[WikiEN-l] Re: Mr Natural Health and Martin Harper again out of control

[Ray Saintonge]

Robert wrote:

>I sent a message to this list explaining why Martin Harper
>(MyRedDice), and Mr Natural Health, needs to immediately
>stop their campaign of reversions and politically motivated
>mass deletions. Most of what I sent was a detailed
>explanation of precisely why Martin's actions are a clear
>violation of NPOV, and why they constitute censorship.
>These explanations were not written by me, but rather by
>Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia founder.
>
>Jimbo writes:
>
>>In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
>>left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
>>are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
>>PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
>>Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist,
>>the majority of Palestinians polled support the
>>destruction ofIsrael.
>>We can only come to understand that better when we come to
>>understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
>>propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
>>because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable
>>
>with
>
>>that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
>>think censorship is too strong a word."
>>
>Ray Saintonge (Ec) mistook this for a quote from me, It
>wasn't. Ray writes:
>
>>This seems like a blatant attempt to manipulate a text,
>>or a series of assumedly accurate facts in support of
>>propaganda for the Israeli POV. 
>>
>No, it isn't. Your accusations are angry and unfounded. On
>Wikipedia, NPOV policy demands tha we provide a situation's
>context. Context requires that we provide quotes from many
>different people, at different points in their lives
>(especially if they offer multiple contradictory
>statements, like Yassir Arafat.)
>
The word that I objected to was "duplicity".  NPOV requires assuming 
good faith.  I don't dispute that we should include quotes from many 
different people at many different times in their lives, but that too 
must be an orderly process.  If something was said 20 years ago it may 
not reflect the person's current thinking.  Anyway, it's pointless to 
put too much emphasis on Arafat.  He has been effectively marginalized 
by both the Israelis and his own people.  His health appears to be in 
decline.  As with Moses, the rewards of the promised land are likely to 
be posthumous.

>You are still assuming that Arabs are liars, and that any
>quote from them "makes Arabs look bad and Jews look good".
>But that just is not true. The fact that you just don't get
>is that many Arabs have views that differ from your own.
>For instance, the Palestinian Authority has funded the
>publication of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf, and funds
>teachers and preachers who teach holocaust denial. That
>isn't an "anti-Arab" statement. In fact, to them these
>positions are PRO-Arab. You disagree? Fine; if you can't
>stomach reading views that you disagree then go away. But
>don't use our encyclopedia to rewrite facts to make all
>Palestinian Arabs look like left-wing pro-peace people.
>Where I come from, this is called lying.
>
I find it hard to recognize any of my position in the above fabricated 
gibberish.  What is the relevance of "Mein Kampf"?  Preaching the fringe 
doctrine of holocaust denial would be self-contradictory for a people 
who put forth that the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians the same 
thing that the Germans did to the Jews.  By denying the holocaust they 
would lose their "model".

>For the last year, many Wikipedians on this list have acted
>in rage, and lashed out in mass-censorship, when facts have
>appeared which showed Arab leaders to have views which are
>not democratic, or are anti-Jewish or anti-Chrisitian.  We
>have been told by left-wing Wikipedia contributors that
>these views are "anti-Arab and pro-Jewish".
>
>The problem is that they are not anti-Arab, nor are they
>pro-Jewish. They are just honest points of view from people
>who happen to be Arab leaders. We have to allow our
>encyclopedia the ability to state such views, even when we
>disagree with them.
>
The relevant Middle East dispute is between Israelis and Palestinians 
far more than between Jews and Arabs.  I can criticize Israel without 
being anti-Jewish, and I can criticize Zionism without being 
anti-semitic.  I am always careful in choosing my words in this regard. 
 Those who insist on confounding these terms do more than anyone for 
turning anti-semitism a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The rigorous pursuit 
of holocaust deniers says more about the pursuers, than about the 
misguided individuals who are making the denial

>Ray closes his letter with a personal attack on me, which
>clearly is encouragement for Martin and MNH to continue
>damaging the encyclopedia. This is called biting one's nose
>off to spite one's face. Should I respond in kind? Should I
>find people who hate Ray and encourage them to violate
>Wikipedia policy - simply to enrage Ray?
>
Though you chose to speak to two separate issues in your original 
posting, I could not have commented on the MNH issue without reviewing 
events in that area.  I did not review those events, and made no 
comments about MNH.

Ec