User talk:R. Dallek

July 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Republic of China appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully respect the need for balance, call it neutrality if you will, but previous versions are not more neutral. In some disputes it can fairly be said that neither party is more belligerant than the other; that is not the case here. The PRC is the belligerant party (and this is a verifiable claim), not the ROC. To pretend otherwise is to fail to be neutral. Moreover, to emphasize that the ROC is both a democracy and that it abides by universal conventions on human rights is relevant to a balanced understanding of the dispute between the ROC and the PRC. Finally, it is also verifiable that the PRC is much more in sympathy with KMT policies than with DPP policies. Respectfully, Robert Dallek


 * General WP:CONSENSUS among Wikipedia editors currently favours the status quo. Have a quick browse through the talk page archives to have a glimpse of the many discussions that have been had regarding the article. Additionally, it is best to discuss any ideas at the article talkpage at Talk:Republic of China before making any major alterations to the article itself. Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I take your response at face value, and hereby express my gratitude. This is not something though that I wish to become enmeshed in, so my glance was quick. Having admitted that my examination of the discussion was cursory, I'll just say that I saw nothing that spoke to my amendments. I'll allow that you are more familiar with WP:CONSENSUS than am I. But as I'm certain you realize the truth-value of claims is not determined by consensus. And I was led to believe that Wikipedia cares about verifiability. Moreover, we do live in a world of aggressors who are able to shield themselves within non-democratic systems that do not allow free expression of ideas. The result is that in disputes between open and closed socieites, the closed societies can appeal to a kind of neutrality that would not be tolerated were their atrocities made public on a daily basis, as is permitted in democratic societies with a free press. In other words, acceptance of this type of neutrality is just what theologians sometimes call apologetics, and what politicians call appeasement. Apologetics and appeasement is usually only acceptable to those who don'te stand in harm's way. Unfortunately, some of us--and our families--do stand in harm's way. Respectfully, Robert Dallek