Last year on September 11, a group of radical Muslims declared war on the United States. It hijacked four planes and rammed three of them in the WTC and the Pentagon. About 3,000 people died. This would then justify the American government declaring a boycott of all Arab-American businesses and even attempting to exterminate all Muslims in America.
Ridiculous? Of course. Offensive? Certainly. Yet this is exactly the position that Helga is expressing here and in the Talk section of the Neturei Karta article.
In 1933 a small group of Jews declared war on Germany (in response to the government's official policies of anti-Semitism). Germany responded with an official boycott of all Jewish shops and eventually launched an all-out campaign to murder all the Jews of Europe.
Her position is ridiculous and offensive. It certainly is not acceptable by any standards. Yet here we are bending over backwards to find ways to include her inane views in our articles. We have some lovely prolix on the importance of including all POVs, no matter how minor, no matter how illogical or unacceptable, in order to attain the ellusive NPOV.
The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all deserve legitimacy?
Danny
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all deserve legitimacy?
I would say: clearly, no, they do not. NPOV does not require the inclusion of inanities or evil ideas. (Though it may require the _reporting on_ inanities and evil ideas.)
I don't think what we are doing here is bending over backwards to find a way to include these views. I think we're engaged in a process of feeling out the parameters, which is for our benefit, not for the benefit of the kooks.
Tangentially, we are trying to find out if Helga is willing to change her posting policies so that I don't permanently ban her.
--Jimbo
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
In 1933 a small group of Jews declared war on Germany (in response to the government's official policies of anti-Semitism). Germany responded with an official boycott of all Jewish shops and eventually launched an all-out campaign to murder all the Jews of Europe.
The sort of event where a small extremist group purporting to represent a larger community performs irrational acts is not unknown to history. Equally common is the tendency of governments and the public press to fan the flames of discontent by taking these groups at their word in their claims of being representative. Often, as was the case in 1930s Germany, the extremists fit hand in glove with preconceived notions.
I find the overreaction of governments far more frightening than the original acts of the extremists. Of a sudden, in response to a single extremist event the freedoms and liberties of everyone in a society are revoked. It then takes many years (and incidentally big profits by many lawyers) to sort out the damages, even in a society that makes a big deal of proclaiming the freeedom it offers.
As important as it may be to keep a watchful eye on the extremists (which is not done by surpressing reports of their activities), it is also important to apply the same dilligence to the activities of governments.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org