--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:

I suggest rereading �Posting old message - formatted this time!� at which explains why we shouldn�t realistically expect much civility on this issue, which clarifies my points to all the concerns you raised.

First of all Abe, the message came in fine the first time. Second, Ill *note the points you didnt reply to.

You still say "we should'nt really expect much civility on this issue?" What??? Since when is the Wikipedia community under any obligation to forfeit its principles-- the first being strive for NPOV, the second (in my mind ) simply demands reasonable degree of civility towards others. Even if 'civility' is just an informal rule, its the only term that can apply and its the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptible. We can't ask people to love, honor, obey, or even respect another, but we have every right to demand civility. If you are saying that there are people who will, under certain circumstances, blow their top entirely-- what exactly are you saying that is new or relevant? Such people suffer the unbearable lightness of being, and I say, 'welcome to the club.'

That you are saying that basic principle should be bent for sake of this one particular political issue-- is not reasonable. In life. would you suggest that the Ten Commandments be altered as well? "Don't steal?"--"Go ahead", "Dont covet your neighbors wife--"Go ahead". "Thou shalt do no murder"--"Oh why not." These are *universal* principles, codified in different way and in different languages-- just like civility is a reasonable principle for WP. Again, you can't seriously be demanding there be a loophole in our core principles--for uncivil behaviour, in connection to particular political conflict. First, you only want the loophole to apply to the pro-Israeli side! Second... well... its just beyond me that anyone could take you seriously. RK's departure represents a change in tone-- and a last obstacle to a more formal and widely acceptible policy of civility is removed. In case you handnt read the list-- a great many 'pedians are fine with his exit, and have some reason for it.

I understand your basic point (as silly and willy nilly as you came around to it )-- you're essentially making a wholistic concept analogy, advocating that WP be open to all communicable infermities--that it will have some developed resistance to them. This may be a meaningful analogy to vandalism, (ie soft security), but not to treating newbies with POV problems. People change-- I for one was under some misconceptions when I first logged in-- ( via Sensei's Library, > Meatball

WP ) that POV had to be dealt with with some gusto.

But anyway, I changed-- and some of this change comes from some straigtforward discussion with some rather clear thinkers-- Slrub, Danny, LDan, etc. RK has had no beneficial personal change on me, save building my resistance to BS. Consider that in your thesis.

However, I�m of no faith and this is a rude remark when directed toward anyone in general.

Abe, I understand this, and most will agree with you. But when I refered to your Faith, I knew nothing of your particular Faith, save that you are a human being, who no doubt at times needs to look outside of your finite concepts and confines for guidance. Thats all I meant by it. "Consult Faith, whatever it is." If you claim to have none, then I, as a fellow agnostic should like to remind another fellow agnostic that we're really not as "faithless" as we like to pretend.

That you understand the inherent contradictions of ethnicity and religion is something that many others dont-- and I'm glad you stated such. But again-- civility has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, save that religion has traditionally been the guardian of principle. Refer back to paragraph 1 for the continuation.

Like LDan said, even my "correct" POV is not in itself NPOV. This takes some getting used to for everyone-- which is why its extremely important that people have some clarity in their discourse-- that we can communicate NPOV to newbies right away-- that they can at least start to work it into their heads. Beyond that, everyone should already know what civility is, unless you're insane, deliberately partisan (pretending you dont know), or a feral child-- in which case, simply logging on might be a miracle in its own right.

First, don�t conflate this often-ambiguous collective identity with an ethnic one. It is not an ethnic or racial identity, and only a nationality within the context of Israeli citizenship. If one were forced to use an ethnic identity, you could note that most Jews (although there are converts) have Semitic lineage.

Of the three, religion, ethnicity, and nationalism-- you picked the most meaningless one to me. Somewhere in an very old law book is a little line about 'nations being merely "dust" before G-d.' I (semi) quote it because its old, and couldnt put it better, even though I cant remember it exactly.

Third, you state that I suggest that I �consult my faith� rather than �consult[ing]� the history of US-Middle East foreign policy� if [I am]looking for metaphorical solutions.�

I suggest that you appeal to higher principle, in other words.

and this �Jewish ethnicity� (which is utterly meaningless- use a dictionary and find out why this is a contradiction of terms),

I understand the inherent contradictions-- I disagree that its meaningless at all. Even in the sense that your ethnicity has a political reality has some meaning-- that you are not at all religious or think yourself 'faithless' is nothing I would take any joy from.

now Sv�s accusing me of opposing a ban on RK [because?] I share his views on

US-Middle > East foreign policy!

No, I dont think we share views-- you were just claiming that the Iran-Iraq war was a good example of US manipulations and statecraft. I hardly agree-- nor can anyone with any real appreciation for the value of a human life agree that politically engineering such a perversity is in any way desirable.

I admit, my normative views of the Israel-Palestinian matter are more agnostic,

By 'agnostic'--I take it you mean "political and nationalistic" Fine --As long as we understand each other. ;-)

and opting for the less provocative one of

understanding

and comparison.

Comparison is a meaningless word with human beings. Have you ever read the Desiderata -- dont compare yourself to another-- it either makes you bitter with envy, or vain with gloating? Of coure nobody reading that has any idea how it relates to the discussion of civil behaviour on WP. I grok you though, Abe.

I'm not going to speak as a partisan of either

side. Nor

would I be qualified; I�m not a Mid East

specialist.

Nor would it help anyone. Partisanship is the source of that whole mess-- it will never be its solution.

In short, I support RK�s role; I don�t stand by his often-sketchy work.

This is directly in contradiction to what *others have said-- that RK's work was stellar, and that his "role" was sketchy disrespectful. I understand that you see RK as kind of an e-coli bacterium--nasty, but necessary for digestion. Its silly as hell, but thats your essential argument. Now re-frame your case-- this time, for an single individual bacterium-- that some here might see exactly how silly it is.

And if you don�t want RK at your throat on the Middle East articles, just wait until your buried under the avalanche that you wanted to create.

I'll defer to what Anthere wrote on this one. You did understand her, eh?

The minute the balance, tone, evidence, and analysis

of

the articles sees a minor, ostensibly trivial shift, just wait for the irate new RKs to flood the site in droves, lambasting Wikipedia for a lack of neutrality.

Again, you claim that RK and "people like him" know or care what neutrality is, and that NPOV is gone without him. He did not, they do not, it is not. Partisans of all tribes will be treated as partisans-- their comments will be framed as partisan terms. That they may want their partisan terms called "NPOV" is their partisan business, and myself knowing that 'their "correct POV" is not NPOV'-- will have nothing of it.

They�ll start attacking you from every direction and

at

once, and making your job even harder. And you�ll then realize that it would�ve been far better to deal with the devil you knew, rather than the new ones you don�t.

Abe why not just go ahead and include the term "Nazipedia" in your headers? Your last email on 'Nazi sociology' and all that nonsense completely missed the point that RK's use of the term to apply to the 'whole Wikipedian community' was beyond ridiculous. I hope you realize that now. I can only imagine that it was 4 in the morning, and your pencil was'nt exactly at its sharpest, when you wrote it.

With all due respect to all those my senior, ~S~

"Love, peace and harmony, Oh very nice very nice very nice very nice very nice But maybe in the next world...." -English poem

"Your sons and your daughters Are beyond your command Your old road is rapidly aging...." -American poem

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com