[WikiEN-l] Context and POV (was: Effective bullying strategy)

[Poor, Edmund W]

Viajero,

List me as "abstaining" from the VfD vote: so it wasn't 
unanimous, there was at least one abstention. If I thought 
VfD was a helpful process, I'd have voted "keep".

I agree that the article wasn't well written, but I don't 
think /voting to eliminate it/ is the answer. Perhaps 
BLANKING the content and starting fresh, with a stub would 
be better.

Part of the problem in politics is that advocates (like 
Arafat) espouse various positions. Sometimes the change is 
gradual over time, or sudden at a particular point. There 
have even been claims that a politician will say different 
things to different audiences on the same day!

The hardest political position to describe is one which the 
advocate doesn't want to be "caught" advocating; he tells 
his supporters one thing and his critics another. The so-
called "secret agenda". In American politics, some people 
think Bush and Cheney have a secret agenda in Iraq, e.g., 
of self-enrichment via Haliburton. In Middle Eastern 
politics, some people think Arafat seeks the full 
elimination of Israel and talks peace only as means to that 
end.

It's exceedingly difficult to figure out what a politician 
is /really/ saying, in such a case. Is he telling the 
truth, and his opponents are TWISTING his words? Or is he 
speaking with forked tongue, and his opponents are 
REVEALING the deception? 

I don't think Wikipedia is called upon to make the ultimate 
judgment. Rather, we should say things like:

* Former Israeli prime minister X believes that Arafat says 
  one thing and does another
* Islamic leader Y believes that Arafat has always 
  sincerely sought to live side by side in peace with Jews 

If it's a question of statements being taken out of 
context, we can help by quoting lengthier passages. But 
it's up to the /reader/ to decide whether the man /really/ 
means what he says.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed