[WikiEN-l] Abe's thesis

[Elisabeth Bauer]

Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Can you give examples of RK taking outrageous positions on
> Israel/Palestine issues?  I don't think he does, and I don't think
that's > quite what Abe's point was.
>
> RK is a pretty good NPOV writer.  Better than most, I think.

I intended to keep myself silent in this debate, but this statement
was simply too much.

Not everybody who often cries NPOV in recent changes is also a good NPOV
writer.

I focus on Islamic topics, not on the Palestine/Israel issues, because
I decided not to read anything about this in Wikipedia anymore.

reinserted by RK into the article [[Islam]]

"An infamous example of a Muslim apostate undergoing persecution is that
of [[Salman Rushdie]], whose novel [[The Satanic Verses]] prompted furious
clerics to issue a [[Fatwa]] for his execution."

Do you consider the words "infamous" and "furious" NPOV? (regardless
of the personal opinion one may have about this case)

deleted from the article [[Islam]] by RK:

"Muslims who believe in the "Five Pillars of Islam" may be offended by the
mention of a violent sixth pillar." [1]

(BTW, I know personally quite a lot of muslims for whom this statement
holds true)

Shall I provide more examples? two more from
http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Arabs_and_anti-Semitism&diff=433211&oldid=433202
(anonymous IP on left side, RK on the "right" side)

"Unlike Christianity, Muslims sought to conquer the world through force of
arms, rather than through conversion. As such, when Muslim armies
conquered nations, they felt no special need to force Jews (or Christians)
to convert to Islam. Members of other religions, however, were forced to
convert, or they were killed"

(If someone doesn't understand why I consider this paragraph so ridiculous,
I can provide detailed explanation)

This history page is also a good example for RK doing something he usually
accuses others: Deleting facts who are disagreeable to them. Part in
brackets deleted by RK.

"These verses are not rhetorical; they refer to the attack by the pagans
of Mecca on the city of Medina (also known as Yathrib) where Muhammad was
living. [Having signed a treaty with the three Jewish tribes of the city
to maintain peace and a unified defence force for the city, Muhammad
discovered that when Medina was attacked by the Meccans, the Jewish tribes
refused to abide by the treaty they signed. Further, the Jewish outpost of
Khyber (which had also signed a peace treaty with Muhammad) joined forces
with the Meccans to attack Medina.]"

> The problem with RK is not that he battles to write absurd things in
articles -- the problem with RK is that he's very difficult to work
with, and that -- in the current case -- he really stepped over the
lines in terms of not treating others with respect and kindness.

Not only in the current case. I left the english wikipedia half a year ago
because I couldn't stand any more the sight of recent changes where RK was
labelling people as vandals, trolls, anti-semites, told them "Wikipedia is
no place for you, we don't want you here, go away" and so on.

> Several people have made this claim over time -- that RK is trying to
insert blatant propaganda into articles.  But the examples that I have
seen are very *very* thin,

and very likely to hurt a lot of Muslims deeply in their religious feelings.

If RK's writings correspond to your vision of how NPOV should manifest
itself in Wikipedia, I don't regret to have left the english Wikipedia.
Sorry for the personal attack -- normally I hold you in a very high esteem
-- but your statement made me sad and angry.

greetings,
elian.

[1] Wikipedia "The sixth pillar of Islam" gives a really impressing

"History of use"
"According to Kenneth R. Timmerman's book, "Preachers of Hate: Islam and
the War on America," and his Washington Times article "Truth from the
mouths of terrorists" [4] (published June 19, 2003), the sixth pillar of
Islam is violent jihad. In Timmerman's words, "Think of it: Murder has
become the sixth pillar of Islam, according to the terrorists. Where are
the Muslim leaders to denounce this?"

The phrase has also been used by orientalists, and some Muslims, although
the meanings plainly can differ widely."