Robert is correct when he asserts that:
* We are obligated to follow NPOV policy, which states that
we phrase things like this: Israel Shahak claims X, other groups
disagree claiming Y.
If it's a question about how much weight Shahak's opinion should carry,
in comparison with the opinions of others -- well, that is not for the W
to say. Better to have an [[Israel Shahak]] article which addresses the
issue of the group's credibiliity -- also written from the NPOV.
The problems of the Middle East cannot be _resolved_ by Wikipedia
articles. It's not even clear that accurate, unbiased descriptions of
these problems would help men and women in that region reconcile.
But those of us who support Jimbo and Larry's original policy, i.e., the
mission of this encyclopedia, will continue to help craft articles that
describe as clearly and accurately as possible this situation and others
like it.
I daresay an essential element of this accuracy is the scrupulous
refusal to take sides on whether any particular source is creditable.
Better to say "most historians agree that" or "Islamic and Western
historians disagree over", etc.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed