G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
Well, folks and folkettes, we always have a long wait for these things, but it looks like we've finally found another violation of WP:POINT.
Since when does WP:POINT trump WP:NPOV? I will never apologise for "violating" POINT if its to make a stand for NPOV - particularly in light of a leadership vacuum wherin clear NPOV violations are by "consensus" allowed to stand.
WP:POINT doesn't trump WP:NPOV, and I never said it did. One is a core principle, the other is a page which, like many of our policies, acts only to restate "don't be a dick" in more socially acceptable language. Now, there are multiple ways of making a point. Some of them involve being a dick. You appear to be choosing one of those ways, as WP:POINT makes clear. It would be nice if you could restrain yourself.
For what it's worth, I do agree with you: [[Category:Anti-Semitic people]] a) does not appear to serve a useful purpose, b) is not exactly neutral, c) could well be described as a lawsuit waiting to happen, if applied improperly.
I disagree with the lawsuit paranoia, and dislike is usage as a crutch in arguments wherin a plain application of basic bonehead-level NPOV will suffice.
Like Ilmari the other day, I just threw that in for discussion's sake. Discussion is this thing we have occasionally although, I admit, not very often.
Your agreement is noted, but is it counted?
You've never made a habit of counting others' opinions. It's one of the reasons that ... ahh, but who wants to go *there*?
You could do with being a little less strident about it, though. Your comment on that TfD wasn't going to change anyone's mind: it looks quite logical to someone who already agrees with you, but that's not as beneficial as you might think.
I dont know what else to say. Either we have a culture which respects NPOV or we do not.
You think the category is incompatible with NPOV. I think you're right. There are those, however, who do not (or who have not considered the issue, and gone along with the cat because it's there). There are two ways for you to get your way: you can either convince them you're right, or you can grind their faces into dust. Now, you're not in much of a position these days to do any face-grinding, so we're just left with the former option.
The traditional approach taken when trying to change someone else's mind is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can I best state my message to convince you I'm right?" The approach *you* are taking is, "your opinion differs from mine. How can you be *so stupid* as to disagree with me? Can't you idiots see the bleeding obvious? I'm disgusted with the lot of you!"
You may feel that this strategy is one likely to bring success. If so, I have some bad news.