I guard several articles from POV-pushing. However, I am worried by certain issues. These are quotes of myself on discussion pages that I only lightly edited, so they can stand alone.

Claimed

In an answer why we add claimed to Mair Kahane's theories that were "proven" with quotes from Arab leaders.

• Typically the word "claimed" is necessary if politicians make very uncommon or surprising claims. Such a claim may be taking one real aspect to an extreme. In this case there is some factual basis to the theory, although it has a strong political bias and little or no scientific merit as such. Yet since there is some factual basis, there will be plenty of quotes to bring forwarded. Next, especially the references of the "enemies" will increase the trustworthiness of the theory with the supporters.

Terrorism

Terrorism is an ongoing area of contention. Unfortunately, for some editors, terrorists are those who fight for the "other" party.

• While the few Israeli terrorists are labeled correctly as terrorists, the many Arab terrorist individuals and organizations are usually described through terms that greatly reduce their actions in terms of the crimes against humanity that they commit. This creates an unbalanced picture throughout the articles on the Middle East and is also unfair towards the victims of crimes by all sides. Contrary to common wisdom, this does not necessarily have to do anything with Israel. Persons for example who are strongly against the war in Iraq, that has cost the US enormous amounts of human casualties and money, may be particular against clear wording on Al Qaeda. I can understand but cannot justify the bias in any direction. As for myself, I am in favor of the terms that do not hide the nature of any destructive human actions.
• Everyone is on the long-run well-served by calling things by their names, e.g. Palestinian terrorists and Israeli terrorists, even if some temporary discomfort is involved. It is our policy, but unfortunately our practice is different. Wikipedia should not have double standards, nor should it flatten out the severity of all violence, that is opt for the easy single-standard solution.
• I am happy that en.wikipedia does not allow moderate language when the crimes are by Israelis, but that is not enough. The unfortunate reality is that reduced language is the norm when the terrorists are Arabs. There are moral implications to the collaboration in a network that whitewashes crimes against humanity in large quantities.

Conclusion: As could have been expected, the language of these articles was eventually reduced to the easy single-standard solution. I now act upon this new understanding, although clearer language still has my preference.