steven l. rubenstein wrote:
I am concerned with WHEELER's anti-semitism. He
has made some offensive
remarks in the past, but ones I could dismiss as poor communication in
the course of heated debate. Now he really has posted an ad hominem
non-sequitor on the following page:
In the context of a discussion with AndyL over the relationship between
the Austrian and Hungarian National Socialist movements, WHEELER posted
And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because
your relatives suffered under the Holocaust. [As far as I can tell,
this is not true; Andy L always bases his arguments on historical
documentation -- SLR] The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the
island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground
fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the
Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the
camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the
Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish
concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single
Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my
face.[[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple,
base anti-semitism -- a simple association of bolshevism with Judaism
that the Nazis themselves mastered and promoted. I think WHEELER should
be banned for it, personally. At the very least it calls for a profound
and sincere apology.
Steven L. Rubenstein
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Athens, Ohio 45701
Evening Steve :-)
Upon reading the entire wiki talk page, I can see that basically none of
it is showing much wikilove between editors. Even before the paragraph
that made you react, it seems most of the exchange is pretty dry. I can
see a sort of growing tension between the various parties, and I can't
say I am surprised of the outcome of it. This is really unfortunate. I
think it would be beneficial in such heated or potentially dangerous
discussion, to refactor as things go.
It many controversial topics as this one, it is frequent for all
parties, to say things that they may regret later, or things they wont
regret, but realise afterwards are not facilitating discussion. It is
often a good move, a constructive move, to change one's comments
afterwards, when one realise they may offend. I noticed RK was also
frequently doing this, and I think it is a good idea he does so. I think
that if both parties had toned a little bit, this might not have happened.
I have trouble realising the level of offense you feel Steve. Offense is
something very personal. But obviously, you feel very upset, so that is
Sam Spade made a wise comment on the talk page. He wrote "I think this
particular thread should be dropped. Sam 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)".
The paragraph in question was obviously meant to hurt.
One option is to refuse to be hurt. You may observe a very deep silence
in front of it. Or you may remove it. Or you may remove it and copy it
on Wheeler talk page. To express your disapproval. If it was hate speech
intended to mislead people, it can't mislead people since it is no more
About deep and sincere apology request. I suppose I could go on forever
on this one. The best is that I suggest that you read :
I think mixing calling for ban or requesting apology at the same time is
tricky. It sounds a bit like a threat, and if the user gives the apology
as an attempt to escape the possible ban, then it is not very likely it
will be sincere.
I am unhappy about that, but it is a fact unfortunately that on
Wikipedia, some very uncivil comments are made to other users. When it
happens, and if you make a comment stating your deep disapproval, two
main things may happen :
* the uncivil comment was meant to hurt you and to win a battle, and the
offender does not care about you or preserving your relationship. Chance
is that no apology and no removal/refactoring for the comment will be
done, whatever the request. Either the hurt person drops the topic, or
it goes to some punishment for the offender
* the uncivil comment was given in the heat of the discussion, and the
offended feelings or the community reaction is important to the
offender, and apology or repair of some sort will be offered.
In the first case, mediation is useless. If you care very much about the
topic, try arbitration.
In the second case, arbitration would be disastrous, as you will ruin
chances for peaceful settlement.
Does that answer your question ?