G'day Steve,
--- Mark Gallagher
<m.g.gallagher(a)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.
--
Mark Gallagher
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse