| Revision as of 03:43, 14 September 2004 editNode ue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,238 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:44, 14 September 2004 edit undoHistoryBuffEr (talk | contribs)1,223 edits To "Ambi" the sophomoric redirector (and other potential agitpop troops):Next edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ::::When you are too lazy to try to work towards salvaging the article with others and thus say it is unsalvagable and duplicates existing content, it does not. ] 03:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) | ::::When you are too lazy to try to work towards salvaging the article with others and thus say it is unsalvagable and duplicates existing content, it does not. ] 03:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) | ||
| == To "Ambi" the sophomoric redirector (and other potential agitpop troops): == | |||
| Harassment is counderpoductive, as the same tactic can be used on your favored POV article(s), and facts will not be cowed no matter how shrill you get. | |||
| If you have an intelligent suggestion or edit please be our guest. Otherwise you'll serve only as an amusement here. ] 03:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:44, 14 September 2004
This is a work in progress and references are forthcoming. This article is intended to provide a balanced view of the subject by an author not associated with either party. For highly POV articles you do not need to look far -- most articles in re Israel and Arabs/Muslims/Palestine on wiki as of today are rife with pro-Israeli propaganda. HistoryBuffEr 03:16, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
- Hi HistoryBuffEr,
- I understand where you are coming from, but I think a better approach would be to attempt to make the articles with a pro-Israeli tint NPOV rather than to add articles intentionally that are POV.
- Unfortunately this is not an easily-solved issue since many people believe Palestinian areas "belong to Israel" with no question about it, and others believe that Israel is occupying them, whether illegally or legally.
- This clearly needs to be discussed in detail and I invite your comments.
- Node 03:21, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- most articles in re Israel and Arabs/Muslims/Palestine on wiki as of today are rife with pro-Israeli propaganda . . . except for those that are rife with pro-Palestinian propaganda, and those that are full of both—IPC articles are some of the worst POV battlegrounds in the entire 'pedia.
- Be that as it may, the contents of this page might be better-placed (after thorough NPOV treatment) in Palestinian territories. —No-One Jones 03:27, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Partly agree. The article should be balanced, but not pro-Israel POV -- there is plenty of that on wiki already. I do have references for most of the points and will provide them time permitting. Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 03:27, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
- It's not about references. It's about neutrality. This is meant to be an encyclopedia article, not an essay, and even the title of this isn't neutral. Feel free to try and fix this, but considering its current state, I'll redirect it again if it isn't improved soon. Ambi 03:37, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Hmm. If you'll recall correctly, an NPOV notice doesn't mean "Please feel free to repeatedly replace the contents of this page with a redirect" but rather that the article needs discussion to work towards NPOV for the article. Node 03:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- When the article appears to be unsalvageable and duplicates existing content, yes it does. Ambi 03:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- When you are too lazy to try to work towards salvaging the article with others and thus say it is unsalvagable and duplicates existing content, it does not. Node 03:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
To "Ambi" the sophomoric redirector (and other potential agitpop troops):
Harassment is counderpoductive, as the same tactic can be used on your favored POV article(s), and facts will not be cowed no matter how shrill you get. If you have an intelligent suggestion or edit please be our guest. Otherwise you'll serve only as an amusement here. HistoryBuffEr 03:44, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)