[WikiEN-l] Re: NPOV policy on Israel Shahak and Richard Wagner articles

[Dan Keshet]

RK,

Please don't personalize the issue as if Zero were the only one who
disagrees with your text.  It is wrong on many accounts, accounts which I
have described on the talk page.  I have repeatedly indicated my
willingness to use mediation to try to improve the discussion, in an
attempt to lead to a better article.  Zero was hesitant, but said he would
try it.  Will you join us?

--Dan Keshet

Robert wrote:

> For over a year now Zero has been taunting me with personal
> attacks, slander, and taunting with attacks on any Jews who
> differ with him. Zero constantly deletes chunks of
> articles, in order to censor facts that he disagrees with.
> Shockingly, the deleted material isn't even contested; Zero
> flat out admits that the groups mentioned have the views
> presented.
> 
> In recent days Zero has unilaterally (again) removed large
> amounts of verified facts from the article we have on
> Israel Shahak; the text he removed was on the one subject
> for which Shahak is most well known. Shahak today is known
> for his writings against religious Jews, which have been
> rejected by mainstream historians. Today, not a single
> maninstream historian relies on Shahak; his work only
> exists on Nazi, Christian Identitity and White Supremacist
> Websites. (Please do not take my word for this; check out
> Google and see for yourself.)
> 
> Long time members will recall that certain people
> attempted to sabotage our articles on Richard Wagner and on
> Holocaust denial. They repeatedly denied that any
> anti-Semitism existed in Wagner or in Holoaust denier. They
> claimed that it was a "strawman" that the ideas about Jews
> of Richard Wagner and of Holocaust Deniers were rejected by
> all historians, and were only accepted today by Nazi,
> Christian Identitity and White Supremacist Websites.
> 
> Fortunately, at the time, sane voices here prevailed. A
> number of us noted that one's personal feelings have no
> place in Wikipedia articles. Our NPOV policy demands that
> we phrase all facts in NPOV terminology.
> 
> Thus, for the Richard Wagner article we extensively
> discussed Wagner's views on Jews, giving direct quotes so
> that readers could judge for themselves. The article then
> noted that these views were not accepted as factual, yet
> were adopted as truthful by Nazis and other similar groups.
> While the anti-Semitic Wagner supporters screamed bloody
> murder, the rest of us Wikipedians kept this NPOV
> discussion. The facts were there in NPOV format, and the
> readers could judge for themselves.
> 
> Now the same thing is occuring here in the Israel Shahak
> article. Thus the article discussed Shahak's views on Jews,
> giving direct quotes so that readers could judge for
> themselves. The article then noted that these views were
> not accepted as factual, and have been rebutted by
> virtually the entire Jewish community, from secular to
> Reform to Orthodox to the ADL.
> 
> The articles states (when not censored by Zero) that
> Shahak's claims are only accepted by anti-Semitic groups.
> This is a fact. However, Zero is screaming bloody murder,
> and on the talk page has engaged in bashing against me, and
> then against the Jewish community. He now is trying to get
> me banned, and he keeps reverting the page.
> 
> Wikipedia needs to insist that NPOV policy be followed,
> even on articles for Richard Wagner and Israel Shahak. We
> cannot let Zero mass revert everything that he wants to
> keep hidden, and we cannot let him slander the Jewish
> community (or the blacks, or the gays, etc.) We cannot ban
> people just because they want articles to contain verified
> factual information in NPOV format.
> 
> Obviously I and others are flexible on the specific wording
> of said facts (as I have stated on the articles' talk pag)
> The problem is that Zero has repeatedly stated that he
> won't let the issue even be discussed, which is a serious
> violation of Wikipedia ethics.
> 
> 
> Robert (RK)