>
> --- Rotem Dan <rotem_dan(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I think that reagardless of geographical, national
> > etc. differences on
> > wiki users demographies (that I think has nothing
> to
> > do with anything
> > here anyway). he.wikipedia.org is a complete,
> > (almost) independent site,
> > that has its users and readers, they should be the
> > ones who vote for
> > decisions related to their site, including policy,
> > wiki code, layout,
> > licensing and logo.
Well, here is a problem with the En:wiki policy -- as
its applied accross boundaries. Do you agree that the
GNU FDL is required also for the he. wiki? How about
NPOV?
Its certainly impractical to say that the en:wiki can
impose controls upon the he:wiki -- therefore, yes --
the he:wiki is almost fully under the command of its
30 users, and anyone else who can read/write Hebrew
and wants to contribte... I agree that the he:wiki
deserves a Hebrew logo, layout, etc. and that a
Hebrew consensus will be the default --as if
non-readers people could monitor everything that goes
on. A loyalty to GNU is required.
But all *that is different from saying "Were an island
unto ourselves -- we dont have to obey offlander laws
like "GNU" or so called "principles" of
"professionality," "NPOV", etc... this is simply not
the case, (If that is what Dan is saying) regardless
of the language or the language gap -- all Wikipedias
are a part of Wikipedia.org, (*not en.wikipedia) and
as such are commonly steered by consensus..
To facilitat communication, there will be a greater
need for open discourse about these issues on the
international mailing list, (in whatever language.)
Everyone interested in anything other than just their
own language should join that list as well No doubt
thats whyDan (you) is (are) talking about this. But
to say that the language barrier represents something
more than what little it is - is a common (and
honest) misconception among a great many Wikipedians.
-S-
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
I looked at the last comments that RK said he removed from his talk
page. Although the one from E of T was a bit inflammatory, it seemed to
be a response to one of Roberts own "attacks" -- I infer a typically
one-sided and less than tactful comment he made about someone else's
work. If my inference or characterization are incorrect, I apologise.
The comment made by Pizza Puzzle may have been *personally* offensive to
Robert, but it is simply a statement of PP's own opinion on the
situation. I may not be popular, but he is entitled to it. Presumably
user talk pages are meant to be places where we communicate with each
other in public -- so I don't see why there is a problem. If RK doesn't
like a comment, he can erase it -- as he did -- but it's a pain in the
arse to have to look it up in the history. I have to disagree with
Jtdirl on his comment, which was, to say the least, pointed. But my
disagreement is less that RK is phobic of Arabs, but instead is overly
sensitive, perhaps even paranoid, about anything that isn't vehemently
pro-Israeli/pro-Zionist. I am sorry if this causes anyone pain, but
over the past couple of years, I can't even begin to count the occasions
where the accusation of Anti-Semitiem has been put forth when someone
sees any relevant situation in anything but black and white.
I'm just not sure I understand the need to accuse people of trolling or
otherwise whenever there is a disagreement. It is getting very old and
tired, and frankly, it pisses me off. One of the reasons I stoppped
contributing and only occasionally maintain the odd article is because a
couple of *real* trolls began to attack me and to attack my work and my
reputation by dropping truly nasty comments about me on pages all over
the 'pedia. Not much was done, although many people left me supportive
comments. Zoe was also trolled out, and others have been, too. RK's
most recent accusations of trolling are just not in the same league.
Jules
I am asking Wikipedia Sysops to talk to PizzaPuzzle and
Jtdirl, and ask them to stop harassing me by altering my
personal user page. They keep adding univited comments
about Israel and Palestine, that have *nothing* to do with
any articles we are currently working on.
They know that I am Jewish, and they follow me from article
to article, constantly baiting me. This is a very lcear
case in point: I have been working with others on the
Creationism, Evolution, and Gaia articles. Yet their
response? Trolling me with comments about the Palestinians
and "arabophobia".
Huh?
This abusive behaviour is clearly not aimed at improving
our articles. It is a clear and obvious case of abuse of me
for my Mosaic faith and beliefs. I am just getting tired
of the constant Jew-baiting. There is no way an honest
person can say that these recent comments have any logical
connection to our work on Evolution, Creationism, Gaia,
etc. If this behaviour isn't Jew-baiting, then
anti-Semitism simply doesn't exist.
When I asked PizzaPuzzle to stop putting irrelevant
comments on my Talk page, I got this baiting response:
So comments that question Israel aren't welcome on your
talk page? Is there no limit to your arabophobia?
[[User:Jtdirl|Fear�IREANN]] 01:39 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
This is a real problem. I am asking others to become a part
of the solution. I am not shoving remarks onto your
personal pages, aimed at irritating you based on my
knowledge of your religious or ethnic backgrounds. This
should not be allowed to happen to me, then, or to anyon
else.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote in part:
>Neither is perfect.
Hence why I said we will never come to consensus, so it makes most sense for people to write in a manner that they feel most comfortable, and to just make a note somewhere saying it is wikipedia's policy not to have a policy on this issue.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecker
a.k.a. MB
>RK wrote
>I am asking Wikipedia Sysops to talk to PizzaPuzzle and
>Jtdirl, and ask them to stop harassing me
em . . . 1 two line message in 9 months. Some harrassment. No. Maybe
sometime in the last 9 months I sent one or two others. A clear case of
harrasment, then!
>by altering my
>personal user page.
em . . . altering you user page?Would that mean leaving messages by any
chance? You mean I'm not supposed to leave messages for people? Why didn't
someone tell me? I've been altering personal user pages all over wiki for 9
months!
>They keep adding univited comments
You mean your user page is invite only? White tie? black tie? morning suit?
Do you post or email the invites? Do I post or email the RSVP?
>about Israel and Palestine, that have *nothing* to do with
>any articles we are currently working on.
>
>They know that I am Jewish,
Only because you tell the entire community an average of every 7.2 seconds.
Anyway, maybe I am too for all you know.
>and they follow me from article
>to article,
RK's comment on another user's page - (uninvited?)
'For whatever reason, EofT follows me around from topic to topic, refusing
to actually contribute to the article, but always making personal attacks on
me. Whatever his personal problems, I advise people to try to
distinguish between contributors who add to science articles, and trolls out
merely incite flame wars.'
Spot a pattern?
And RK's warm and friendly tone: - 'Work productively on the encyclopedia,
or please leave'.
I made a minor factual addition to one page about how many states do not
accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital. (100+ don't. 3 do) I did not say it
wasn't, just added in a factual footnote about the diplomatic complexities
and a careful NPOV description: 'Israel's designated capital'. Mav wrote
JT's wording seemed to be far more professional and at least a bit more
NPOV.
RK responded.
Huh? It is grossly anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. How is lying about Israel's
capital, and stating falsehoods, "professional"?
>constantly baiting me. This is a very lcear
>case in point: I have been working with others on the
>Creationism, Evolution, and Gaia articles. Yet their
>response? Trolling me with comments about the Palestinians
>and "arabophobia".
>
>Huh?
>
>This abusive behaviour is clearly not aimed at improving
>our articles. It is a clear and obvious case of abuse of me
>for my Mosaic faith and beliefs.
>I am just getting tired
>of the constant Jew-baiting.
In Annie Hall, Woody Allen's character is so paranoid that he is convinced
everyone around him is anti-jewish. When they say 'do you?' fast, he
imagines they are saying 'jew' in a derogatory manner. But it is all a
figment of an over excited imagination. Same here, RK.
BTW, you seem to see 'jew-baiting' all around you from the most unlikely
sources, eg
# 15:38 3 Jul 2003 Talk:Anti-Semitism MArtin (MyRedDice) is censoring and
deleting other user's Talk discussion. I am concerned about his attempt to
hide his repeated acts of Jew-baiting
>There is no way an honest
>person can say that these recent comments have any logical
>connection to our work on Evolution, Creationism, Gaia,
>etc. If this behaviour isn't Jew-baiting, then
>anti-Semitism simply doesn't exist.
The rest of us can cope with somene on our talk pages touching on a
different topic to the one we are working on without seeing it as some sort
of personalised attack.
In contrast, for RK:
# 01:31 14 Jun 2003 Propositional knowledge (Martin, stop making changes to
topics you nothing about, merely to spite me. That is vandalism, and
childish.
>When I asked PizzaPuzzle to stop putting irrelevant
>comments on my Talk page
you actually said: # Removing more personal attacks by Entmoots of trools,
and univited anti-Israel ramblings by PizzaPuzzle (I mean, Lir))
which flowed when PP wrote originally
My apologises, I just thought that your naming of the link to: "Deir Yassin
Remembered; This pro-Palestinian site claims that there was little military
conflict, and that 100 Arabs were flat-out murdered." was a little...
inflammatory.
I support palestine because they have no real governmental organization or
infrastructure. Thus, I see their violent acts as excusable since one cannot
expect peace to originate from poverty stricken people in wartorn refugee
camps. I oppose Israel because they most certainly do have a modern
governmental organization (with modern and even advanced technology) and, as
such, I expect them to hold to a much higher level of civility.
>I got this baiting response:
>
>So comments that question Israel aren't welcome on your
>talk page? Is there no limit to your arabophobia?
>[[User:Jtdirl|FearÉIREANN]] 01:39 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
>
All because, having attacked me, Anthere, Martin and most of wiki it seems,
even a polite observation from PP, which opened with an apology, was still
too 'anti-Israel' for you, hence my comment. I stand by it. And no it is not
anti-semitic, an attack on your religious beliefs, following you around,
abusing you or anything else. It is questioning why you cannot even tolerate
a little criticism of Israel without deleting it, not merely in articles but
even on your talk page.
>This is a real problem. I am asking others to become a part
>of the solution.
OK Some advice.
1. Please do not censor and delete other people's comments.
2. Please, don't push personal religious beliefs into the editing process.
3. You really have a serious problem, and you need to confront it.
4. Sadly, many religious fundamentalists get filled with anger when they are
confronted with points of view that differ from from their own.
The person who wrote all these as advice to others is RK.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
>Delirium wrote:
>
>>Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
>>
>>>What I think you're actually saying is that you *refer to* people whose
>>>gender
>>>you don't know as "he". This has never been entirely standard, and will
>>>annoy
>>>quite a few people at this epoch. Using full names, "they", and
>>>workarounds
>>>like "that person", is probably a better idea.
>>
>>
>>Many people also dislike "they", because it's using plural forms (both the
>>plural pronoun, and to be consistent, plural verbs) to refer to a single
>>person. Those people seem to be losing that particular battle though.
>
>well "you" is singular and plural. So why not another pronoun?
>
>>
>>As of late I've noticed in much academic writing a preferred solution has
>>been to simply use "she". It's not really any better than using "he" as
>>far as correctness goes, but people are less likely to complain about it
>>being sexist,
>
>well the trick with using "she" is to use "she" AND "he" approximately
>equally. Just pick one at random!
>
>>I do find it somewhat jarring when I read it though, as I'm used to "she"
>>being used to refer to people who are actually female, so it takes me a
>>minute to realize from context that it's being used as a generic pronoun.
>
>now you know how female readers feel.... ;-)
Personally, where workable I use s/he. In articles, I use the gender used in
primary documents if there is a primary document, and the gender of the
office-holder when talking specifically. On when writing about the President
of Ireland, as the Irish contitution uses 'he' I use it when talking
theoretically about the office, she/her etc when writing in practice about
the office as the current president is female. And a small note or footnote
to explain usage so no-one reads any gender agenda between using either form
and to avoid confusion. I have found in writing newspaper articles books etc
that it works well once people know why things are in that form.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
In response to Delirum's latest post, I can say this:
I am sensitive to the issue of proportions: How much a
subject is discussed in an article is of great concern,
because it may overly push one point of view over another.
(I don't think that this is the case here, but it is a
general and valid concern!) In other cases, two paragraphs
of digression are not lengthy, when they are part of a long
article. But when they are part of a shorter article, this
too can cause imbalance. Not a POV problem, but a topic
specificity problem.
Maybe you are correct that there is too much information on
this topic in the George Washington and Benjamin Franklin
articles. (I don't think so, but whatever.)
We could do two things simultaneously (a) Increase the
overall length of these articles by discussuing more
topics, and providing more historical perspective. (b)
Re-evaluate what is in the there already, especially as
regards this issue. Shorten this particular section, remove
the weblinks, and link to a new page on forgeries.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Delirium writes:
> [[User:RK]] is, as is probably obvious, somewhat of a
> pro-Israeli activist, and is becoming difficult to clean
> up. The latest thing I've noticed is him adding
> 2-paragraph-long attacks on Arab anti-Semitism to
> articles such as [[George Washington]] and [[Benjamin
> Franklin]], in the guise of "defending" their "tarnished"
> reputations against charges of anti-Semitism stemming
> from little-known fabricated quotes.
I find your attack on me unwarrented, and your ignorance of
the topic very problematic.
These particular quotes are most certainly not "little
known". Wikipedia was the subject of repeated anti-Semitic
vandalism by people putting in fake quotes into the
articles of well-known (and highly respected) historical
figures.
These "little known" quotes, as you call them, in fact are
very widely distributed in hundreds of print sources,
books, journals, and now exist on thousands of virulently
anti-Semitic, pro-KKK, pro-Nazi websites, and some
pro-Islamist websites. If you imagine that these
extremel;y well-known and widely used anti-Semitic
fabrications are little known, then this just means you are
totally ignorant of this particular subject. They are just
as predominant and widely used as "The Protocols of the
Eldars of zion".
Wikipedia should not be vandalized by agitators who use
recognized and proven forgeries to put anti-Semitic
diatribes in the mouths of well-respected historical
figures. What about this do you find problematic? In fact,
noticing this problem and identifying it to prevent future
abuse is precisely the kind of work we need to encourage in
all Wikipedia articles.
How can you can connect this to the Arab-Israeli dispute is
beyond me. That connection only exists in your mind. How
you can twist this necessary clarification into "pro
Israeli" propaganda is beyond me, and frankly, quite
disturbing.
Is exposing fraud and proven forgeries now pro-Israeli? Is
creating and promoting fraud now pro-Arab? Come on.
With concern,
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com