[WikiEN-l] Re: Anthere has abused her authority

[Anthere]

Hmmm


The *2 of you* had been doing exactly *3 reverts*.
Plus, there was not much discussion in the talk page.
There was *no reason* to think discussion would start eventually, 
without a little bit of help.
Plus, I had never edited that article.
So, I think I was acting fairly.

Robert, I would like to clarify something.
I have nothing against your faith.
You would be amazed at the depth of my ignorance with regards to the 
Palestinian conflict and various positions on the matter. I think you 
would not find anyone more neutral than I on all Wikipedia :-)

Please, do believe I know you are undoubtely more knowledgeable than I 
on the topic. I am convinced of your expertise.

Now, I think the right place for you to head to is the discussion page : 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3APalestinian_views_of_the_peace_process
and the right thing to do is to go on with the discussion with your peers.

Perhaps a neutral mediator might help all of you to reach an 
understanding ? Would anyone feels like helping Robert and Mirv ?


Robert wrote:
> Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has
> picked one version of an article which deleted and censored
> all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist
> views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous
> behaviour from a Sysop.
> 
> I understand that many people here hate Israel and Jews who
> support it, that much has been clear for some time. But
> such hatred is rarely so blatant as this: To falsify
> history by deleting entire historical accounts and quotes,
> to spin a fantastic pro-Arab, anti-Zionist storyline, and
> to lock the article, is just too much.
> 
> 
> Recall that on Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 Jimbo Wales writes about
> this very situation:
> 
> "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."
> 
>   He is right. That is what Martin (MyRedDice) had been
>   doing, and that is now what Mirv and Anthere are doing.
> 
> It is a total violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to only
> mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a
> limited number of situations. Palestinian viewpoints that
> Anthere and Mirv disagree with, even if they are majority
> views, are censored and deleted. That is outrageous and
> dishonest.  It is also anti-Palestinian; Anthere and Mirv
> are effectively saying "You Palestinians can go fuck
> yourselves'; we'll tell the world what you believe, even if
> we have to erase your own quotes."
> 
> 
> In contrast, the material they censored shows a wide range
> of views from a wide range of Palestinian leaders, so that
> Wikipedia readers can read the range of views and make up
> their own mind. That, by definition, is Wikipedia NPOV
> policy. 
> 
> In support of the range of views presented within the
> article, Jimbo writes:
> 
> "The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good
> precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing
> viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes
> are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views
> and background information is given. 
> 
> Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of
> information because it doesn't comport well with the
> prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely
> victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians
> are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and
> expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is
> simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because
> it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels
> fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily
> arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I
> think that the material is good, though not excellent, but
> my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as
> something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It
> should be *improved*.
> 
> In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
> left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
> are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
> PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
> Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the
> majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of
> Israel.
> 
> We can only come to understand that better when we come to
> understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
> propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
> because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with
> that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
> think censorship is too strong a word."
> 
>    Jimbo is correct. Stop the censorship, and stop the
>    explicit and outrageous violation of Wikipedia NPOV
>    policy. If your hatred of Israel gets in the way of
>    following NPOV, then I would suggest working on other
>    articles.
> 
> 
> Robert (RK)
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> 		
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://messenger.yahoo.com/