Robert is correct when he asserts that: * We are obligated to follow NPOV policy, which states that we phrase things like this: Israel Shahak claims X, other groups disagree claiming Y. If it's a question about how much weight Shahak's opinion should carry, in comparison with the opinions of others -- well, that is not for the W to say. Better to have an [[Israel Shahak]] article which addresses the issue of the group's credibiliity -- also written from the NPOV. The problems of the Middle East cannot be _resolved_ by Wikipedia articles. It's not even clear that accurate, unbiased descriptions of these problems would help men and women in that region reconcile. But those of us who support Jimbo and Larry's original policy, i.e., the mission of this encyclopedia, will continue to help craft articles that describe as clearly and accurately as possible this situation and others like it. I daresay an essential element of this accuracy is the scrupulous refusal to take sides on whether any particular source is creditable. Better to say "most historians agree that" or "Islamic and Western historians disagree over", etc. Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed