In a previous letter to this forum, I mentioned problems that I was having with Danny on the article about [[Jews as a chosen people]]. In response, Danny sent an e-mail:
I claimed that the translation you gave of two verses is interpretive and not literal.
Well, if you had merely said that, there would have been no problem. Instead, you did mention the above point, but only in the context of a stream of ad homenim abuse. *That* was the problem. Your intellectual disagreement, in of itself, is fine and appropriate.
Danny writes:
Oh, and "falsely claiming" is AH "
It is audacious to make such a claim, given the abuse you sent my way. Ironically, there was no problem leading up to this. I was making changes to another article in accord with the constructive criticisms that Danny had given. I even made a change to the article in question on precisely the point Danny made. I also stepped back for four days and gave him space to make any edits he wanted without any interference. Few people here are that flexible, I'll tell you that!
I am not arguing the content of the article. I am arguing the interpretation of a sentence. However, if you must bring this up, you have given these sources with the added information of which you like and which you dont.
I have given views which I may happen to like, and also views which I may happen not to like. And the text I added is not the end of the article; further contributions and edits from you and others are welcome. In fact, I stayed away from this article (and all others) for the last four days to give you a chance to do whatever you want.
I notice that Danny has made no edits, however, which indicates that he doesn't have a big problem with the content of the article.
No, I am attacking '''you''' as ignorant. Do you actually speak Hebrew and understand the intricacies of its grammar, or are you just ranting?
See, this is the big problem. I simply did NOT offer my own translations, or commentary about translations. These all came from Jewish scholars, all of whom are well versed in Hebrew and Jewish theology. In response, Danny makes ad homenim attacks towards me. Danny certainly knows Hebrew well, but his irritation at other Hebrew speakers who translate differently than him is palpable. He has every right to disagree with them, and he certainly may offer a good case. Just stop making it personal, and misrepresenting me as the translator of anything. That is dishonest.
Danny writes:
You are arguing from authority, not from knowledge. I do not respond to meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps if you knew Hebrew grammar...
(A) The people who made these translations _do_ know Hebrew grammar quite well.
(B) A recurring problem with Wikipedia, as Larry Sanger repeatedly wrote, is that many of our contributors have little respect for published authorities in the field, and prefer their own POV to others POVs. When we demean published authorities and hew to our own points-of-view, this can damage the scholarship of the article, and lead to edit wars. This is one of the primary reasons why Larry Sanger is correctly worried about the future of Wikipedia in general.
Fortunately, this problem hasn't occured for this article. Danny has made no edits to this article at all in recent months, and those changes he suggested have already been made by me, to some extent. (And more can be made in the future.)
Still, I find it disappointing that Danny uses the phrase "meaningless rhetoric" when I backed up my position by citing sources. Worse, no one here objected. When writing NPOV articles, haven't we always encouraged people to move away from personal research and translations, and cite mainstream scholars in the field? (And of course, minorotiy points of view can be cited as well.) We should always be vigilant towards those who say and do otherwise.
The good news is that Danny's rhetoric doesn't match his actions in editing Wikipedia articles. When making edits to articles, Danny does rely on established sources, and he is well versed in many subjects. (Although he always assumes that he is the only one...)
Still, his knowledge is why he is a valued contributor. I know that such praise from me is neither desired or appreciated by him, but it is true. I just wish he wouldn't be so overtly arrogant to me.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail