I believe RK's material could and should probably be presented in several paragraphs. What he has done is a piece of original historical research, which by citing particular statements made by Palestinians builds a strong case that at least some Palestinian leaders are insincere. However due to my experiences with him I would hesitate to rely on what he has done as he has often composed this sort of lengthy detailed article which by framing the debate in his terms and sytematically misrepresenting opposing positions distorts the situation. (My big edit war with him was in Chiroractic medicine which I do know something about. Your chiropratic medicine article remains unrecognisable to chiropractic practitioners or their patients). I would certainly never attempt to edit an article he was actively working on in an aggressive way. (Silly to get upset over a hobby like Wikipedia).
On Vfd, just recently someone tried to delete [[Communist government]], but had to give up. That article which is quite toned down after extensive editing remains deeply offensive to apoligists, however they have their [[Communist state]] article which presents a sanitized version of things.
Thing is, Wikipedia is to some extent an ideological battleground, a forum for struggle.
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 06:48:08 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Effective bullying strategy. (RK)
Fred Bauder wrote:
Agreed, I was hasty. But you must admit a struggle to put forward points of view by partisan advocates is in progress. Deletion and thus silence is just as much its expression as RK's overdone presentation.
Can you be more specific about what is overdone about his presentation? I'm not sure what the word "overdone" means here.
Certainly, the material in question is too long and in detail for a broad overview article -- but this only shows why it was a mistake to delete the original article in the first place.
But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem. There is no question that a full understanding of the Palestinian situation requires understanding what Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There is no question that one point of contention is whether Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a longterm effort to destroy Israel.
Simply omitting information on that question is unacceptable. This is an important part of one of the major questions of our time.
I've read and re-read the passages in question -- they could use some work, no doubt. But the only arguments I've seen for deletion is that the material is biased (though just how it is biased, I'm not sure).
I've been trying to find the original VfD entry, but Wikipedia is painfully slow at the moment, so I've been unsuccessful.
--Jimbo
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l