I am an Israeli-American lawyer, a member of the Israel Bar and New York Bar.
I'm taking a break from Wikipedia and trying Citizendium
because some editors surf Wikipedia deliberately deleting articles they consider unfavorable to Israel, falsely and deceitfully waving "WP policies" such as "no original research" or "non-notability" (meaning, since we don't want people to hear about it, it's "non-notable");
because it's a huge waste of time arguing with people with no journalistic experience who do not understand the difference between reporting about controversial opinions and stating controversial opinions. For example:
These angry people could not tolerate a short, objective, neutral article about an open letter of 105 notable British Jews and former Israelis who published a statement in The Guardian (you can read it here) a week before the 60th anniversary of Israel explaining why they will not be celebrating Israeli Independence Day. The letter touched upon very controversial and important issues, commenting on the Holocaust, the Nakba, ethnic cleansing, human rights violations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and peace process. It was reported in Israel's largest online daily newspaper YNEThere, and caused the Israeli government to issue an official statement (needless to say, harshly criticizing the opinions expressed in the letter). It must be noted here that my article did not agree or disagree with the opinions of these Jews as expressed in their open letter. My article strictly reported, in the most neutral tone possible, the publication of this open letter, the content of the letter, the response, and follow-up letters and statements that were issued on this issue by other organizations, such as Jewish Voice for Peace.
But then came the self-appointed censors, intimidators and gatekeepers who could not stand to read about Jews publishing critical opinions about Israel, and claimed this article should be deleted, based on a "violation" of the WP policy of "non-notability" (they'll always find some amorphous policy that you're "violating" - they'll never be upfront and say what they really think.)
First, "notability," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Because it's so subjective, articles (especially relating to major political conflicts of our time) should not be disqualified based on this criteria, as long as they are accurate and professionally written. Otherwise, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, it's simply censorship through other means.
Second, when 105 Jews, from various walks of life, all agree to sign onto the same draft of a politically-oriented letter - that in itself is a notable event! And if you don't believe that - you have never tried to get more than 10 Jews to sign onto any statement. If you don't see why any 100 Jews agreeing on anything, let alone such a controversial subject, is notable, you are out of touch with Jewish culture and politics. Most certainly, you've never heard the story about the lone Jewish survivor of a shipwrecked boat who found himself stranded on an island and realizing he needed a shul, went and built two separate shuls...
But let's leave that aside. The fact is this letter, published by prominent Jews -- academics, writers, playwrights, scientists, directors, community leaders, activists who are proud of their Jewish identity -- is unprecedented. How can anyone plausibly suggest that this is something trivial? How many times in the recent past has such a letter been published by a group of so many Jews? None. Without bringing any proof, some editors simply branded this article "non-notable" and voted to delete it.
This bizarre, ridiculous, far-fetched argument of "non-notability" started a debate, and caused a huge waste of time. Other (mostly Jewish) editors/censors/gatekeepers jumped at this opportunity to monitor what people are allowed to read, and erase from the marketplace of ideas any evidence that Jews have differing opinions on the questions of Zionism, the State of Israel, the treatment of Palestinians, past mistakes of Zionism, and the like. And so, after dozens of notes and comments and back-n-forth which amounted to a monumental waste of time (because in this censorship discussion no one contribued anything positive to knowledge about world events, people or opinions, except for my hours spent on gathering reliable sources and writing a neutral, informative article about this event) - the article is gone.
I'd rather not spend my time arguing with these delete-happy editors, e.g. Shuki, Jason Schwartz, Seth Frantzman who seem to have a political agenda (some of them even admit to that on their userpages) and further that agenda by deleting or significantly changing other editors' work. This results in the current state of poorly-written, poorly-sourced, biased, and inaccurate articles about issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Zionism, and the history of the Jewish people (as opposed to articles on general subjects which are on a much higher level).
Instead of adding articles about Israeli accomplishments, events or notable people (and there are so many) these editors spend their time censoring other editors' work, destroying other editors' articles, and patrolling WP as WP's self-proclaimed gatekeepers. They will follow you whereever you go, and monitor your every step, acting in way that threatens anyone who does not subscribe to their worldview, undermines the encyclopedic quality of WP and compromises the integrity of WP articles.
Nothing productive can come out of fighting these types of editors who, as is evident from what they've done to other articles all over WP, go around deleting, changing, and censoring other editors' professional work.
It's time to consider contributing at Citizendium:
“
We are creating the world's most trusted encyclopedia and knowledge base.
The general public and experts collaborate, using their real names.
”
I recommend the same to all openminded, serious, and knowledgeable editors who prefer not to waste their precious time in frivolous edit wars and ridiculous, endless and sometimes childish fights with immature or biased editors.
