I sent a message to this list explaining why Martin Harper (MyRedDice), and Mr Natural Health, needs to immediately stop their campaign of reversions and politically motivated mass deletions. Most of what I sent was a detailed explanation of precisely why Martin's actions are a clear violation of NPOV, and why they constitute censorship. These explanations were not written by me, but rather by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.
Jimbo writes:
In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction ofIsrael. We can only come to understand that better when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable
with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word."
Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It wasn't. Ray writes:
This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text, or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of propaganda for the Israeli POV.
No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many different people, at different points in their lives (especially if they offer multiple contradictory statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
You are still assuming that Arabs are liars, and that any quote from them "makes Arabs look bad and Jews look good". But that just is not true. The fact that you just don't get is that many Arabs have views that differ from your own. For instance, the Palestinian Authority has funded the publication of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and funds teachers and preachers who teach holocaust denial. That isn't an "anti-Arab" statement. In fact, to them these positions are PRO-Arab. You disagree? Fine; if you can't stomach reading views that you disagree then go away. But don't use our encyclopedia to rewrite facts to make all Palestinian Arabs look like left-wing pro-peace people. Where I come from, this is called lying.
For the last year, many Wikipedians on this list have acted in rage, and lashed out in mass-censorship, when facts have appeared which showed Arab leaders to have views which are not democratic, or are anti-Jewish or anti-Chrisitian. We have been told by left-wing Wikipedia contributors that these views are "anti-Arab and pro-Jewish".
The problem is that they are not anti-Arab, nor are they pro-Jewish. They are just honest points of view from people who happen to be Arab leaders. We have to allow our encyclopedia the ability to state such views, even when we disagree with them.
Ray closes his letter with a personal attack on me, which clearly is encouragement for Martin and MNH to continue damaging the encyclopedia. This is called biting one's nose off to spite one's face. Should I respond in kind? Should I find people who hate Ray and encourage them to violate Wikipedia policy - simply to enrage Ray?
Some people like to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk many people here seem willing to dump NPOV in order to tweak someone. That is unacceptable behaviour.
Robert (RK)
===== "No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge....A person who has knowledge has everything. A person who lacks knowledge, what has he? Once a person acquires knowledge, what does he lack? [Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 41a]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Robert wrote:
These explanations were not written by me, but rather by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.
Hey Jimbo, are you regretting weighing in on this one now? :-)
Personally, I think Robert should only be allowed back on this mailing list when he apologizes to me and everybody else here for calling us Nazis. I know it's been awhile and I should be forgiving, but Robert needs to learn how to behave civilly, and as we see here, once he sees he can get away with the mortal insults, he takes it as permission to abuse everybody and anybody who disagrees with him.
Stan
Robert wrote:
I sent a message to this list explaining why Martin Harper (MyRedDice), and Mr Natural Health, needs to immediately stop their campaign of reversions and politically motivated mass deletions. Most of what I sent was a detailed explanation of precisely why Martin's actions are a clear violation of NPOV, and why they constitute censorship. These explanations were not written by me, but rather by Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.
Jimbo writes:
In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction ofIsrael. We can only come to understand that better when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable
with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't think censorship is too strong a word."
Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It wasn't. Ray writes:
This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text, or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of propaganda for the Israeli POV.
No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many different people, at different points in their lives (especially if they offer multiple contradictory statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
The word that I objected to was "duplicity". NPOV requires assuming good faith. I don't dispute that we should include quotes from many different people at many different times in their lives, but that too must be an orderly process. If something was said 20 years ago it may not reflect the person's current thinking. Anyway, it's pointless to put too much emphasis on Arafat. He has been effectively marginalized by both the Israelis and his own people. His health appears to be in decline. As with Moses, the rewards of the promised land are likely to be posthumous.
You are still assuming that Arabs are liars, and that any quote from them "makes Arabs look bad and Jews look good". But that just is not true. The fact that you just don't get is that many Arabs have views that differ from your own. For instance, the Palestinian Authority has funded the publication of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and funds teachers and preachers who teach holocaust denial. That isn't an "anti-Arab" statement. In fact, to them these positions are PRO-Arab. You disagree? Fine; if you can't stomach reading views that you disagree then go away. But don't use our encyclopedia to rewrite facts to make all Palestinian Arabs look like left-wing pro-peace people. Where I come from, this is called lying.
I find it hard to recognize any of my position in the above fabricated gibberish. What is the relevance of "Mein Kampf"? Preaching the fringe doctrine of holocaust denial would be self-contradictory for a people who put forth that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians the same thing that the Germans did to the Jews. By denying the holocaust they would lose their "model".
For the last year, many Wikipedians on this list have acted in rage, and lashed out in mass-censorship, when facts have appeared which showed Arab leaders to have views which are not democratic, or are anti-Jewish or anti-Chrisitian. We have been told by left-wing Wikipedia contributors that these views are "anti-Arab and pro-Jewish".
The problem is that they are not anti-Arab, nor are they pro-Jewish. They are just honest points of view from people who happen to be Arab leaders. We have to allow our encyclopedia the ability to state such views, even when we disagree with them.
The relevant Middle East dispute is between Israelis and Palestinians far more than between Jews and Arabs. I can criticize Israel without being anti-Jewish, and I can criticize Zionism without being anti-semitic. I am always careful in choosing my words in this regard. Those who insist on confounding these terms do more than anyone for turning anti-semitism a self-fulfilling prophecy. The rigorous pursuit of holocaust deniers says more about the pursuers, than about the misguided individuals who are making the denial
Ray closes his letter with a personal attack on me, which clearly is encouragement for Martin and MNH to continue damaging the encyclopedia. This is called biting one's nose off to spite one's face. Should I respond in kind? Should I find people who hate Ray and encourage them to violate Wikipedia policy - simply to enrage Ray?
Though you chose to speak to two separate issues in your original posting, I could not have commented on the MNH issue without reviewing events in that area. I did not review those events, and made no comments about MNH.
Ec