Part of the problem is the "authority and endorsement" issue.
Robert (RK) appears, in the eyes of some Wikipedians, to be making the following argument:
* Palestinians say they want peace, but * Here is the proof that they really want to destroy Israel.
Thus it appears that Robert is trying to get Wikipedia to endorse /his personal POV/ that the Palestinians are lying. Hence the complaints that he's "engaging in original research" or "writing from a POV".
I have occasionally had a similar problem with Sheldon and William. One of us will try to find "proof" that scientists or politicians "really" support or oppose a particular scientific hypothesis. Then one of us will complain that it's just POV.
Well, the Wikipedia will never be a place to resolves political or scientific disputes. Not until we depose our Philosopher King and eliminate his NPOV policy.
Whatever the dispute is, the solution has always been -- and always will be -- to /identify/ the advocates of the various sides and /attribute/ their stated POV to them.
If it's a dispute over whether a quote is authentic, then we can say:
* UPI quoted Arafat as desiring peaceful coexistence with Israel * Jayson Blair, a reporter for the New York Times, hired an Arabic translation who says Arafat's recent speech to Hezbollah and Herbrestah is filled with repeated calls for the immediate and total destruction of Israel.
That leaves the reader with the choice of believing UPI or Jayson Blair. Wikipedia isn't going to tell him whom to believe.
Or if a contributor doesn't think UPI has any credibility, then how about CNN or Fox News or the Washington Post or Al-Jazeera? Or how about an historian or legal scholar? Or any other published source? I don't care who says it, as long as you provide the identity of the speaker. I'll decide for myself if I agree with them or not.
This issue keeps coming up, but the solution is always the same:
LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.
Uncle Ed
LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.Uncle Ed
unfortunately I haven't watched the ongoings about RK/palestinians/etc, but I generally agree to "LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z".
Why have an edit war and not WikiHug each other wishing everyone to have "peace profound"?
With Best Wishes For Peace Profound, --Optim
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Ed-
This issue keeps coming up, but the solution is always the same:
LET THE ARTICLE SAY THAT X REPORTS Y ABOUT Z.
Yes, that is the basic premise of NPOV. I think everyone understands that. The problem is that NPOV is not very clear on other matters, such as balance and level of detail. So people keep arguing about the same things over and over again.
Articles often get listed on VfD because they (allegedly) *selectively* attribute points of views to their adherents. You know that you've started quite a few such articles yoruself, Ed. Similarly, in the case of the [[Mother Teresa]] article, I added a lot of critical information about her, properly attributed.
Many people feel that in such cases, the information should either be split away or removed, and only a "balanced" article would be legitimate. Of course what is and isn't balanced is different to different people.
Personally, I think that if the statements in an article are correct, encyclopedic and relevant to the article's subject, they should remain, and the article should be expanded (or summarized) by those who feel that certain views or facts are missing (or overly detailed).
Some people may feel that this gives advocates of one stripe or another a blanket check to insert their point of view ("propaganda") into Wikipedia as long as it is properly attributed. Indeed it does. That is not a bad thing, though. We need to get away from the notion that articles have to be perfect shining diamonds at any given time, and if they are not, they should be deleted. That's not how articles grow and evolve on Wikipedia.
To put things into perspective, most of our information about foreign countries currently comes from the CIA World Factbook and the State Department. This information looks more or less NPOV, but it obviously omits essential historical details. For example, most of our articles about African countries make no mention of the corporations and banks that have business operations in these countries, or of the mercenaries they hire. Most conflicts are described as "ethnic" rather than economically motivated. There is little information about how governments and media are bribed into supporting pro-western policies. And we don't learn why western governments ignore (or actively support) genocides in some countries (Rwanda) and invent them in others (Congo).
Yet few people challenge these articles. Why? Because they're nicely written and look as if they are complete. Yet, in terms of true NPOV, they are among the worst material we have on Wikipedia. Even in these cases, however, I think it is better to edit the articles than to delete them.
Regards,
Erik
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Robert (RK) appears, in the eyes of some Wikipedians, to be making the following argument:
- Palestinians say they want peace, but
- Here is the proof that they really want to destroy Israel.
I understand that people think that, but I think that's more out of a general view people have of RK than something that comes from this particular text. This particular text contains reports of quotes tending in different directions. As far as I know, a slim majority of Palestinians does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, so clearly both views are common there, and this is reflected in the quotes.
I'm sure the passage could be improved, but there's really no way to characterize it as "rubbish" or "trash" that needs to be summarily deleted.
--Jimbo