Hoi!
At the same time it is fair to point out that certain groups do believe this as long as that fact is adequately referenced.
You either haven't been following the thread (and you haven't read the original text) or we totally failed to explain ourselves. The problem is not about WHAT is said, but about HOW things are said. That is, they are enunciated as The Absolute Truth.
There's nothing wrong in explaining that political group A has a negative idea of political group B because bla bla bla. Actually that's how an encyclopedia SHOULD be. There is a BIG problem when articles says "the bloody ***ist bitches are responsible of..." with no source (put any national/racial/religious code instead of ***).
It's okay that all wikies cannot avoid getting posted with a quantity of such material, because of simple statistics. But I don't think you'll rate it okay when this material gets treated as "featured material". Or when a wiki publishes open calls to volunteers to "correct en.wiki's corrupted vision of history" by brute force by eliminating all traces of their national involvement in anti-Semitic activities from en.wiki.
It's not abstract principles we deal with, it's real facts, as written in permalinks. Thank God nobody can clear the backups, so it will never be a problem to translate the material and let it speak for itself. Anyway, as I told to Francis and John right from the start, it's a BIG mistake to present insulated fragments in such cases. Most people cannot read the original, and as a result in a few minutes you're going to discuss about empty principles, instead of dealing with a naked fact, as it should be.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html