Furkan Doğan was one of the activists killed in the Gaza flotilla. A remarkable Wikipedia article has been created about him. He drew attention because although he was Turkish, he was born while his father was a student in the United States and was, therefore, an American citizen.
The Wikipedia article is notable because of what it does not tell you, which what Dogan was doing on that ship, though the Wall Street Journal will. He was a lottery winner!
He had won a lottery sponsored by the IHH, the Islamist, Turkish group that is both a promoter of violent jihad.
Erdinç Tekir was another of the IHH jihadis on that ship. Unlike the 19-year-old Dogan, he had been committed to violent jihad for a long time. He was not a particularly competent jihadi. He had tried and failed to join the jihad in Chechnya. But he was part of an armed team that hijacked a Turkish passenger ferry and threatened to blow it up killing the mostly Russian passengers. They chickened out, thanks to God and the Turkish authorities.
Tekir was a full-time employee of the IHH. A paid, professional jihadist.
Here an editor named Kavas votes to keep the article on Dogan, arguing that “The shooting video makes him as important as Rachel Corrie.”
And here that same editor nominates the article on Tekir for deletion. This is one of many editors that will vote to delete anything that accurately depicts the violence of political makes Islamism while voting to keep all articles that make Israel look bad.
The most interesting editor who shows up, however, is Richard Silverstein, a man known for his nasty, defamatory, and wildly inaccurate anti-Israel blog. Daniel Pipes has pointed out Silverstein’s reliable record of “getting simple facts wrong.” The distinguished scholar Yaakov Lozowick has also notices him. Other bloggers have called him “unhinged” and even “mad.”
Here is the quite wonderfully intemperate and arrogant response he posted on his talk page to an editor who pointed out to him that Wikipedia frowns at self-promotion. (Note to Malik Shabazz, Silverstein’s repeated misue of Wikipedia to promote his blog has not gotten him banned.)
“I am not CLAIMING to be an expert in my field. I AM an expert. My blog is not a vanity enterprise nor is it designed to enrich me personally. It is a resource based on original research in a field in which I was trained academically and have earned advanced degrees. There is no difference between work I publish in my blog and in publications like the L.A. Times, Haaretz, etc. In fact, I often publish works in my blog which I’ve published in publications. ANyone [sic] who reverts my changes is treating me in a prejudicial manner and I object to this treatment.”
Wikipedia: written by experts.