"Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina(a)charter.net> writes:
> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
> disagreeing with. :)
It seems to me that many people just don't understand what the words mean.
"Anti-Zionism" is the position that Jews should be forbidden from being
allowed to have a safe and secure state of their own, but that other groups,
such as Arabs and Japanese, are allowed to have such a nation. Anti-Zionism
is most common among Nazis, Neo-Nazis, the Islamist movement, and various
anti-Semitic groups, as well as the official position of every armed Islamic
group that has publicly stated that it wishes to destory the state of Israel
by force, such as Hamas and Hizbollah. It is little wonder that nearly every
Jew in the world defines this position as anti-Semitic. I count on one hand
the number of anti-Zionists I have met who are not anti-Semitic.
And again, despite the odd persistence of this myth, isagreement with the
policy of a particular Israeli government has *nothing to do* with
Anti-Zionism in the slighest. Israelis themselves disagree with each other -
often and loudly. This is not an anti-Semitic, or even anti-Israeli
position, in of itself. Using one phrase (disagreement with Israeli policy)
as a more polite euphamism for the other (Anti-Zionism) has misses the boat
entirely. These issues aren't even related.
Consider America, for example. Just because someone might disagree with the
policy of the current American government on a number of issues does not
mean that they want to destroy America, and that they preach that America
has no right to exist! There is a vast difference between disagreement, and
incitement to destroy a nation.
There is also a linguistic reality that we need to be cognizant of:
Anti-Zionism has also become a catchword for antisemitism and has provided
antisemites with a convenient cloak behind which to conceal their hatred of
Jews. It is well worth remembering the words of Dr. Martin Luther King:
"... You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely
'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain
tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people
criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is G-d's own truth...Antisemitism,
the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of
mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionism
is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so." (From M.L. King Jr.,
"Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (Aug. 1967), p.
76. Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., This I Believe: Selections from the Writings
of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (New York, 1971), pp. 234-235.)
> Now, as to real anti-Semitism. It doesn't at all seem out of place to
> say, a paragraph discussing the prejudices of a historically important
> person. It shouldn't be the first paragraph, and should come after a more
> lengthy discussion of why the person was historically important.
I agree. But what if the reason for their historical imporance has to do
with their anti-Semitism? Richard Wagner, for example, is not only famous
for writing music. He is just as (in)famous for his life-long preaching of
anti-Semitism, and his desire to exterminate the Jewish faith. It is a major
part of his faith, and historians of all stripes admit this. Many books have
been written about this. For this man, this particular topic is a major
> The key points of a biographical entry, as I think of it, are to hit on a
> person's life history in brief, their personality and attitudes, and their
> contributions (positive or negative) to society and history at large.
I agree. And for Wagner, his anti-Semitism was an extremely important part
of his contribution to German culture. :(
> In sum: if the discussion of Wagner's anti-Semitism dwarfs the remainder
> the article, it should be reduced (and/or the rest of the article
> built up.) If it's discussed briefly, preferably with mention of the
> historical context, that seems reasonable. Here endeth long-winded
I hope that we all agree that we don't improve encyclopedias by deleting
information until all sections are of equal length. We improve them by
recruiting more writers to add more information on topics that require more
study and more detailed treatments.
On 12/12/02 5:36 PM, "Robert Kaiser" <rkaiser1(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> "Rosa Williams" <aprilrosanina(a)charter.net> writes:
>> In deference to SLR, who explained that for historical reasons many feel
>> term "anti-Zionism" is threatening, I've personally substituted "anti
>> Israeli government policy" or "anti Israeli imperialism" in my own
>> Yeah, it's longer, but it leads to far less confusion as to what exactly
>> disagreeing with. :)
<snip discussion of zionism, semitism, etc.>
Then Cunctator snorted:
> This does not belong on the list.
Well, technically it should go on wikiEN-l but it would have been less abrasive just to ignore it. People haven't really gotten used to the idea of discussing English Wikipedia on wikiEN-l and global issues on this list.
Mailing List Administrator
What I'd like to see is a moderated and unmoderated version of the same
list, or at least a publicly accessible archive of all posts to the list
moderated or unmoderated. That way those who want the "raw" stream
could get it, and anybody who cared could track exactly what the
moderators are doing.
I think this shouldn't be very hard if you can send all rejected posts
to another list. Anybody who want's to could sign up for that list too.
Even better would be for all posts to the unmoderated list to be
forwarded to a moderated list for approval. Then those who want the raw
list don't have to wait for the moderators to get involved.
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts
> receive a message saying that if they want to appeal, to
> forward the post to an alias, which goes to all the
> moderators plus me. Also good would be for all rejected
> posts to go separately to all the moderators plus me, thus
> inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right thing.
I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't exist. Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
> > > I can't get to wikipedia.org -- my browser is even claiming it doesn't
> > > exist. Any idea what's wrong and when it will be back up?
> > Not sure yet what was wrong, but the server was completely dead, not even
> > responding to ping. Jason gave it a hard reboot; we're back up now.
> It seems to have died again...
There was a log from 18:30 to 18:48 (US East Coast time). No idea what caused this.
For those who are considering moderation of one list or another, let us consider our moderation options:
1. Each post from ALL subscribers must be approved.
2. Only posts from "naughty" subscribers need approved.
3. No moderation (status quo)
I myself reject option #1, since it would take way too much time. It would overwork any finite group of moderators. It would prevent urgent messages from being passed on quickly. (If this were the only option, I would withdraw my support for Larry's idea of moderation altogether.)
Option #2 means that posts would be transmitted immediately, as they are now. The exception, however, would be that a moderator could mark any subscriber's posts as requiring "administrative approval" (this phrase comes from the mailing list software). It would only be the small number of subscribers whose posts would be filtered by the moderators. Each post held for approval would then either be passed on or rejected. If rejected, it would get the appropriate comments:
* reason for rejection
* notice of right-of-appeal
I would expect that anyone whose post was rejected, would then either:
(A) Clean up their language and participate like an adult, or
(B) Go sulk, like a naughty child (thus proving that they did indeed merit the "time out")
In either case, I predict that only someone who was deliberately working against the project would refuse to comply with the simple, easy-to-follow rules of civil discourse: exactly the kind of *ahem* troll no one wants on a mailing list anyway.
> As I originally expected, we're seeing more and more "no" answers to
> moderation. That's too bad.
> Good luck, everyone, trying to implement other solutions, or with the
> status quo: I think the list will continue to be mired in constantly
> flowing excrement. Those with a low toleration for it will continue to be
> driven off.
I beg to differ, esteemed colleague. The prospect of elevating the tone of our discourse remains ever bright. Your original proposal was made less than 24 hours ago, was it not? Do not despair.
Let us consider rather WHICH proposal to adopt or reject:
1. Moderate wikipedia-l
Opinion seems to be turning away from this option. Indeed, a couple of non-English speakers want wikipedia-l abolished (!).
2. Moderate wikiEN-l
Some posters whose reputations carry some weight (like you, Larry, you fat slob! ;- [oops, I wouldn't be able to say that on a Moderated List <mischievous grin>, even with emoticons]) have turned toward this option.
3. Just continue to use social pressure
This remains a viable fall-back position.
> Probably what should happen is that all rejected posts receive a
> message saying that if they want to appeal, to forward the post to an
> alias, which goes to all the moderators plus me. Also good would be
> for all rejected posts to go separately to all the moderators plus
> me, thus inducing some peer pressure for moderators to do the right
I have found the spot on the mail administration page, where this "rejected posts...appeal" message should go.
Once again, Jimbo reminds us of the value of peer pressure.
When I follow some link to 'thingumajib' in a text
mentioning it and I'm offered to write an article about
it because it doesn't exist yet, I am not first offered
a list of articles that match it and that might indeed
be the wanted article under another title.
Why wouldn't I? I could even be told something like:
"The page you come from pointed to an article that
doesn't exist yet in Wikipedia, at least under the
suggested title. You might consider writing it! Or if
you find out it does indeed exist in the following
list of close matches, please click here so that we
create an automatic redirection link."
When I search for 'thingumajib' and am told no
article matches that word, I am not naturally
offered to write down an article about it. Why
Hence I suggest to make searches and links to absent
articles just the same and join the nice features of
What do you think about it?
It might also help to solve an argument I'm developing
on wikipedia talk: Naming conventions (pluralization).