One thing I'm interested in, is how much the anger of Palestinian nationalists is due to mistreatment by Israel -- compared to how much is frustration because of rejection by Islamic nations to assimilate refugees -- and also how much is due to rabble-rousing by groups dedicated to Israel's destruction. How's that for a "dangerous question"?
Can people now see why these articles are a big problem for Wikipedia? This is how long it took for a meta discussion to get nasty on specific points.
I'm in favour of just removing the articles and stating that Wikipedia at this date is unable to provide a NPOV, even after a year of trying.
-- Daniel
I don't understand: what is "nasty" about trying to sort things out? If the nationalists' anger is due entirely to (a) and not at all to (b) or (c), just say so. I wasn't trying to make a point; I was really trying to get information to put into the article.
I would like us to be able to write something like:
(B) Palestinian Arabs have never expressed a desire to be assimilated into existing Islamic nations such as Jordan or Syria; they just want to establish a new nation.
Or:
(C-1) Arab Palestinians do not want to destroy Israel but live in peace as neighbors.
But it might instead be:
(C-2) The Arab world is dedicated to Israel's destruction, and once they gain military control over the West Bank their next plan is to launch a fourth war against Israel.
There are some people who believe C-1 and some who believe C-2. Is is wrong to try to find out who believes what? How else can I find out other than asking questions? (I'm not good at original research.)
Ed Poor
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
One thing I'm interested in, is how much the anger of Palestinian nationalists is due to mistreatment by Israel -- compared to how much is frustration because of rejection by Islamic nations to assimilate refugees -- and also how much is due to rabble-rousing by groups dedicated to Israel's destruction. How's that for a "dangerous question"?
Can people now see why these articles are a big problem for Wikipedia? This how long it took for a meta discussion to get nasty on specific points.
I don't understand: what is "nasty" about trying to sort things out? If the nationalists' anger is due entirely to (a) and not at all to (b) or (c), just say so. I wasn't trying to make a point; I was really trying to get information to put into the article.
The tone of the paragraph I've quoted is accusing and IMO nasty. Particularly your sentence 'How's that for a "dangerous question"?'.
I'm not saying your specific point is wrong, or that you are a bad person, or even that my perception of this makes anything you say invalid.
What I _am_ saying is that even the most level headed and forthcoming participants here, such as you, are drawn into what amounts to pitched battles almost immediately.
Even when it's very clear that the issue is not specific points, but how to solve the general problem that these articles represent. Yes, Elian was the one who brought specifics into it - but only as examples and part of "documentation".
These articles have driven a lot of people away from Wikipedia, they're NPOV, and I don't see them improving (as this thread has demonstrated). Again, I call for having them (re)moved, and a statement put in their place about how Wikipedia is not able to provdide this particular service.
-- Daniel
"Hr. Daniel Mikkelsen" daniel@copyleft.no writes:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I don't understand: what is "nasty" about trying to sort things out? If the nationalists' anger is due entirely to (a) and not at all to (b) or (c), just say so. I wasn't trying to make a point; I was really trying to get information to put into the article.
The tone of the paragraph I've quoted is accusing and IMO nasty. Particularly your sentence 'How's that for a "dangerous question"?'.
This "dangerous" refers directly to a term in my mail and, honestly I don't see it as nasty. Maybe it can be seen as nasty by Ed's unconscious choice of words (which should never be used in an article but here on the mailinglist rules are not that strict), but the question he asked is a rather interesting one.
I must agree to the people who want this discussion taken off the list, but the participants need IMHO a possibility for one central discussion. Any suggestions?
These articles have driven a lot of people away from Wikipedia, they're NPOV, and I don't see them improving (as this thread has demonstrated). Again, I call for having them (re)moved, and a statement put in their place about how Wikipedia is not able to provdide this particular service.
This radical solution would me spare a lot of energy ;-) But however, it feels like a capitulation of the wikipedia-project.
greetings, elian
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org