipedia. Does that
sound like a sincere desire to engage in moderation?

The issue is simple: Do we follow NPOV policy or not? 

Zero has a partisan agenda. Israel Shahak is not accepted
by any mainstream historians; that is in indisputable fact.
In every insitution I have studied or taught in, Shahak's
views are considered false and racist. In contrast,
Shahak's claims are only accepted by Neo-Nazis, White
Supremacists, radical Islamic groups, and the like. (Again,
please do not take my word on this. Please do a Google
search on this subject and see for yourself who his only
supporters are.)

Yet this statement of fact enrages Zero; he doesn't want
anyone to know this. Yet this is no different than our
articles on Richard Wagner or on Holocaust deniers. Last
year, a number of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers tried
to damage our articles on these subjects. Fortunately,
cooler heads prevailed by merely following NPOV policy. Why
should this article be any different?

Zero has filled the talk page on the Shahak article with
personal comments (e..g in his view, Shahaks' claims about
the Jews are true.) Well, even if all Jews were as racist
as Shahak and Zero imagine, we would still have to follow
NPOV policy. This means we say that according to Group A
and author A, all Jews are racist, but according to group B
and C, and authors D and E, they are not.

Remember NPOV? A contributor may have a prejudice, but they
can stay here if they follow the rules. We have to allow
articles to present points of view, even if they are points
of view that we disagree with.

The long-standing problem with Zero isn't his belief that
Jews are racist. That's irrevelant. He can believe anything
he likes about Jews, blacks, gays, whomever. However, the
long-standing problem is that he refuses to let any POV be
mentioned except his own. Zero constantly refuses to follow
POV. And *that* has always been a bannable offense.

So we have a choice. (A) Ban Zero. (B) Privately talk to
him, and explain that all points of view must be included,
even those we happen to disagree with. And mention that
discussion on Talk pages should be about how to phrase
facts in the article, and not focused on one person's
beliefs about the content.

I hope that he can convinced to follow NPOV.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail