I wrote
Danny has an agenda that he's pushing, openly, and it's affecting his editing.
Viajero wrote:
Danny has an agenda? This is laughable. What is it?
His agenda is that RK is a crank, and that his contribution on the topic in question ought to be deleted rather than edited.
That he is pro-Palestinian? I have yet to see a shred of evidence of this. His major failing appears to be that he is not uncritical enough of Israel in the Manichean worldview of RK and his ilk.
No, it has nothing to do with being pro-Palestinian. It has to do with summarily deleting perfectly good content, rather than working to improve it.
Really, not much of the current dispute has anything to do with being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. RK has worked to present the varying views of the Palestinians, and people who don't like the result just delete it instead of work to improve it.
In their own ways, both Danny and Zero are extremely well-informed and have a far subtler grasp of the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than RK.
In that case, they ought to work to improve the article, not to censor material that they don't like.
And rightly so, they both strongly -- and at times inelegantly -- resist RK's efforts to insert blatant anti-Palestinian propaganda in Wiki articles.
In the general case, there may be some truth to that. But focussing on the current example, it does not seem to be an accurate representation of the text at hand.
It is _not_ "blatant anti-Palestinian propoganda" to give accurate, verified, balanced quotes from a variety of sources in an effort to illuminate Palestinian views on the peace process. Is it? It is "blatant anti-Palestinian propaganda" to quote Arafat? I don't see how, particularly when he is quoted multiply to show how his statements have changed over time.
--Jimbo