Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself, because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit it".
Ed Poor
You can definitely add that to the page, we're people, not computers, it's obvious that'd be a good faith edit. My 2c, of course, but I highly doubt anyone would mind.
Gutza
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself, because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit it".
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Gutza wrote:
You can definitely add that to the page, we're people, not computers, it's obvious that'd be a good faith edit. My 2c, of course, but I highly doubt anyone would mind.
Gutza
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself, because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit it".
Adding such a notice wihout otherwise changing the text is really more meta-editorial than editorial, but when sensitivities are running high I can appreciate the wisdom of having soneone else to it.
Ec
--- "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
Perhaps it's not about who's "lost their cool" but more about what is the best way to write _neutrally_ about a controversial subject.
I've just spent the better part of 2 hours looking over the various edits and comments. Much of what was reverted looked significant NPOV-deficient to me.
Let's try to leave personalities out of this, and figure out how to fix the article -- or at least come up with a solution to the current impasse, so the article can be un-protected.
By the way, would some admin (other than me) please add to the top of [[Christian-Jewish reconciliation]] the standard text about ''the neutrality of this page is disputed''? I don't dare do it myself, because of the guideline about "he who protects a page must not edit it".
Ed Poor
IMHO, I think that that is protesting the page anyway. This is the type of case where it's the spirit of the law, not the letter. If you think that the neutrality of the article is disputed, then you can't edit it (unless we want to change that rule partially). LDan
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Sigh. Sometimes, it really seems like there's nowhere one can go to avoid the pro-Jewish vs. anti-Jewish insanity... (You'll note I don't say anti-Semitic. There's a simple reason for this: Arabs are Semites too, as well as many others.) Stevertigo has a clear and strong anti-Israel bias... so RickK sees pretty much everything SV does as anti-Semitism, despite the difference between these things. Also, see [[Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Unencyclopedic]] - RK somehow reads a big personal attack, including "I'm an idiot and deserved to be pilloried, impaled, and set out on an ant hill." into my irritation at use of the word unencyclopedic and listing for deletion of pages that don't need it... there's a large difference between criticism of one's actions and attacks upon one's right to exist.
Everyone needs to calm the hell down, really.
And suggesting Steve be blocked from editing Jew-related articles? While it emotionally appeals at first, it's a terrible precedent. What's next, preventing Hindus from editing Buddhism topics? Republicans from editing articles on Democrats? Liberals from editing the Ayn Rand article? It's the antithesis of neutrality.
-- Jake