Slrubenstein asked me to post the following on his behalf.
Everything below was written by him; I deleted some irrelevant parts.
----
I have been in an edit war with JTDIRL and 172 on the China page, and I
think there is both a need for some intervention, and an intervention
that is not based on any argument about China, but rather about
Wikipedia conventions, especially NPOV and naming conventions. [...]
And, as I said, I think what is most needed now is some explicit
discussion of Wikipedia conventions.
To fully grasp the debate behind the edit war you would have to read a
lot. Minimally, I would suggest reading the entire [[Talk: China
(Archive 3)]] and [[Talk: China]] pages (which I know is a lot to ask
of someone who may not be so interested. As a party to the dispute and
biased, I don't want to misrepresent it, but I will try to sum it up.
The question is, how to identify the Chinese (specifically, PRC) state.
The article identified the state as communist. I checked the Chinese
Constitution which states that it is a socialist state; an official
Chinese website states that it is not a communist state. JTDIRL and
172 responded that all political scientists identify China as a
communist state and that we should go by what Western scholars do. I
talked to a few colleagues of mine -- a sociologist, two
anthropologitsts, and a political scientist. They told me that many
political scientists used to label China a communist state but that
they are moving away from that designation, considering it inaccurate
and meaningless; that many political scientists and most other scholars
identify China as a socialist state, although some qualify it as "late"
or "post" socialist. Now JTDIRL claims that it doesn't matter what
political scientists say, that what ought to be presented is a "formal
encyclop�dic definition."
Now, I never heard of this phrase and doubt that it should be the basis
of our deciding how to identify any state, as what we are trying to do
is, arguably, devise a formal encyclopedic definition. I think he
means we should call it a communist state because other encyclopedias
do. I still think we ought to call it something that reflects the
current state of scholarship.
But I hope you can see why I think this is a matter of clarifying
general wikipedia conventions or norms, and not just a debate over
China. [...]
I am ''not'' asking anyone to say "SLR is right and JTDIRL is wrong."
I am asking the community, such as it is, to discuss the conventions
and clarify them as they may apply to the case.
(written by Slrubenstein)
-----
Axel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
Danny wrote:
>
> For this reason, I will not enter into dialogue with him. I will remove
> his changes as I see them, and hope that he will be banned. I hope people
> support me in this. If you have any doubts, just look at the history of
> his user contributions. This is certainly not the kind of person we want
> in Wikipedia.
>
Well stated, Danny. I agree with any single sentence. If anyone thinks,
that we can convince a racist like Zog of writing NPOV, he/she is in error.
I would feel *very* uncomfortable to know such a person as a tolerated
Wikipedia contributor. I hope, that we can get rid of him and never hear
about him again.
Mirko (Cordyph)
--
Mirko Thiessen
http://www.mirko-thiessen.de
In a post to the Johnny Rebel article, Zog wrote:
"The main reason why nothing was determined through "talking" is because
Danny refused to talk and defend his arguments. Yet, its his version that
wins out in the end? Very un-diplomatic"
I will reiterate my position here. Zog is a racist and a bigot and an
anti-Semite. He has written about the "gorillas" in Cuba who were behind the
revolution, the level of filth in various Latin American countries, and given
a list of racist epithets under the heading "song titles." His contributions,
particularly the earliest versions, are even more hateful. For example, he
write: "In JR's songs, are powerful messages about unity, equality, freedom,
and creating a better America. Although a bit silly at times, like with "KKK
man", which talks about killing Bill Cosby, bludgeoning Urkel, and extreme
hatred for Dr. Zaius, JR's Political messages have been poignant, political
and innovating for those in his hometown of Lousiana, and beyond."
Zog's very name is anti-Semitic. ZOG is an acronym for "Zionist Occupation
Government," a term used by neo-Nazis and White Power advocates to promote
the conspiracy theory that a cabal of Jews is secretly running the government
of the United States. Zog denied even knowing this, however, in his original
draft of the Johnny Rebel article he quoted David Duke as saying: "I have
been in politics for several decades and I will be in for several more, but I
always will never be able to articulate the way ZOG controls the media, the
coloreds want their hand-outs and how chimps DO, in fact, want their 'ugly
stick' as well as JR has." In other words, he is fully aware of the racist
connotations of his name.
I, for one, will not engage Zog in dialogue. To debate the content of his
articles is to grant the subject-matter legitimacy. To debate whether people
of African descent are "gorillas" is dehumanizing to them. Personally, I
believe it is dehumanizing to anyone involved in the debate. To discuss which
songs of his to list (why "Some Niggers Never Die" or "No Niggers in Our
Schools" but not "Coon Shootin' Boogie"--for non-Americans, "coon" is another
derogatory term for African-Americans) is similarly offensive. To discuss
whether he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan or simply has views that run
parallel to theirs (though he did record the "KKK Song") is an attempt to
evade the point.
My position is that entering into dialogue with Zog grants him and his views
legitimacy. Sifting through his material so that his additions to the [[Chaco
War]] can stay, but comments like those he put in the [[History of Jews in
the Soviet Union]] should be removed is also an exercise in futilty. Do we
have to go through each of his edits to determine whether they are blatantly
racist or not.
For this reason, I will not enter into dialogue with him. I will remove his
changes as I see them, and hope that he will be banned. I hope people support
me in this. If you have any doubts, just look at the history of his user
contributions. This is certainly not the kind of person we want in Wikipedia.
Danny
We need to do something about Zog.
Consider his contributions to History of Cuba: "Although Mexico is
spanish-speaking, like Cuba, the filth level is considerably higher."
Or: "This guerilla campaign would not have been able to be carried out
without the gorillas which were a commonplace throughout Cuba. African
Americans' participation in the revolution is very unique for this very
reason."
Or the entry "Thats how a nigger goes" which, aside from its racist
content (which can be guessed without too much trouble) consisted of
little but a complete copy of the song lyrics, which I see no need to
repeat here.
This user previously added offensive anti-Semetic material to several
articles as an anon, until blocked.
Tony Wilson
(Tannin)
John Knouse wrote:
>Good god, this ZOG person just won't let it rest.
>He wants to list every song that the racist Johnny
>Rebel wrote
We have discographies for many other musicians - Why not Johnny Rebel? I would
say this even if "nigger" were replaced by "faggot" for each song title (I'm
gay BTW).
>and wants to promote him in general.
As far as I can tell this JR person isn't the most well-known or famous of
musicians so his article should only be linked from a few other highly
relevant entries. Excessive linking to this article should not be allowed.
>There's a limit. I mean, do we have to exhaustively
>provide details on someone so utterly revolting?
Yes we do - otherwise we would not have articles on Adolf Hitler, Richard
Ramirez or Pol Pot. Whenever a person is famous enough for inclusion and
facts about the person can be confirmed, we should include their biography in
Wikipedia. /Why/ a particular person is famous is not an important thing for
us to consider when allowing an article on them to be included in Wikipedia.
But we should, of course, state that information in the article and do so in
an NPOV way.
>It took repeated efforts to even make ZOG admit
>that there is more than one Johnny Rebel. Can
>we do something about this ZOG guy?
I protected the page to stop the edit war and several people have been looking
over his edits. He may calm down and embrace NPOV or he may continue to be a
POV zealot and need to be banned. But he is new and we can't expect miracles
to occur over night.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Good god, this ZOG person just won't let it rest. He wants
to list every song that the racist Johnny Rebel wrote and
wants to promote him in general. There's a limit. I mean,
do we have to exhaustively provide details on someone so
utterly revolting? It took repeated efforts to even make
ZOG admit that there is more than one Johnny Rebel. Can we
do something about this ZOG guy?
--
John Knouse
jaknouse(a)frognet.net
I pointed out Zog last night to the list ("two annoying vandals"). I vote to
get rid of him. With his racist rants, there really isn't much reason for
debate.
Danny
I just wrote a longer message to Zog about his Johnny Rebel article on the
talk page -- something which I normally don't save before sending it -- and
abracadabra, and the whole thing was gone when I wanted to save it, and I
was shown the empty talk page. What the hell is going on here?
KF