This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
*Israel* *Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidAllegations of Israeli apartheidhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid *
The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidIsraelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelan "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidPalestinianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinianswith the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[82]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-PilgerThe majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adamon the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidantisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[84]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pulzerpropaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adamand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[85]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Phillips http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid ------- For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "*historically inaccurate, *antisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid, propaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV against the term.
Sorry, let's try this again:
This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
ISRAEL "The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. The majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use on the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, antisemitic, propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel.
------- For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "historically inaccurate, antisemitic, propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV against the term.
Argis Rohat wrote:
For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "historically inaccurate, antisemitic, propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Only if you ignore the phrase "The majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use on the grounds that...". It's not the best wording, I agree. Is it better now?
-Gurch
On 12/23/06, Argis Rohat argis.rohat@gmail.com wrote:
This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
Could you say which editor you are, please, given the amount of sockpuppetry that has gone on there? ~~~~
On 23/12/06, Argis Rohat argis.rohat@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, let's try this again:
This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
ISRAEL "The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of Israel an "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians with the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. The majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use on the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, antisemitic, propaganda, and a political epithet used to justify terrorist attacks against Israel.
We have many articles detailing contentious labels applied by some people from a particular POV. To describe these labels encyclopaedically, to report them, as we do, is not showing POV ourselves.
Take a look at [[List of ethnic slurs]]: the reporting of these terms does not necessitate an institutional belief in any one of them.
Do we really have to deal with antisemitic bastard behavior the day before most of the world celebrates the birth of the world's most famous Jew?
I mean, seriously. This kind of racist POV-pushing is bad enough on wikipedia, now we have to deal with it on the ML and at this time of year?
Shame on you.
Parker
On 12/23/06, Argis Rohat argis.rohat@gmail.com wrote:
This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
*Israel* *Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidAllegations of Israeli apartheid< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid%3E
The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidIsrael< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%3Ean "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidPalestinians< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians%3Ewith the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[82]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pilger%3EThe majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam%3Eon the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidantisemitic< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism%3E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[84]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pulzer
propaganda,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam%3Eand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[85]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Phillips%3E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "*historically inaccurate, *antisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid, propaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV against the term. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world is not Christian. And issues on Wikipedia are not going to take a holiday regardless. And I won't even touch this statement -- "the birth of the world's most famous Jew"
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
Parker Peters wrote:
Do we really have to deal with antisemitic bastard behavior the day before most of the world celebrates the birth of the world's most famous Jew?
I mean, seriously. This kind of racist POV-pushing is bad enough on wikipedia, now we have to deal with it on the ML and at this time of year?
Shame on you.
Parker
On 12/23/06, Argis Rohat argis.rohat@gmail.com wrote:
This is the entire passage under the heading "Israel" in the article "Allegations of apartheid"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
Does any objective person consider it to be NPOV?
*Israel* *Main article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidAllegations of Israeli apartheid< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_Israeli_apartheid%3E
The phrase "Israeli apartheid" (or the terming of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidIsrael< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%3Ean "apartheid state") is a controversial phrase used by some critics of Israel, who compare Israel's treatment of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidPalestinians< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians%3Ewith the treatment of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[82]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pilger%3EThe majority of academics and journalists who have commented on the term are reported to deplore its use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam%3Eon the grounds that it is historically inaccurate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidantisemitic< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism%3E http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[84]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Pulzer
propaganda,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[83]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Adam%3Eand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid[85]< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid#_note-Phillips%3E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid
For one thing the sentence states as fact that the term "Israeli apartheid" is "*historically inaccurate, *antisemitichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid, propaganda, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidand a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidpolitical epithethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_epithetused to justify http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheidterrorist attacks against Israel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_apartheid" something a wikipedia article should not be asserting. Secondly the paragaraph is not neutral and strongly weighted with the view that Israeli apartheid is not an acceptable term.
Several editors have attempted to correct this paragraph's bias but they have been blocked by a larger number of determined editors pushing a POV against the term. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:47:12 -0500, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
And I won't even touch this statement -- "the birth of the world's most famous Jew"
Absolutely. Woody Allen was born earlier in the month.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/24/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
And I won't even touch this statement -- "the birth of the world's most famous Jew"
Absolutely. Woody Allen was born earlier in the month.
Badum-chunk!
Remember to tip your waitresses, JzG will be here all night!
--Oskar
(PS. I am myself indeed part of a growing movement of people celebrating Woodymass, which we celebrate by quoting Strindberg at length, mispronouncing Von Gogh and discussing negative space. And oh yeah, once in our life we have to make a pilgrimage to Elaines)
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world is not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS the largest religion.
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world is not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS the largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
Irrelevant conversation.
Get back on task.
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
is
not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS
the
largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
Irrelevant conversation.
Get back on task.
Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.
M
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
is
not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS
the
largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nah, nah, just that I didn't want people to lose focus.
On 12/27/06, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
Irrelevant conversation.
Get back on task.
Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.
M
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
is
not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS
the
largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James,
I apologize if I misread (or, in this case, misdiagnosed) the cause of your statement; we psychs are sensitive (perhaps too) to things like that.
Have a healthy new year.
My best.
Marc Riddell
From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:07:31 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
Nah, nah, just that I didn't want people to lose focus.
On 12/27/06, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
From: "James Hare" messedrocker@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:07:01 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV on Israel
Irrelevant conversation.
Get back on task.
Sounds like someone may have a control issue here.
M
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world
is
not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS
the
largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/24/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tom Tolnam ttolnam@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/12/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? Not everyone celebrates Christmas; the majority of the world is not Christian.
As I remember, 3 billion Christians in the world over 6 billion total population equals a close minority or a close majority.
However, this is not important. I used unverified figures sure to be controversial, and probably incorrect. Despite this, Christianity IS the largest religion.
It might be the largest religion, but what of it? At 2 billion followers, it's still a minority religion.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com)
A minority, yes, but it also has the plurality, if I've got my terms right.
--Ryan
On 25/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Do we really have to deal with antisemitic bastard behavior the day before most of the world celebrates the birth of the world's most famous Jew?
I mean, seriously. This kind of racist POV-pushing is bad enough on wikipedia, now we have to deal with it on the ML and at this time of year?
Shame on you.
Parker
As far as I remember, you supposedly got over dealing with it on wikipedia (onmywayout...) etc. Why do you feel the compulsion to do it here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
Peter Ansell
On 12/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 25/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Do we really have to deal with antisemitic bastard behavior the day
before
most of the world celebrates the birth of the world's most famous Jew?
I mean, seriously. This kind of racist POV-pushing is bad enough on wikipedia, now we have to deal with it on the ML and at this time of
year?
Shame on you.
Parker
As far as I remember, you supposedly got over dealing with it on wikipedia (onmywayout...) etc. Why do you feel the compulsion to do it here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
Peter Ansell
I was gone over two months, and still haven't returned to Wikipedia, and I'll thank you now to stop trying to flame me.
Racism is the kind of behavior that Israel and Israelis face on a regular basis, and the fact that we have editors always trying to POV our articles related to Israel into propaganda saying Israel is bad, Israel is evil, yadda yadda is nothing new given that there are a decently large portion of the world who seem to feel that they have some right to do this.
Or did you miss the grand "the holocaust didn't happen" party in Iran the other week?
Don't be [[WP:DENSE]].
Parker
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you feel the compulsion to do it here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
Racism is the kind of behavior that Israel and Israelis face on a regular basis, and the fact that we have editors always trying to POV our articles related to Israel into propaganda saying Israel is bad, Israel is evil, yadda yadda is nothing new given that there are a decently large portion of the world who seem to feel that they have some right to do this.
Please stop perpetrating the illusion that very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel is somehow equivalent to racism.
Or did you miss the grand "the holocaust didn't happen" party in Iran the other week?
See [[Parallel universe (fiction)]]
Ec
On 12/27/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you feel the compulsion to do it here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
Racism is the kind of behavior that Israel and Israelis face on a regular basis, and the fact that we have editors always trying to POV our
articles
related to Israel into propaganda saying Israel is bad, Israel is evil, yadda yadda is nothing new given that there are a decently large portion
of
the world who seem to feel that they have some right to do this.
Please stop perpetrating the illusion that very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel is somehow equivalent to racism.
When I see some valid criticism, I'll not call it racism.
The stuff you're supporting, however, is just racist.
Parker
On 27/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
When I see some valid criticism, I'll not call it racism.
The stuff you're supporting, however, is just racist.
Parker
How about we, say, _feign_ civility and avoid accusing each other of racism?
To say that a comparison between Apartheid and Israel is "very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel" is not racist. It's accusing Israel of being racist. Perhaps, if this claim doesn't have any supporting evidence, you could call it nationalist. Nothing more.
On 12/27/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
When I see some valid criticism, I'll not call it racism.
The stuff you're supporting, however, is just racist.
Parker
How about we, say, _feign_ civility and avoid accusing each other of racism?
To say that a comparison between Apartheid and Israel is "very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel" is not racist. It's accusing Israel of being racist. Perhaps, if this claim doesn't have any supporting evidence, you could call it nationalist. Nothing more.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________
But the problem is, the evidence all points the other way. Attempts to compare Apartheid with Israel's situation have never been honest, but always have been nothing more than racist propaganda.
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
The fact that this was brought up when it was is sad, and the fact that I see editors going on trying to find some method of justifying writings that are mere propaganda being placed onto wikipedia, is horrifying to me.
Parker
Um... what's the issue at hand again?
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/27/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
When I see some valid criticism, I'll not call it racism.
The stuff you're supporting, however, is just racist.
Parker
How about we, say, _feign_ civility and avoid accusing each other of racism?
To say that a comparison between Apartheid and Israel is "very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel" is not racist. It's accusing Israel of being racist. Perhaps, if this claim doesn't have any supporting evidence, you could call it nationalist. Nothing more.
-- Oldak Quill (oldakquill@gmail.com) _______________________________________
But the problem is, the evidence all points the other way. Attempts to compare Apartheid with Israel's situation have never been honest, but always have been nothing more than racist propaganda.
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
The fact that this was brought up when it was is sad, and the fact that I see editors going on trying to find some method of justifying writings that are mere propaganda being placed onto wikipedia, is horrifying to me.
Parker _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 12/27/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Um... what's the issue at hand again?
<snip>
Someone came on here, and after editors were stopping them from doing it on Wikipedia, trolled the list trying to make a section on [[Israel]] that's already troublesome into an even bigger violation of NPOV.
Parker
On 28/12/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
Someone came on here, and after editors were stopping them from doing it on Wikipedia, trolled the list trying to make a section on [[Israel]] that's already troublesome into an even bigger violation of NPOV.
This is the sense in which wikien-l is the official sewer of en:wp, by the way. This sort of thing is actually one of the purposes of this list. (Not that it won't get short shrift as deserved.)
- d.
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/27/06, Oldak Quill oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
To say that a comparison between Apartheid and Israel is "very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel" is not racist. It's accusing Israel of being racist. Perhaps, if this claim doesn't have any supporting evidence, you could call it nationalist. Nothing more.
But the problem is, the evidence all points the other way. Attempts to compare Apartheid with Israel's situation have never been honest, but always have been nothing more than racist propaganda.
What makes them dishonest? If the people who make that analogy really believe it, that's all it takes to be honest. Propaganda involves much more than discussing an idea in some electronic medium. It involves a conscious effort to spread that idea in a multitude of fora.
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
<citation needed>
The fact that this was brought up when it was is sad, and the fact that I see editors going on trying to find some method of justifying writings that are mere propaganda being placed onto wikipedia, is horrifying to me.
One does not achieve NPOV by suppressing views with which one disagrees.
Ec
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
<citation needed>
Oddly enough, there's a problem on Wikipedia with people disingenuously slapping on "citation needed" when they very well know something is true, but they're hoping that nobody will cite it, so they have an excuse to delete it.
At least on Wikipedia there's a requirement to cite sources, so they have *some* point, even if they're using the rules in a biased way.
But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well- known facts. Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
On 12/31/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
<citation needed>
Oddly enough, there's a problem on Wikipedia with people disingenuously slapping on "citation needed" when they very well know something is true, but they're hoping that nobody will cite it, so they have an excuse to delete it.
At least on Wikipedia there's a requirement to cite sources, so they have *some* point, even if they're using the rules in a biased way.
But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well- known facts. Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
Which is why I almost never respond to Ray's posts. Nevertheless:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Saudi%20Arabia/religious%20apar...
Jay.
Are you all done yet? I'm still waiting for a non-snide response to my question "what's the issue at hand again?" If the answer is nothing, let's make this thread -- and the poorly-formed analogies in it -- history.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
jayjg wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If you're going to make a comparison with Apartheid, you've got a better comparison looking at Saudi Arabia, where multiple cities require non-Muslims to drive on different roads than Muslims, and non-Muslims are barred from multiple areas of many cities, and are subject to different laws and different punishments for breaking the laws.
<citation needed>
Oddly enough, there's a problem on Wikipedia with people disingenuously slapping on "citation needed" when they very well know something is true, but they're hoping that nobody will cite it, so they have an excuse to delete it.
At least on Wikipedia there's a requirement to cite sources, so they have *some* point, even if they're using the rules in a biased way.
But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well- known facts. Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
Which is why I almost never respond to Ray's posts. Nevertheless:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Saudi%20Arabia/religious%20apar...
Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 31/12/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well- known facts. Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
I'm sorry, but to compare Saudi Arabia not allowing non-Muslims to drive on the highway that happens to lead into Mecca - the holy city, who would have thought? - with the Holocaust is both grotesque and a piece of gratuitous trolling.
Earle Martin wrote:
On 31/12/06, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
But on this mailing list there should be no need to cite sources for well- known facts. Demanding a citation for something like this is ridiculous. Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
I'm sorry, but to compare Saudi Arabia not allowing non-Muslims to drive on the highway that happens to lead into Mecca - the holy city, who would have thought? - with the Holocaust is both grotesque and a piece of gratuitous trolling.
To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the actual holy site in Mecca. The sign going to the right has two arrows, which suggests two lanes. Why, in a country that is predominantly Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant religious group get only one? Traffic control can be a serious problem at the time of the Hajj.
The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.
The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title. Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run by fundamentalist hate mongers.
Ec
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: <snip />
To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the actual holy site in Mecca. The sign going to the right has two arrows, which suggests two lanes. Why, in a country that is predominantly Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant religious group get only one? Traffic control can be a serious problem at the time of the Hajj.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the reason for saying this. The assertion that you seem to be disputing is that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. You reply with a) a technical nit-pick about non-Muslims being allowed into Mecca, just not Arafat Makkah, and what seems to be a complaint about traffic problems during the Hajj. I, and everyone who gets a full inbox of this stuff would, I think, appreciate every byte of the message to be full of meaningful information that is apropos to the topic.
To answer point (a) above, would you still object if the statement was that non-Muslims are not allowed into "Arafat Makkah". With this statement, Oldak Quill's point is still valid -- the comparison to Apratheid is better made with the Saudis than with Israel.
The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.
This is a bad analogy for two reasons: 1. Two wrongs do not make a right -- just because the Latter Day Saints go around prohibiting people from entering their inner temple doesn't give me moral grounds on which to do the same thing.
2. The reason I'm not (being a non-Mormon) allowed into the temple of the Latter Day Saints has to do with it being private property, giving them the right to arbitrarily refuse entrance to anyone they choose, much like my home. The reason I'm not (being a non-Muslim) allowed to enter Arafat Makkah is because the government of Saudi Arabia has passed a law forbidding it.
The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title. Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run by fundamentalist hate mongers.
However much you may object to the website housing the photo, you have nto yet offered a shred of evidence to negate the assertion that non-Muslims are not allowed into Arafat Makkah. If you really need a more neutrally captioned photo, see http://www.theraptureisathand.com/blog/index.php/2006/12/13/mecca-youre-not-... (though this site might be considered that of religious hate mongers as well)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ugh... sigh... I guess my last message didn't get read. Please carry on this dispute elsewhere.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
P.S. However, the sign is referring to two different places -- Mount Arafat and the city of Makkah (and similarly the cities of Ta'if and Riyadh for the other part). But please, let's abandon this topic...
Silas Snider wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
<snip />
To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the actual holy site in Mecca. The sign going to the right has two arrows, which suggests two lanes. Why, in a country that is predominantly Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant religious group get only one? Traffic control can be a serious problem at the time of the Hajj.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the reason for saying this. The assertion that you seem to be disputing is that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. You reply with a) a technical nit-pick about non-Muslims being allowed into Mecca, just not Arafat Makkah, and what seems to be a complaint about traffic problems during the Hajj. I, and everyone who gets a full inbox of this stuff would, I think, appreciate every byte of the message to be full of meaningful information that is apropos to the topic.
To answer point (a) above, would you still object if the statement was that non-Muslims are not allowed into "Arafat Makkah". With this statement, Oldak Quill's point is still valid -- the comparison to Apratheid is better made with the Saudis than with Israel.
The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.
This is a bad analogy for two reasons:
- Two wrongs do not make a right -- just because the Latter Day
Saints go around prohibiting people from entering their inner temple doesn't give me moral grounds on which to do the same thing.
- The reason I'm not (being a non-Mormon) allowed into the temple of
the Latter Day Saints has to do with it being private property, giving them the right to arbitrarily refuse entrance to anyone they choose, much like my home. The reason I'm not (being a non-Muslim) allowed to enter Arafat Makkah is because the government of Saudi Arabia has passed a law forbidding it.
The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title. Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run by fundamentalist hate mongers.
However much you may object to the website housing the photo, you have nto yet offered a shred of evidence to negate the assertion that non-Muslims are not allowed into Arafat Makkah. If you really need a more neutrally captioned photo, see http://www.theraptureisathand.com/blog/index.php/2006/12/13/mecca-youre-not-... (though this site might be considered that of religious hate mongers as well)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And about the "muslims only" zones in Medina and other cities in Saudi Arabia as well?
And how about the laws criminalizing any religion but Islam?
Please, stop. You're just digging an even bigger hole for yourself. Dishonesty does not serve the project well.
Parker
On 12/31/06, Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu- tariqabjotu@gmail.com wrote:
Ugh... sigh... I guess my last message didn't get read. Please carry on this dispute elsewhere.
-- Tariq Ab- Jo- Tu-
P.S. However, the sign is referring to two different places -- Mount Arafat and the city of Makkah (and similarly the cities of Ta'if and Riyadh for the other part). But please, let's abandon this topic...
Silas Snider wrote:
On 12/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
<snip />
To be more precise the turn off to the left is to "Arafat Makkah", the actual holy site in Mecca. The sign going to the right has two arrows, which suggests two lanes. Why, in a country that is predominantly Muslim, would the infidel minority get two lanes while the dominant religious group get only one? Traffic control can be a serious problem at the time of the Hajj.
I'm sorry, but I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the reason for saying this. The assertion that you seem to be disputing is that non-Muslims are not allowed in Mecca. You reply with a) a technical nit-pick about non-Muslims being allowed into Mecca, just not Arafat Makkah, and what seems to be a complaint about traffic problems during the Hajj. I, and everyone who gets a full inbox of this stuff would, I think, appreciate every byte of the message to be full of meaningful information that is apropos to the topic.
To answer point (a) above, would you still object if the statement was that non-Muslims are not allowed into "Arafat Makkah". With this statement, Oldak Quill's point is still valid -- the comparison to Apratheid is better made with the Saudis than with Israel.
The Latter Day Saints do not allow non-Mormons into their inner temple in Salt Lake City, and I find no reason to be upset about that.
This is a bad analogy for two reasons:
- Two wrongs do not make a right -- just because the Latter Day
Saints go around prohibiting people from entering their inner temple doesn't give me moral grounds on which to do the same thing.
- The reason I'm not (being a non-Mormon) allowed into the temple of
the Latter Day Saints has to do with it being private property, giving them the right to arbitrarily refuse entrance to anyone they choose, much like my home. The reason I'm not (being a non-Muslim) allowed to enter Arafat Makkah is because the government of Saudi Arabia has passed a law forbidding it.
The photo adds no commentary, and is accompanied by a misleading title. Looking further into the website gives me the impression that it is run by fundamentalist hate mongers.
However much you may object to the website housing the photo, you have nto yet offered a shred of evidence to negate the assertion that non-Muslims are not allowed into Arafat Makkah. If you really need a more neutrally captioned photo, see
http://www.theraptureisathand.com/blog/index.php/2006/12/13/mecca-youre-not-...
(though this site might be considered that of religious hate mongers as
well)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:33:21 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Saudi Arabia's treatment of Muslims is well-known, and nobody who is the least bit informed about the subject can deny it. It's like requesting a source for the Holocaust happening.
You might want to take that up with David Irving...
Guy (JzG)
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/27/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Parker Peters wrote:
On 12/24/06, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
Why do you feel the compulsion to do it here? Racist is using the word antisemitic and denying the equivalent use of antimuslim-itic (or what ever term is appropriate). Either get over calling people names or actually leave like you threaten to.
Racism is the kind of behavior that Israel and Israelis face on a regular basis, and the fact that we have editors always trying to POV our articles
related to Israel into propaganda saying Israel is bad, Israel is evil, yadda yadda is nothing new given that there are a decently large portion of
the world who seem to feel that they have some right to do this.
Please stop perpetrating the illusion that very, very valid criticism of the State of Israel is somehow equivalent to racism.
When I see some valid criticism, I'll not call it racism.
The stuff you're supporting, however, is just racist.
You haven't got a fucking clue about what I believe. Quit making it up.
Ec