Delirium wrote:
1. [[User:BL]] is mass-adding the contents of
palestineremembered.com --
massive lists with hundreds of subpages comprising every village
(defined as 10 or more people) destroyed in the 1948 war, every
"massacre" (defined as 10 or more people) committed or purportedly
committed during that war (little effort is made to distinguish), and a
whole host of other information that's difficult if not impossible to
verify.
I invite comments on this, but I'm initially inclined to agree with
Delirium that this isn't really appropriate.
There's nothing wrong with having articles on tiny little villages, of
course, as long as there's enough verifiable information to justify an
article. But we have to be careful about mass-adding things, more on
editorial grounds than on purely NPOV grounds. (RamBot went through
several revisions and a lot of discussion, and even mass-adding things
by hand seems somewhat questionable, if the same content could be more
effectively presented in a different way.
2. [[User:RK]] is, as is probably obvious, somewhat of
a pro-Israeli
activist, and is becoming difficult to clean up. The latest thing I've
noticed is him adding 2-paragraph-long attacks on Arab anti-Semitism to
articles such as [[George Washington]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]], in the
guise of "defending" their "tarnished" reputations against charges of
anti-Semitism stemming from little-known fabricated quotes.
I'm not so sure I can agree with you on this one. First, at least
looking at the current version of [[George Washington]], there's no
mention of _Arab_ anti-Semitism at all, and certainly no mention of
Palestine or Israel.
These fabricated quotes are a staple of *U.S.* anti-semitic groups,
'Aryan Nation' types, as we might expect from the subject (American
Presidents). This has very little to do with Israel or the
Palestinians.
I will say, and I don't think that RK will say that I'm being unfair
to him at all, that RK is deeply concerned about issues involving
anti-Semitism, and that he is something of an activist on this issue,
and that *therefore*, we should be vigilant about his edits, lest he
might not always be as neutral as we would like.
But these particular edits don't strike me as problematic.
The problem is that those most knowledgeable and
interested in
spending a great deal of time writing articles on these topics are
often those who are most partisan to one side or the other.
That's exactly right, and it's a general problem that we have to face
on every controversial issue.
--Jimbo