Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has picked one version of an article which deleted and censored all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous behaviour from a Sysop.
I understand that many people here hate Israel and Jews who support it, that much has been clear for some time. But such hatred is rarely so blatant as this: To falsify history by deleting entire historical accounts and quotes, to spin a fantastic pro-Arab, anti-Zionist storyline, and to lock the article, is just too much.
Recall that on Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 Jimbo Wales writes about this very situation:
"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time."
He is right. That is what Martin (MyRedDice) had been doing, and that is now what Mirv and Anthere are doing.
It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority views, are censored and deleted. That is outrageous and dishonest. It is also anti-Palestinian; Anthere and Mirv are effectively saying "You Palestinians can go fuck yourselves'; we'll tell the world what you believe, even if we have to erase your own quotes."
In contrast, the material they censored shows a wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up their own mind. That, by definition, is Wikipedia NPOV policy.
In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo writes:
"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views and background information is given.
Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*.
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 of Israel.
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."
Jimbo is correct. Stop the censorship, and stop the explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. If your hatred of Israel gets in the way of following NPOV, then I would suggest working on other articles.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote: Blah, blah, blah Robert. You cry wolf so often that I just delete your messages without ever reading them anymore. I'm sure many other people do the same.
--mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 16:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote: Blah, blah, blah Robert. You cry wolf so often that I just delete your messages without ever reading them anymore. I'm sure many other people do the same.
I don't know about this guy in particular, but when I see a message that long accusing high-profile wikipedians of general evil due to theoretical reasons. then I have a tendency to think "probable troll" and just move along. Nothing personal... now, if other people show up supporting the analysis I'll go back and review it, of course.
Could you please give us the name of the article?
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 15:53:04 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Anthere has abused her authority
Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has picked one version of an article which deleted and censored all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous behaviour from a Sysop
On 06/13/04 at 05:20 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
Could you please give us the name of the article?
[[Palestinian views of the peace process ]]
Looks to me that Anthere stepped in at precisely the right moment; the two editors had both used up their 3 reverts...
V.
Hmmm
The *2 of you* had been doing exactly *3 reverts*. Plus, there was not much discussion in the talk page. There was *no reason* to think discussion would start eventually, without a little bit of help. Plus, I had never edited that article. So, I think I was acting fairly.
Robert, I would like to clarify something. I have nothing against your faith. You would be amazed at the depth of my ignorance with regards to the Palestinian conflict and various positions on the matter. I think you would not find anyone more neutral than I on all Wikipedia :-)
Please, do believe I know you are undoubtely more knowledgeable than I on the topic. I am convinced of your expertise.
Now, I think the right place for you to head to is the discussion page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APalestinian_views_of_the_peace_process and the right thing to do is to go on with the discussion with your peers.
Perhaps a neutral mediator might help all of you to reach an understanding ? Would anyone feels like helping Robert and Mirv ?
Robert wrote:
Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has picked one version of an article which deleted and censored all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous behaviour from a Sysop.
I understand that many people here hate Israel and Jews who support it, that much has been clear for some time. But such hatred is rarely so blatant as this: To falsify history by deleting entire historical accounts and quotes, to spin a fantastic pro-Arab, anti-Zionist storyline, and to lock the article, is just too much.
Recall that on Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 Jimbo Wales writes about this very situation:
"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time."
He is right. That is what Martin (MyRedDice) had been doing, and that is now what Mirv and Anthere are doing.
It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority views, are censored and deleted. That is outrageous and dishonest. It is also anti-Palestinian; Anthere and Mirv are effectively saying "You Palestinians can go fuck yourselves'; we'll tell the world what you believe, even if we have to erase your own quotes."
In contrast, the material they censored shows a wide range of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up their own mind. That, by definition, is Wikipedia NPOV policy.
In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo writes:
"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views and background information is given.
Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of information because it doesn't comport well with the prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I think that the material is good, though not excellent, but my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It should be *improved*.
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 of Israel.
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."
Jimbo is correct. Stop the censorship, and stop the explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. If your hatred of Israel gets in the way of following NPOV, then I would suggest working on other articles.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/