This is getting really ugly. A dozen people have nmade personal attacks on me, all of them falsely saying that I am making personal attacks.
Then an obviously anti-Israeli crowd is trying to define reality by voting, and is deleting vast amounts of proven facts in order to promote pro-Arab POV.
Facts are not defined by votes. Only hatred is.
If the consensus is that Wikipedia should promote anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and hateful crowds ganging up on one user, then that is precisely the reputation that it will get offline.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Generally, although I would not expect you to admit it, Wikipedia articles have a somewhat pro-Israeli bias. There just aren't a lot of Arabs or Palestinians showing up here. Most pro-Palestinian edits are coming from a liberal Israeli point of view such as Danny's
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 07:24:25 -0800 (PST) To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] This is getting ugly
This is getting really ugly. A dozen people have nmade personal attacks on me, all of them falsely saying that I am making personal attacks.
Then an obviously anti-Israeli crowd is trying to define reality by voting, and is deleting vast amounts of proven facts in order to promote pro-Arab POV.
Facts are not defined by votes. Only hatred is.
If the consensus is that Wikipedia should promote anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and hateful crowds ganging up on one user, then that is precisely the reputation that it will get offline.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/12/04 at 08:35 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
Generally, although I would not expect you to admit it, Wikipedia articles have a somewhat pro-Israeli bias.
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
Conclusion???
There just aren't a lot of Arabs or Palestinians showing up here. Most pro-Palestinian edits are coming from a liberal Israeli point of view such as Danny's
One Palestinian-Canadian showed up awhile ago but alas he has not contributed since September:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5...
V.
Viajero a écrit:
On 01/12/04 at 08:35 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net said:
Generally, although I would not expect you to admit it, Wikipedia articles have a somewhat pro-Israeli bias.
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
Conclusion???
Yes, I remember that conversation. We were three people talking, and the three of us had a different perception. That was curious ;-)
Viajero wrote:
Several of us were discussing the topic on the IRC channel in December (Anthere may remember this because she was one of them) and this question came up. One person said they thought WP (EN) had a pro-Israeli bias. Another said a pro-Palestinian bias. A third said neither POV was accurately represented.
Conclusion???
There just aren't a lot of Arabs or Palestinians showing up here. Most pro-Palestinian edits are coming from a liberal Israeli point of view such as Danny's
One Palestinian-Canadian showed up awhile ago but alas he has not contributed since September:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&limit=5...
I think part of the problem, as always, is deciding what is a "neutral" point of view. IMO, it does *not* mean that it's one that all people would accept as neutral. It's one that all *reasonable* people would accept as neutral, even if somewhat grudgingly. Of course, how to define reasonable is controversial.
To take one example, it is mainstream public opinion in many Arab countries that the [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] are an authentic document, a viewpoint that is not in keeping with the evidence (which is fairly strong on this point). To have any sort of reasonable argument, we can't help but simply saying "well, just about everyone who has examined the evidence thinks mainstream Arab public opinion is flat-out wrong on this point" (albeit phrased more politely).
This is not only to pick on Arabs. Some polls last year showed that a fairly high percentage of Americans believed Iraqis were among the Sept. 11 hijackers, but as evidence shows that the hijackers were Saudis, we can't really present "they were Iraqis" as a legitimate viewpoint.
-Mark
Robert wrote:
If the consensus is that Wikipedia should promote anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and hateful crowds ganging up on one user, then that is precisely the reputation that it will get offline.
Here we go again... I could never follow up on all the pro/anti-Semitism wars on Wikipedia, but *everything else aside*, I find it very peculiar that all have one single thing in common: you on one side and hateful crowds of anti-Zionists and anti-Semits and soon-to-be-Nazis on the other. Doesn't this strike you as too much of a coincidence as well? Maybe they're anti-RK, not anti-Semitic, ever thought of that? Seriously. Did it ever cross your mind?
--Gutza
Not only have you yourself made the ugliest and most hateful personal attacks that I've yet seen on Wikipedia, you then have the unmitigated gall to pretend that you haven't done anything. It doesn't say much for Wikipedia governance that you haven't been banned forever for your unacceptable actions.
Stan
Robert wrote:
This is getting really ugly. A dozen people have nmade personal attacks on me, all of them falsely saying that I am making personal attacks.
Then an obviously anti-Israeli crowd is trying to define reality by voting, and is deleting vast amounts of proven facts in order to promote pro-Arab POV.
Facts are not defined by votes. Only hatred is.
If the consensus is that Wikipedia should promote anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and hateful crowds ganging up on one user, then that is precisely the reputation that it will get offline.
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:24 AM, Robert wrote:
This is getting really ugly.
Agreed. Definitely agreed
A dozen people have nmade personal attacks on me, all of them falsely saying that I am making personal attacks.
Here's where it gets ugly, my friend.
Then an obviously anti-Israeli crowd is trying to define reality by voting, and is deleting vast amounts of proven facts in order to promote pro-Arab POV.
Facts are not defined by votes. Only hatred is.
If the consensus is that Wikipedia should promote anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and hateful crowds ganging up on one user, then that is precisely the reputation that it will get offline.
You must see that you're perpetuating the ugliness as much as your "attackers" (poor word choice of mine, but you know what I mean). Of course, the converse is true: your "attackers" are perpetuating the ugliness as much as you. It's just not necessary.
People have said things. People have interpreted and misinterpreted things. It's done, it's happened, and it's now in the past. Meanwhile, the *rest* of us are working on an encyclopedia. If this is a personal battle, I personally think you (very much plural) should simply drop it. If you wish to continue I would appreciate if it were taken off-list. These accusations and counter-accusations have no place here.
That said, there *is* a substantive issue hidden in this mess. The NPOV of certain articles is being questioned. Let's address that. What has happened to the articles in the past does not matter anymore. Remember, the page history may exist, but it's the latest revision that counts. Let's discuss what *is* there and what *should be* there. Without accusing each other of anti-Anythingism.
We are a community. We are based tightly around the encyclopedia, but we are a community. Anyone who is here to make offensive remarks or accusations is in the wrong place. #REDIRECT [[Usenet]].
That said, we must have to trust that others' remarks are not intended as accusations or otherwise meant to offend. If we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt, we'll all end up, well, basically like we are now: wrapped up in an unproductive argument over who said what (or didn't say what). In the worst case scenario, you take an insult as constructive criticism. Who cares? If someone tries to hurt you and you don't notice, the other person's comment will just fall flat on it's face. All the better.
Let's revive the substantive issues in an objective, fair, and, most importantly, calm manner. Please drop the rest, or, if you must, take it off-list. Thank you.
Concerned Wikipedian otherwise uninvolved in the matter, Peter
You might also want to check out User:LizardKing's Talk page, in which he referred to TUF-KAT as "you pellow-biting imbecile." He also suggested contacting Annek to encourage him to continue his attacks. (I assume "pellow" is supposed to be "pillow".)
RickK
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
You might also want to check out User:LizardKing's Talk page, in which he referred to TUF-KAT as "you pellow-biting imbecile." He also suggested contacting Annek to encourage him to continue his attacks. (I assume "pellow" is supposed to be "pillow".)
RickK
Yes, this makes it seem much more likely that Annek reincarnated himself as Lizard King to upload his sketches, I suppose anticipating opposition (though Annek hasn't chimed in supporting Lizard King).
TUF-KAT
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus