Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:49:51 -0400 From: rednblack@alum.mit.edu Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Hi,
I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day with 142.177.*.* (formerly 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and [[militant Islam]]. I must admit that I'm not really a very patient person, especially when the other party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to respond to my points, and is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic viewpoint. It's even more irritating when the user has been hard-banned several times, and writes totally terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of everything else.
So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this situation.
See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked to have [[Islamism]] protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I wrote most of [[Islamism]], and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of work, I feel that the changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate.
Saurabh (Graft)
Your issue with 142 is - imho - a perfectly classical edit war, with two different sets of opinions, yours/RK versus 142.
I can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue you raise above, with the fact you listed [[Militant Islam]] for deletion just after RK redirected it with justifications which were not convincing.
I know little of the topic (though, as you may know about 10% of the french population is of muslim religion, and we have our share of religious extremism), so when you listed it on vfd, I just asked you whether the issue was that the term did not existed at all, or whether you thought the content was wrong.
Your answer to my question was
"The concept does not exist, as even the article admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's like having an article called militant Christianity?, and listing all the Christians who have ever been violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support themselves. We could do it, but what would be the point? The only common thread is that they're militant and Christian... why not start an article on Blond Presidents?? or Atheist Right-Fielders??"
When I looked at the two terms, both existed (militant islamist has over 34200 hits on google). This was confirmed by Jt who said
"It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely used in academia, in the media and in politics, whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an article on Militant Christianity? as it too is a real term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism, secularism, etc."
For those interested, read http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete
Obviously, though you share opinion with RK that the concept does not exist and think that the article should disappear, it seems that others have another opinion. And that not only does the concept exists, but that also it is relevant and informative for readers. I do think it is quite reasonable to think that on these types of matters, we cannot expect that everyone agrees.
Hence, it is not a question of banning or idiosynchrasy, or such, it is just a matter of diversity of opinion and perception. Just the essence of Wikipedia, not a personal matter. Accepting that other people have different opinions, no matter how much total crap it appears to us.
In this, the fact you loudly claimed the concept and the word did not exist, while obviously the word exist, and Jt opinion is that the concept exist and is important, should be proof enough that we sometimes are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed for, if we knew everything, we would not need wikipedia.
You also openly admit your own bias and the fact you wrote alone most of the Islamism article. Perhaps then, would it be good to imagine that *one* person cannot know everything on a topic and that it would make sense that such a wide topic be worked on by more people than just a couple
Whatever the effort you will put to be at your best in terms of neutrality and completude, do you think you would ever be able to "think" and see things like a "fou de Dieu" is (You certainly have a term for these people, those seeing God as a mean and an end, and revolving every matter in their life around Him)?.
I understand very well you may think 142 is writing inappropriate things. This is what we think each time we have an edit war with someone. Each time we disagree and get hot over it.
The only thing I can think of to help you here, is to remind you that we are all different, and ever will be, and each day I read the english wikipedia, I see that and am amazed. Also, to focus on the content, and not to divert your thinking in the dear hope to see someone you disagree with be banned, because if an opinion is serious and relevant, it will come back by the back door. Hence, I would say to face this issue rather than trying to avoid it. And if need there is, to choose a neutral party to help you (given that RK who will certainly be in the discussion, is not a neutral party :-))
And...yes...just to give you my opinion on the islamism article. It is good and informative. But biased.
When I read the below paragraph
"Much Islamist activity since has been directed against governments in Muslim societies, which Islamists oppose because they are governments according to human law, not divine law. However, a considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire because of its support of Israel, its presence on sacred Saudi soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. "
I cannot help repressing a sad smile, and think of all the difficulties my country has in integrating muslim population, some of it being islamist, of how much infrastructure was destroyed in the past years by attacks, how many people died in my country during these religious battles, of how many euros were spent in rebuilding, of all the discussions over the FIS in Algeria, of the islamists in Marocco, Egypt, Jordan trying to have their voice heard through legal means.
The current article is informative, but it does not answer my questions, and does not help me to understand why from time to time women and children die when in Paris subway, or when they go shopping for presents around Christmas. It does not help me to understand why, from time to time, I can't park my car in front of my children school because the terrorist alert is on again. It does not help me to understand why recently a teenager has burned alive a young girl refusing to cover her head in one of our cities. Or why some people get wild at the though of their wife head naked on identity pictures. It does not help me to understand why some french people refuse islamic religious cult building in their town. It does not help me to understand just why some people are so extremists when muslim people may be so delightful.
And if anyone read french here, I invite them to read this speech given by Nicolas Sarkozy over french muslims
http://www.religioscope.info/article_143.shtml
I dunno where you are from, Graft (America I suppose) and I dunno what your relationship with islam and muslims is, I can just say the current article needs work and other perspectives than yours and RK. Because right now, if I look at the article history, I see that you two are basically the authors of this article. Steve was censored right ?
I suspect an article on islamism, reflecting all points of view (per Wikipedia goal) should not be restricted to a "two head american authorship".
If you want the world to read this article with the feeling it is fair and deeply informative, or if you want american people to better understand why they have suffered such a terrible loss, please do not cling to that article. Rather try to understand and acknowledge other views. Please Graft.
Anthere
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
First of all, my opinions and RK's are wildly divergent. As to the current Islamism article, it was a replacement of RK's previous version, which stevert was fighting with him over. I don't think steve has stepped in since then much, maybe because he finds the current version more satisfactory, or maybe because he grew bored with the article.
My objection to 142 is not over content, but rather this:
142 decided that "Islamism" was not a neutral term. I don't know why he decided this, because he never bothered to respond to my queries on that point. Thereafter he hacked up the Islamism article and moved chunks of text around unilaterally. My debate with him over "militant Islam" notwithstanding, this is hardly acceptable practice.
Understand that my dispute with 142 is not an ideological one. My dispute is over the style in which 142 operates. He took an existing article, rewrote it willy-nilly with little justification, got in two edit wars over it (with myself and RK, who have little ideological common ground), then listed us both on [[Wikipedia:Problem users]] and went ahead with other reorganizations and article-creations without any discussion.
I am unclear exactly in what ways the current "Islamism" article is not neutral, and I am uncertain how it could incorporate such inchoate notions as "why?" people become radicals of any stripe. I think the article does attempt to give SOME answer as to how people are pushed into increasingly radical directions (although there's no discussion of Algeria/France right now, which is a major flaw. Unfortunately I know little to nothing about it/them, so maybe you can fill in the gaps?)
I readily acknowledge that the current "Islamism" article has profound failings and needs a lot of work; I also acknowledge that I am not an expert on Islamism, just a guy who has read a few books on the subject. I have no problem with more knowledgable people improving the article.
Anyway, I suppose it's time to retreat into the camp of people who have been bitten by 24/142/Entmoots and just have to learn to live with it.
Saurabh
------ Living in this country will always be hell until people stop demanding that the state imprison their neighbors.
In message 20030919151618.21337.qmail@web41703.mail.yahoo.com, Anthere said:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:49:51 -0400 From: rednblack@alum.mit.edu Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org
Hi,
I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day with 142.177.*.* (formerly 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and [[militant Islam]]. I must admit that I'm not really a very patient person, especially when the other party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to respond to my points, and is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic viewpoint. It's even more irritating when the user has been hard-banned several times, and writes totally terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of everything else.
So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this situation.
See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked to have [[Islamism]] protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I wrote most of [[Islamism]], and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of work, I feel that the changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate.
Saurabh (Graft)
Your issue with 142 is - imho - a perfectly classical edit war, with two different sets of opinions, yours/RK versus 142.
I can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue you raise above, with the fact you listed [[Militant Islam]] for deletion just after RK redirected it with justifications which were not convincing.
I know little of the topic (though, as you may know about 10% of the french population is of muslim religion, and we have our share of religious extremism), so when you listed it on vfd, I just asked you whether the issue was that the term did not existed at all, or whether you thought the content was wrong.
Your answer to my question was
"The concept does not exist, as even the article admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's like having an article called militant Christianity?, and listing all the Christians who have ever been violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support themselves. We could do it, but what would be the point? The only common thread is that they're militant and Christian... why not start an article on Blond Presidents?? or Atheist Right-Fielders??"
When I looked at the two terms, both existed (militant islamist has over 34200 hits on google). This was confirmed by Jt who said
"It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely used in academia, in the media and in politics, whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an article on Militant Christianity? as it too is a real term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism, secularism, etc."
For those interested, read http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete
Obviously, though you share opinion with RK that the concept does not exist and think that the article should disappear, it seems that others have another opinion. And that not only does the concept exists, but that also it is relevant and informative for readers. I do think it is quite reasonable to think that on these types of matters, we cannot expect that everyone agrees.
Hence, it is not a question of banning or idiosynchrasy, or such, it is just a matter of diversity of opinion and perception. Just the essence of Wikipedia, not a personal matter. Accepting that other people have different opinions, no matter how much total crap it appears to us.
In this, the fact you loudly claimed the concept and the word did not exist, while obviously the word exist, and Jt opinion is that the concept exist and is important, should be proof enough that we sometimes are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed for, if we knew everything, we would not need wikipedia.
You also openly admit your own bias and the fact you wrote alone most of the Islamism article. Perhaps then, would it be good to imagine that *one* person cannot know everything on a topic and that it would make sense that such a wide topic be worked on by more people than just a couple
Whatever the effort you will put to be at your best in terms of neutrality and completude, do you think you would ever be able to "think" and see things like a "fou de Dieu" is (You certainly have a term for these people, those seeing God as a mean and an end, and revolving every matter in their life around Him)?.
I understand very well you may think 142 is writing inappropriate things. This is what we think each time we have an edit war with someone. Each time we disagree and get hot over it.
The only thing I can think of to help you here, is to remind you that we are all different, and ever will be, and each day I read the english wikipedia, I see that and am amazed. Also, to focus on the content, and not to divert your thinking in the dear hope to see someone you disagree with be banned, because if an opinion is serious and relevant, it will come back by the back door. Hence, I would say to face this issue rather than trying to avoid it. And if need there is, to choose a neutral party to help you (given that RK who will certainly be in the discussion, is not a neutral party :-))
And...yes...just to give you my opinion on the islamism article. It is good and informative. But biased.
When I read the below paragraph
"Much Islamist activity since has been directed against governments in Muslim societies, which Islamists oppose because they are governments according to human law, not divine law. However, a considerable effort has been made to fight Western targets, especially the United States. The United States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire because of its support of Israel, its presence on sacred Saudi soil, what Islamists regard as its aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some Islamists have concentrated their activity against Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that this is of necessity due to historical conflict between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a Jewish/American alliance against Islam. "
I cannot help repressing a sad smile, and think of all the difficulties my country has in integrating muslim population, some of it being islamist, of how much infrastructure was destroyed in the past years by attacks, how many people died in my country during these religious battles, of how many euros were spent in rebuilding, of all the discussions over the FIS in Algeria, of the islamists in Marocco, Egypt, Jordan trying to have their voice heard through legal means.
The current article is informative, but it does not answer my questions, and does not help me to understand why from time to time women and children die when in Paris subway, or when they go shopping for presents around Christmas. It does not help me to understand why, from time to time, I can't park my car in front of my children school because the terrorist alert is on again. It does not help me to understand why recently a teenager has burned alive a young girl refusing to cover her head in one of our cities. Or why some people get wild at the though of their wife head naked on identity pictures. It does not help me to understand why some french people refuse islamic religious cult building in their town. It does not help me to understand just why some people are so extremists when muslim people may be so delightful.
And if anyone read french here, I invite them to read this speech given by Nicolas Sarkozy over french muslims
http://www.religioscope.info/article_143.shtml
I dunno where you are from, Graft (America I suppose) and I dunno what your relationship with islam and muslims is, I can just say the current article needs work and other perspectives than yours and RK. Because right now, if I look at the article history, I see that you two are basically the authors of this article. Steve was censored right ?
I suspect an article on islamism, reflecting all points of view (per Wikipedia goal) should not be restricted to a "two head american authorship".
If you want the world to read this article with the feeling it is fair and deeply informative, or if you want american people to better understand why they have suffered such a terrible loss, please do not cling to that article. Rather try to understand and acknowledge other views. Please Graft.
Anthere
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l