Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: Well, my argument is fairly straightforward: Terms with variance need a definition for each context in which they are used. They don't have an argument, and thus keep resorting to abusive tactics like repeatedly asking me to restate my points ad infinitum, after which they make a tradition of mischaracterizing them, and then berate me for going 'on and on.' The latest device is this notion that we can just sort of pick from "reliable" sources. I would prefer instead that we 'use sources reliably.' Anyway, thanks Ec. -Stevertigo

Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com> wrote: The issue here is not reliable sources, or your inaccurate characterization of my point that we use "reliable" sources "reliably": (i.e. Even the Bible can be misrepresented, misquoted, inaccurately cited). The source I cited was already in the article in first position, use specifically for the purpose of defining the context. The source gives a "reliable" overview of the variance in the context term, and states this variance to be subjective. We don't allow subjective concepts to stand as encyclopedic contexts, without appropriate definition. Hence my opposition simply wants to omit using that same "reliable" source in a "reliable" way. A more recent argument suggested changing the current "reliable" source to something more in agreement with the preexisting context (subjectively "reliable"), and designating the current (objectively) "reliable" source less "reliable" simply because it doesn't fit the context. I dislike your mischaracterizing insinuation that I don't consider the issue of "reliability" objectively. It reads as disingenuous. -Stevertigo

2009/9/24 stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> I wasn't commenting in any way on the sources you were using in any article. I was responding directly to this sentence in your statement: "I would prefer instead that we 'use sources reliably.' " I am questioning how that is at all a reasonable position. Stevertigo, you suggest there is a problem with the theory that sources should be reliable and instead suggest that we use sources reliably. The word "objectively" didn't come into play in either the post I was replying to, or in my response. I have interpreted what you wrote in the comment I replied to as "Let's change the way we use sources in xxx way". You haven't given me any reason to rethink my interpretation, nor have you contradicted what I said except to suggest I am being disingenous. that sources are used in a *specific* article. We have three million articles now. If you are going to propose a change in how sources are used, please consider whether it is something that would make sense as a standard throughout the encyclopedia. Risker

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: This dispute looks either like some combination of original research, disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust denialists. Even without the latter, and AGF, if what you're doing is semantic original research and perceived as the community as disruptive, it's the sort of activity which Wikipedia is specifically not here to be driving. Write an article elsewhere where it's appropriate. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:42 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: This is an amazing thing you've written. I've read your posts for perhaps two years, but I will read all future comments in an entirely new light. Nathan

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 2:00 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: Your arguments focus on the definition and description of the Holocaust as an event, not Holocaust denial as a phenomena. The counter argument, which you've chosen to ignore, is that Holocaust denial as a phenomena is nearly absolutely limited to the "Jewish" portion that you find has been the unfair focus of attention. With your avowed great talent for debate, I'm surprised you find ignoring arguments an effective strategy. But there is some similarity between your claims of skill in "destroying" your opponents, or "[taking them] to the woodshed", and those rappers whose body of work mostly revolves around stating how incredibly talented they are. Maybe your next redirect can be [[WP:MADBEATS]]. If you and Ray want to counter what you see as an inappropriate bias in the depth and breadth of Holocaust historical coverage, then you should pursue an academic post and start publishing. Good luck to you with that. Perhaps in academia the idea that no one actually "died" in the Holocaust will be met with something other than outright dismissal. Nathan

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: I'm not endorsing what anyone has said in this thread (I think Ray put things the way he did very clumsily), but it doesn't take much Googling to find seemingly reputable sources on stuff related to this (I searched for "overemphasis" and "Holocaust"): http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=overemphasis+holocaust&a… Now, among those are the usual suspects of far-right and other anti-semitic groups, but also some that are superficially, or actually, reputable. First the superficially reputable one: http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=131913 "Critical Holocaust Anthology" "Today, the language of the holocaust cannot be understood apart from the Jewish experience. Historically, this argument is suspect, if not inadequate. The intent of this proposed anthology is to understand why this national investment is made and to what extent these terms impact debates concerning genocide beyond the Jewish community. [...]" However, further searching seems to indicate this anthology was never published (or if it was, that it was not widely reviewed or well-received). That call for papers was dated 2003, but was circulating earlier as well. I found a criticism of it here: http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/000104.html Moving on to something that (to my mind) is more clearly reputable: http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=052138057X "After Tragedy and Triumph - Essays in Modern Jewish Thought and the American Experience" [Published November 1990] "The story of American Jewry is inextricably entwined with the awesome defeat of the Holocaust and the rebirth of the state of Israel. However, for Michael Berenbaum, and others of his generation, whose adult consciousness included the war in Lebanon and the Palestinian Uprisings, the tale is more anguished [...]" Chapter 4 is titled: "Is the centrality of the Holocaust overemphasised? Two dialogues". We have an article on the author of that book, Berenbaum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Berenbaum Another article he has written is here: http://giving.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=982&u=4444&t=0 "The Complexity of the Jewish Narrative in Our Times" "Dr. Berenbaum is the Director of the Sigi Ziering Institute Exploring the Ethical and Religious Implications of the Holocaust. He is the author and editor of 13 books, scores of scholarly articles and hundreds of journalistic pieces on the Shoah. This fall he will publish two books, A Promise to Remember: The Holocaust in the Words and Voices of Its Survivors and Martyrdom: The Psychology, Politics and Theology of An Idea." The Sigi Ziering Institute is mentioned in our article on the American Jewish University: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jewish_University But whenever I get the feeling that coverage of something is (for me) overwhelming and saturating, I meet someone who doesn't know what the Holocaust was, or is only dimly aware of the horror of the Holocaust. And I realise then how difficult it is to make sure people don't forget what happened, and how important it is to make sure people do remember (and that applies to other things as well, such as the World Wars in general). Staying on the general topic, the whole phenomena of how coverage of certain areas of history rises and falls, is fascinating. The number of books on certain subjects goes through the roof when anniversaries arrive (as has been seen recently with the commemorations of the 70th anniversary of the outbreak of WW2). There was a big spike in books about WW1 a few years ago, when the 90th anniversary commemorations were being held. And so on. The way in which coverage and reaction to the Holocaust has varied over the years is in some ways similar, but in other ways very different. I also found this: http://www.humanitas-international.org/holocaust/methods.htm A guide to how to present the Holocaust. Is that something worth considering (if it is any good - I looked around a bit for stuff on "Humanitas International" but couldn't find that much)? Founded by Joan Baez, apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Baez Carcharoth

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: True, and there are also those that want to discuss things of substance, as you yourself do in the next paragraph. That's not accurate. Its not about "separate," "[my] definition," "taken as a whole,"* or "specific[ity]." These are all your own misconceived mis-characterizations. Certainly. That is, if you want to just ignore those arguments on both sides and treat this whole thing within some arbitrary notions about behaviorism. But we would we not first have to show that those arguments are in fact "specious?" If you want to help out in this area, I'm already off to a very good head-start on the ANI page. :-) George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think its great George how you can just throw out an accusation like "some combination of original research, disruption, or possibly active but intellectual support of holocaust denialists" (its "deniers" by the way) and then say well even it ifs just a a matter of "AGF." I know its a cliche, but I'm going to answer your question is with a question anyway: "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -Stevertigo

stevertigo wrote: And I think it's astonishing, Stever, that someone who is as fond of wordplay and intellectual arguments as you seem to be could so blatantly miss the distinction between "looks like" and "is".

Stevertigo wrote: Yes, we've noticed. I couldn't think of a word for it just then, either. Indeed I do. George did you the courtesy of, rather than accusing you of actually being something objectionable, mentioning that that's the impression you were giving. The underlying presumption, of course, is that you'll be interested in changing your behavior so as to avoid the (putatively incorrect) impression in future. Now, the overwhelming body of evidence suggests that you have no such interest, and therefore that we are all quite wasting our time by letting you engage us in elaborate discussions like this. Someone on-wiki recently accused you of being a troll. I wouldn't accuse you of that, but it is certainly the impression you are giving.

Would anyone care to define the boundaries or goals of this discussion? Is it really going to be "Let's all analyse everything Stevertigo has ever said or done, or had said about him?" That could take a very long time. Steve

Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: Well if you people had supported Thomas' idea of creating a wikilists-l list specifically for mailing list issues, your complaint itself would be better made there. And if the shadow men had not squashed the open support on this list form a disputes-l list specifically for dispute resolution issues, then this would belong there. There are neither, and thus this remains the open place for such. Please, please, please don't make me start quoting Jimbo's statement of principles here. I'm specifically saving those for Arbcom. -Stevertigo

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> wrote: One of its roles is as a further avenue for review/appeal when things get heated on WP itself. It used to be the place to appeal blocks, but unblock-l now serves that role. Personally, I think it's probably ok to bring awareness here of issues there, but it seems a bit pointless to carry on the exact same debate in two places. Steve

Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: Well, at least give me credit for *not* being a dick. Restless? I hear no such restlessness through the grapevine. Yes, I see now. Several references: a couple in the pejorative sense, a couple in the negative sense, also Luna basically called Eclecticology also a "troll" - just for suggesting that someone else might deserve a block and that its application to me only appeared one-sided. Later comments seems to agree. -Stevertigo

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 4:39 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com> wrote: The answer is "Earth", all attempts to the contrary notwithstanding. You threw the question of your disruption block out here on wikien-L for comment. You cannot reasonably object that people have responded with their impressions of the situation. My impression, to expand, is that you're playing language games and attempting to support something which violates OR and is to me morally repugnant. I know better than to assume of anyone in this crowd that the appearance of such a stance automatically equals that the person in fact does hold the views which are appearing in the argument. However, I see what I see, and I responded to your request for comment. At the very least, you have successfully identified a hot button that you can push to the extent that it gets you blocked for some variation on disruption. The normal reasonable human response to "Doctor, it hurt when I did that" is "Don't do that." If you have underlying arguments that do not appear to be OR, semantic lawyering, or supporting holocaust denial, I am willing to hear a more general articulation of the problem and I invite you to take a few steps back and clarify. What you've done at every step so far, however, has been to dig yourself in deeper. Again - I know better, in this crowd, than to assume that such deeper hole digging behavior is anything more than intellectual stubbornness. Hence AGF. But at some point admins on wiki need to react to what we see and not what we hope is actually underlying. Whatever your deeper point is - you've presented it in a monumentally inappropriate manner for the venues, and you're making yourself look horrible. I advise you to stop, or to start over again from the very general description of the problem. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

stevertigo wrote: IIRC there was an 18th century edition in which the word "not" was omitted from "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The distinction between using "reliable sources" and "using source reliably" is not likely to be productive. Having reliable sources is a fine ideal, but the problem is that the word "reliable" is inherently just as subjective as the word "notable". Definition of the article's major thesis should be such as to find common ground for discussion; it should not be about demanding one or the other of competing definitions. In the current dispute we have had one side insisting on a definition that flies in the face of plain language, and using sources to perpetuate that fiction. Magically they have taken the position that "Holocaust" should change its meaning in the expression "Holocaust denial". Ec