First, it's not only a problem of bias but also a problem of language difficulties - it takes me more than three times longer to write in English than in German. Plus, often it's a question of subtle nouances of formulations which make the difference in the neutrality of an article, as I tried to point out. As a non-native speaker I can feel that something is "smelling" but my corrections would eventually make things only worse. (I already had such a problem in a discussion with maverick where I still don't know what exactly I got wrong in grammar - anyway, sorry mav)

Third, I have serious doubts that the normal wikipedian strategy you described would work in this special area. My impression was that articles tend to grow longer and longer, each writer adding deeds, arguments, objections, denials, accusations of each side, leaving it totally to the reader to sort out the relevant material. This is not my vision of a NPOV-encyclopedia and nothing I want to participate in.

Finally, I could do, but you would agree that 15 simultaneous edit wars are not a very pleasant situation to be in?

So I'd prefer a consensual attempt to make the articles NPOV, which seems to be made possible by Ed's generous offer. Maybe I should also talk to Uriyan.

greetings, elian

Elian,

As you pointed out, there are many obstacles to fixing these articles. Writing in English is time-consuming, and the nuances are hard to master. The edit war which results from accusation and denial just makes it worse.

One practice that seems to work well, is when a partisan for one side does his best to explain the viewpoint of the other side. Stephen Covey once described a debate in which neither side was permitted to say a single word about their own views, until they had first restated the opposing viewpoint _to the satisfaction of the other side_.

Sometimes, I'm just too close to a subject to be able to step back and write neutrally. I don't know why, but I just start to think, "But this is RIGHT! Why do I have to give equal time to nonsense?" At such a time, a third party who can step in would be welcome.

I appreciate the confidence you and some others place in me, but I have doubts about how helpful I can really be. I don't remember whether I have revealed my biases yet. (I think Israel should annex Gaza and West Bank; Palestinian Arabs can either tolerate subjection to Israeli authority, or emigrate to a friendly neighbor like Jordan, Egypt or Syria.)

Is it really possible for a person holding this view to write _neutrally_ about it or about opposing views? Some Wikipedians think I can do it, and some think I can't.

Another obstacle is the amount of time it will take. I would say at least two years. Several contributors have given up after a few weeks.

Another problem I have no idea how to solve, because I might be part of the problem, is the personal attacks between contributors. "You're a troll." "Oh, yeah? You're a *&@#$!" If I step in, both sides immediately say, "He started it." "No, he started it. All I was saying was..." "Yeah, but he...." When I proposed to ban one party for as short as 24 hours, several long-time contributors criticized me for exceeding my authority. (What authority? You have none!) These critics were all correct: only Jimbo can ban a signed-in contributor, and he's only done so one time.

Can we make peace on Wikipedia by silencing "troublemakers"? Perhaps even to think so shows that I failed to grasp the essence of "neutral point of view".

I do want to work with you, Elian. But it will be a lot of hard work. And it will not be smooth sailing.

I think we should continue to discuss "how to approach" these pages, here, on the mailing list. Specific questions about how to describe facts, ideas and viewpoints are probably best left to the talk pages of the articles themselves.

Ed Poor