I am aware that many of you are concerned with the non-stop harassment from "Mr Natural Health". As many of you have noted, he has made threats against me, and has made what appear to be death threats to many others on Usenet newsgroups. Also, a Wikipedia committee has repeatredly found him to be a harasser, and has reccomended action against him. Many Wikipedians have complained about his personal attacks and harassment.
In recent days he has started going back to harass his older self-imagined enemies, including me. MNH is again out of control, and is engaged in edit wars, personal attacks and vandalism of talk pages. He needs to be banned, immediately, as many of you already suggested.
Also, Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is still censoring the article on Palestinian Views of the Peace Process. While he disingenuously claimed to be engage in mediation, in point of fact, the "mediation committee" refused to take any action at all, and effectively supported his non-stop vandalism. I tried for over two weeks to "mediate", only to find out that the process was a hoax.
In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper is _still_ censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable.
We should heed the words of Jimbo Wales on this issue: On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this 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."
On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jim also wrote:
"I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality."
My own comment Martin Harper is deliberately violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are majority views, are censored. In contrast, the material censored actually 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. Should we allow Wikipedia to maintain NPOV? Yes! range of views presented within the article, Jimbo Wales writes:
Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004
"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."
-- end quote --
(Again, I would have been happy to engage in mediation. I was saddened to see that in fact, it does not exist.)
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Many Wikipedia users have had trouble with RK, often over long periods. Please add your input at:
[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK]]
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr Natural Health and Martin Harper again out of control
I am aware that many of you are concerned with the non-stop harassment from "Mr Natural Health". As many of you have noted, he has made threats against me, and has made what appear to be death threats to many others on Usenet newsgroups. Also, a Wikipedia committee has repeatredly found him to be a harasser, and has reccomended action against him. Many Wikipedians have complained about his personal attacks and harassment.
In recent days he has started going back to harass his older self-imagined enemies, including me. MNH is again out of control, and is engaged in edit wars, personal attacks and vandalism of talk pages. He needs to be banned, immediately, as many of you already suggested.
Also, Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is still censoring the article on Palestinian Views of the Peace Process. While he disingenuously claimed to be engage in mediation, in point of fact, the "mediation committee" refused to take any action at all, and effectively supported his non-stop vandalism. I tried for over two weeks to "mediate", only to find out that the process was a hoax.
In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper is _still_ censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable.
We should heed the words of Jimbo Wales on this issue: On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this 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."
On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jim also wrote:
"I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality."
My own comment Martin Harper is deliberately violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are majority views, are censored. In contrast, the material censored actually 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. Should we allow Wikipedia to maintain NPOV? Yes! range of views presented within the article, Jimbo Wales writes:
Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004
"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."
-- end quote --
(Again, I would have been happy to engage in mediation. I was saddened to see that in fact, it does not exist.)
Robert (RK)
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Robert wrote:
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."
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. The phrase "when we come to understand Arafat's duplicity" (without so much as a hint of the more conditional "if and when...") suggests an uncompromising closed-minded, view of Arafat's duplicity that is not prepared to accept any evidence to the contrary. I say this without prejudice to whether or not that evidence exists.
Certainly there is anti-Israeli propaganda coming from Palestinians, but then so too is there as much anti-Palestinian propaganda from Israelis.
As the adage goes, Robert's complaints are a case of "the pot calling the kettle black".
Ec