--- Abe Sokolov <abesokolov(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
I suggest rereading �Posting old
message - formatted
this time!� at which explains why we shouldn�t
realistically expect much civility on this issue,
which clarifies my points to all the concerns you
raised.
First of all Abe, the message came in fine the first
time.
Second, Ill *note the points you didnt reply to.
You still say "we should'nt really expect much
civility on this issue?" What??? Since when is the
Wikipedia community under any obligation to forfeit
its principles-- the first being strive for NPOV, the
second (in my mind ) simply demands reasonable degree
of civility towards others. Even if 'civility' is
just an informal rule, its the only term that can
apply and its the only reasonable way to delimit
acceptable conduct from the unacceptible. We can't
ask people to love, honor, obey, or even respect
another, but we have every right to demand civility.
If you are saying that there are people who will,
under certain circumstances, blow their top entirely--
what exactly are you saying that is new or relevant?
Such people suffer the unbearable lightness of being,
and I say, 'welcome to the club.'
That you are saying that basic principle should be
bent for sake of this one particular political issue--
is not reasonable. In life. would you suggest that the
Ten Commandments be altered as well? "Don't
steal?"--"Go ahead", "Dont covet your neighbors
wife--"Go ahead". "Thou shalt do no murder"--"Oh why
not." These are *universal* principles, codified in
different way and in different languages-- just like
civility is a reasonable principle for WP. Again, you
can't seriously be demanding there be a loophole in
our core principles--for uncivil behaviour, in
connection to particular political conflict. First,
you only want the loophole to apply to the pro-Israeli
side! Second... well... its just beyond me that
anyone could take you seriously. RK's departure
represents a change in tone-- and a last obstacle to a
more formal and widely acceptible policy of civility
is removed. In case you handnt read the list-- a great
many 'pedians are fine with his exit, and have some
reason for it.
I understand your basic point (as silly and willy
nilly as you came around to it )-- you're essentially
making a wholistic concept analogy, advocating that WP
be open to all communicable infermities--that it will
have some developed resistance to them. This may be a
meaningful analogy to vandalism, (ie soft security),
but not to treating newbies with POV problems. People
change-- I for one was under some misconceptions when
I first logged in-- ( via Sensei's Library, > Meatball
WP ) that POV had to be dealt with with some gusto.
But anyway, I changed-- and some of this change comes
from some straigtforward discussion with some rather
clear thinkers-- Slrub, Danny, LDan, etc. RK has had
no beneficial personal change on me, save building my
resistance to BS. Consider that in your thesis.
However, I�m of no faith and this is a rude remark
when directed toward anyone in general.
Abe, I understand this, and most will agree with you.
But when I refered to your Faith, I knew nothing of
your particular Faith, save that you are a human
being, who no doubt at times needs to look outside of
your finite concepts and confines for guidance. Thats
all I meant by it. "Consult Faith, whatever it is."
If you claim to have none, then I, as a fellow
agnostic should like to remind another fellow agnostic
that we're really not as "faithless" as we like to
pretend.
That you understand the inherent contradictions of
ethnicity and religion is something that many others
dont-- and I'm glad you stated such. But again--
civility has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion,
save that religion has traditionally been the guardian
of principle. Refer back to paragraph 1 for the
continuation.
Like LDan said, even my "correct" POV is not in itself
NPOV. This takes some getting used to for everyone--
which is why its extremely important that people have
some clarity in their discourse-- that we can
communicate NPOV to newbies right away-- that they can
at least start to work it into their heads. Beyond
that, everyone should already know what civility is,
unless you're insane, deliberately partisan
(pretending you dont know), or a feral child-- in
which case, simply logging on might be a miracle in
its own right.
First, don�t conflate this often-ambiguous
collective identity with an
ethnic one. It is not an ethnic or racial identity,
and only a nationality
within the context of Israeli citizenship. If one
were forced to use an
ethnic identity, you could note that most Jews
(although there are converts)
have Semitic lineage.
Of the three, religion, ethnicity, and nationalism--
you picked the most meaningless one to me. Somewhere
in an very old law book is a little line about
'nations being merely "dust" before G-d.' I (semi)
quote it because its old, and couldnt put it better,
even though I cant remember it exactly.
Third, you state that I suggest that I �consult my
faith� rather than �consult[ing]� the history of
US-Middle East foreign
policy� if [I
am]looking for metaphorical solutions.�
I suggest that you appeal to higher principle, in
other words.
and this �Jewish
ethnicity� (which is utterly meaningless- use a
dictionary and find out why
this is a contradiction of terms),
I understand the inherent contradictions-- I disagree
that its meaningless at all. Even in the sense that
your ethnicity has a political reality has some
meaning-- that you are not at all religious or think
yourself 'faithless' is nothing I would take any joy
from.
now Sv�s accusing me of opposing
a ban on RK [because?] I share his views on
US-Middle > East foreign policy!
No, I dont think we share views-- you were just
claiming that the Iran-Iraq war was a good example of
US manipulations and statecraft. I hardly agree-- nor
can anyone with any real appreciation for the value of
a human life agree that politically engineering such a
perversity is in any way desirable.
I admit, my normative views of the
Israel-Palestinian matter are more
agnostic,
By 'agnostic'--I take it you mean "political and
nationalistic" Fine --As long as we understand each
other. ;-)
and opting for the less provocative one of
understanding
and comparison.
Comparison is a meaningless word with human beings.
Have you ever read the Desiderata -- dont compare
yourself to another-- it either makes you bitter with
envy, or vain with gloating? Of coure nobody reading
that has any idea how it relates to the discussion of
civil behaviour on WP. I grok you though, Abe.
I'm not going to speak as a partisan of either
side. Nor
would I be qualified; I�m not a Mid East
specialist.
Nor would it help anyone. Partisanship is the source
of that whole mess-- it will never be its solution.
In short, I support RK�s role; I don�t stand by his
often-sketchy work.
This is directly in contradiction to what *others have
said-- that RK's work was stellar, and that his "role"
was sketchy disrespectful. I understand that you see
RK as kind of an e-coli bacterium--nasty, but
necessary for digestion. Its silly as hell, but thats
your essential argument. Now re-frame your case-- this
time, for an single individual bacterium-- that some
here might see exactly how silly it is.
And if you don�t want RK at your throat on the
Middle East articles, just
wait until your buried under the avalanche that you
wanted to create.
I'll defer to what Anthere wrote on this one. You did
understand her, eh?
The minute the balance, tone, evidence, and analysis
of
the articles sees a
minor, ostensibly trivial shift, just wait for the
irate new RKs to flood
the site in droves, lambasting Wikipedia for a lack
of neutrality.
Again, you claim that RK and "people like him" know or
care what neutrality is, and that NPOV is gone without
him. He did not, they do not, it is not. Partisans
of all tribes will be treated as partisans-- their
comments will be framed as partisan terms. That they
may want their partisan terms called "NPOV" is their
partisan business, and myself knowing that 'their
"correct POV" is not NPOV'-- will have nothing of it.
They�ll start attacking you from every direction and
at
once, and making your job
even harder. And you�ll then realize that it
would�ve been far better to
deal with the devil you knew, rather than the new
ones you don�t.
Abe why not just go ahead and include the term
"Nazipedia" in your headers? Your last email on
'Nazi sociology' and all that nonsense completely
missed the point that RK's use of the term to apply to
the 'whole Wikipedian community' was beyond
ridiculous. I hope you realize that now. I can only
imagine that it was 4 in the morning, and your pencil
was'nt exactly at its sharpest, when you wrote it.
With all due respect
to all those my senior,
~S~
"Love, peace and harmony,
Oh very nice very nice
very nice very nice very nice
But maybe in the next world...."
-English poem
"Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging...."
-American poem
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com