Jimbo writes:
Robert, I really think you should moderate your tone, because I think that doing so will make your comments more effective.
In theory, I agree with you. However, I also agreed with Jtdirl that these topics (Arab refugees and Jewish refugees) should be discussed on Wikipedia. That's moderate as well. I just was shocked by his false claims of censorship. (Especially since we have more than three articles discussing this subject!)
When we work together for months to whip articles into decent shape, it seems inappropriate, and a violation of Wikipedia policy, to do an end-run around them by starting a new discussion on the same subject, pushing only Jtdirl's point of view. I am not the only person who has pointed this out.
Jimbo writes:
Making a moral judgment in a case like this is likely to turn people off. And, really, it runs a very strong risk of being _not true at all_. It strikes me as more likely that jtdirl is mistaken, rather than actively dishonest. Or that you are mistaken.
Ok, I agree; I could be mistaken. But Jtdirl refuses to talk to me, so no conversation is possible. You saw for yourself James Duffy's odd response to my points:
I said we *should* have articles on Arab refugees, but we should no do an end-run around our peer-rview. I stated that it is wrong to claim censorship is going on.
Jtdirl (James Duffy) responded, stop calling me an anti-Semite! And then Jtdirl started talking about Jerusalem.
Huh? His statements have absolutely no relationship to what is being said to him. He is in his own little world, and that kind of freaks me out. I get the idea that people read his letter, and respond to his false claims about me...even though my letter said nothing about what he mentions!
It would be very easy to smooth things over, but that is impossible until his responses respond to what I actually write. (That is a truism, no?)
On a separate topic: I am uncomfortable with the way that Jtdirl and others slander me as a racist. For example, Jtdirl again stated that Zionists are racists. He does this knowing that I a Zionist, therefore the clear implication is that I am racist bigot whose words should be ignored.
Such angry and false speech about Zionists (which includes tens of millions of Jews and Christians) is not appropriate here. Would we accept it if people said that Irish nationalism is racist? That feminism is FemiNazism? That black progressivism is really white-hating communism? I doubt that most Wikipedias would stand for this. But when people here make these generalized and incorrect statements about Zionists, no one says a word.
You and I don't speak this way about people of other groups; I propose that this standard should be true for all of us here. I hope that I am not perceived as being unreasonable.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
At 06:08 PM 8/5/2003, you wrote:
On a separate topic: I am uncomfortable with the way that Jtdirl and others slander me as a racist. For example, Jtdirl again stated that Zionists are racists. He does this knowing that I a Zionist, therefore the clear implication is that I am racist bigot whose words should be ignored.
Such angry and false speech about Zionists (which includes tens of millions of Jews and Christians) is not appropriate here. Would we accept it if people said that Irish nationalism is racist? That feminism is FemiNazism? That black progressivism is really white-hating communism? I doubt that most Wikipedias would stand for this. But when people here make these generalized and incorrect statements about Zionists, no one says a word.
You and I don't speak this way about people of other groups; I propose that this standard should be true for all of us here. I hope that I am not perceived as being unreasonable.
Robert (RK)
I would imagine that it doesn't help your cause when you falsely attribute comments to the improper party. jtdirl didn't say that Zionists were racists, PL did. jtdirl mentioned it as an example of why PL should be banned. Not that I expect logic and facts to get in the way of your agenda, but I figured I at least ought to point out one of the most egregious of your mischaracterizations.
Feel free to get all worked up and in a huff about my comments, I'm not going to stop you. You have every right to your own private delusions and, given the nature of the Wikipedia, even a right to bore those of us on the mailing list with your continual claims of how you've been terribly victimized.
RK, those of us who read the talk pages and edit summaries know what's going on. You don't have us buffaloed. Your treatment of various people is regularly agressive, bordering on abusive, and your credibility is virtually nil. If you want to engage in serious debate on any of the issues I've raised, feel free. If you want to complain about how this is another example of how people are treating you unfairly, I'm not interested, and I would refer you to creating a ban page to have me removed from Wikipedia.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
on 8/5/03 7:08 PM, Robert at rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
In theory, I agree with you. However, I also agreed with Jtdirl that these topics (Arab refugees and Jewish refugees) should be discussed on Wikipedia. That's moderate as well. I just was shocked by his false claims of censorship. (Especially since we have more than three articles discussing this subject!)
When we work together for months to whip articles into decent shape, it seems inappropriate, and a violation of Wikipedia policy, to do an end-run around them by starting a new discussion on the same subject, pushing only Jtdirl's point of view. I am not the only person who has pointed this out.
Well, its like some absurdist play (I remember one about a body in the room that everyone tries to ignore).
You can't have a legitimate Israel article that leaves out the conquest and subjugation of the Palestinians anymore than you can have a People's Republic of China article without a prominent link to totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
You can't ignore an elephant in the room and maintain your legitimacy as an authoritative reference.
Fred
At 08:23 PM 8/5/2003, you wrote:
You can't ignore an elephant in the room and maintain your legitimacy as an authoritative reference.
Fred
What if we call it a pachyderm, name him Chauncy, and tell everyone he's a neurosurgeon from Guatemala?
...
Oh, sorry, I thought we were doing the absurdist play thing...
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321