Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process/archive 5

March reverts

I reverted RK's (unmarked) revert for the reasons discussed at great length by a number of Wikipedians in the archive. Martin 22:44, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In regards to the article, "Palestinian views of the peace process", Martin Harper is still censoring vast amounts of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of working with others to make improvements, he is hiding facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally unacceptable. On Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo Wales writes about this; he supports the keeping the content that Martin keeps censoring. RK 18:11, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo writes:

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.

On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jimbo then wrote:

I don't really see how it's original historical research in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where people have chosen to delete rather than work for neutrality.

Pro-Arab, left-wing Wikipedians, like Martin Harper, are violating NPOV by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of people, in a limited number of situations. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are mainstream and majority views, are censored and deleted. In contrast, the material I have contributed 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. In the recent past, others have mass-deleted all this material. Today Martin Harper is doing this all over again. RK

In support of the range of views presented within the article, Jimbo writes: Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004

"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."

There you have from Jimbo. Martin Harper is violating Wikipedia policy by cnesorship. Sysops, please control him. RK 18:11, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, Jimbo was speaking about deletion of the article outright. I have edited the article. To be sure, I have edited it mercilessly, but nevertheless Jimbo's comments don't apply: I have improved the text, just as Jimbo requests people to do. Robert's response has been to revert and throw around accusations of censorship.

Secondly, Jimbo is speaking about an earlier dispute: the current dispute is not between "delete" and "don't delete", but rather between two versions. I maintain that the version supported by RK is inferior, for reasons that have been discussed at some length in the archive.

Thirdly, Jimbo retracted his comments (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-January/009338.html), acknowledging that he was heavily biased on the matter. Martin 19:37, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reversions

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

• (RK) Reverted first
• (RK) Reverted the most
• If the edits reverted by RK were not vandalism, then RK is the only one at fault here.

For a complete history of discussion on the reverts [read above] --user:Bensaccount

This material has been the subject of many reverts, over several months, and these reverts have been discussed in many places. The above is far from a complete history.

"Fault" is not an issue here. Writing an encyclopedia article is. Martin 01:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)