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