User talk:68.5.64.178

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. -- Karl Meier 12:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 68.5.64.178 06:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC) And your comment is?

[edit] re: Propaganda disguised as information

You may (or may not) be correct that there is a lot of propaganda in Middle East articles. But it is not enough to be correct; you have to provide convincing evidence that you are correct. Wikipedia depends on references to verifiable sources. In any Wikipedia article, statements that do not have citations to reliable sources are subject to removal. Conversely, statements that are well-sourced cannot so easily be removed (but can be removed on grounds of WP:NPOV or WP:Undue weight).

The way to challenge information in an article that you think is propaganda is to challenge any statements that do not have references to reliable sources. Secondly, you can add your own contrary information if you provide references to reliable sources.

Your comment at Talk:Mordechai Vanunu‎ (No mention of Vununu's schizophrenia) does absolutely nothing to help your cause. You did not supply any reliable evidence that he had schizophrenia and did not explain why it might be relevant. You might be totally correct that Vununu has schizophrenia but it is not enough to be correct - you have to provide convincing evidence and provide sources to demonstrate that it is relevant. If you provide such evidence, then you probably could add that fact to the article.

You claim that '"Wrath of God," was based on a discredited hoax but provide no evidence to support that claim. (Perhaps somewhere else you provided well-sourced statements.) If you can provide reliable, verifiable evidence that it is a hoax, then you could add a section to the article to that effect.

I am pro-Israel and I think it entirely likely that Israel did assassinate those behind the Munich attack. If they did not, then they should have. Alternatively, it would have been entirely reasonable for them to create a misinformation campaign to lead people to think they were assassinating terrorists, so as to frighten the terrorists and discourage them from future terrorism.

I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for thinking that this operation was a hoax. Frankly, I hope it was not a hoax. Evil people who kill innocents should be killed and other evil people should fear retribution so that they might be deterred from their evil.

You mentioned that you began a Siege of Jerusalem article. Go ahead, write that article. Be sure to provide multiple references to reliable sources for every statement in that article. If the article is well-sourced, then it cannot easily be removed. It doesn't matter if pro-Arab editors might be embarrassed. That is not a valid reason for removing a well-sourced statement. Sbowers3 02:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)