From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Problematic behavior and ad hominem attacks Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:45:29 -0600
I believe complete coverage of such events may require setting forth several points of view at some length. It would be nice if there were no Zionists who have such views, but such is not the case nor is it the case that extermination is not the view of some Palestinians.
Fred
From: Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Problematic behavior and ad hominem attacks
What is the proper way of dealing with this type of behavior?
:::Your statements are accurate and clear but it won't matter. Even if there was a massacre, the Zionist [[hasbara]] campaigners will spin the description of events until it bears no resemblance to reality. See what they did to [[Muhammad al-Durrah]]. To these extremists, Arab civilians killed by the Israeli military do not constitute evidence of a massacre. Like the Nazis who said "the Jew is a parasite, the only good Jew is a dead Jew", the extremist Zionists believe, "'Palestinians' are terrorists, they hide in refugee camps, Israel is just defending herself." All crimes are absolved. Destroy the enemy. Blame the victim. Repeat until death. It's the nature of the conflict. --[[User:Alberuni|Alberuni]] 01:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
taken from Talk:Operation Defensive Shield
Harry's quesion is not about how to cover the issue, but rather about how to deal with persisent ad hominem comments. " Zionist [[hasbara]] campaigners" is a label User:Alberuni has placed on those who disagree with him, and the strawman arguments attributed to those editors are actually invented by User:Alberuni.
So, he's calling editors who disagree with him "Zionist [[hasbara]] campaigners". I looked at our [[hasbara]] article and it seems to not amount to much more than saying that an editor is trying to present Israeli actions from an Israeli viewpoint. I think in many cases that might be a fair characterization. The question is, how, with almost no Palestinian editors, except for a few radicallized stand-ins, could any other viewpoint be expressed without a special effort by advocates for Israel to ensure the Palestinian perspective is expressed fairly. Expecting mythical people who are "un-involved" to somehow fix things is going to be a long wait. Folks who are un-involved will find something to edit that they are involved in, not that hornet's nest.
Fred
From: "JAY JG" jayjg@hotmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 12:27:14 -0400 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Problematic behavior and ad hominem attacks
Harry's quesion is not about how to cover the issue, but rather about how to deal with persisent ad hominem comments. " Zionist [[hasbara]] campaigners" is a label User:Alberuni has placed on those who disagree with him, and the strawman arguments attributed to those editors are actually invented by User:Alberuni.
With all respect, this is a bit of a strange comment. At the moment, there's a handful of pro-Israeli editors, a couple of whom are bad apples, but there's also been an influx of pro-Palestinian edit warriors who are just as bad, if not worse, than any of the Israelis.
Our ongoing Israeli-Palestinian article mess is a complex one, but it's simply not true to state that the Palestinian case is marginalised here. There's plenty of good editors, such as node_ue, who are strongly pro-Palestinian, and there's also more recently numerous bad apples to back them up. Furthermore, I think there's a fair case that it's the pro-Israeli one that's getting marginalised, because at present, it seems like Jayjg is holding out alone (perhaps with the support of L6W, until his ban goes through, anyway).
-- ambi
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:20:08 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The question is, how, with almost no Palestinian editors, except for a few radicallized stand-ins, could any other viewpoint be expressed without a special effort by advocates for Israel to ensure the Palestinian perspective is expressed fairly.