Walter,
This chap sounds like quite the fool. If he's actually putting this in articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common vandalism. Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite clearly POV.
That said, if he's just hitting up talk pages and his own user page with this sort of nonsense, I'd let it slide. Yes, it stinks, and yes, I disagree with it, but it's better to let him make a fool of himself than start censoring. It's a slippery slope from "no racist comments" to "don't question Jimbo Wales IX, Supreme Overlord and God-Emperor of Wikipedia!".
This also works in reverse, so all of the nonsense on the talk page of [[en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons]] about getting rid of images that are potentially offensive to Muslims is rubbish. There is no room on Wikipedia for self-censorship to pander to any minority group, be they Muslims or racists.
Regards, - Craig Franklin [[en:Lankiveil]]
------------------- Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
----- Original Message ----- >
Message: 10 Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:59:23 +0700 From: Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Insulting the islam is allowed on nl: wikipedia To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@wikimedia.org Message-ID: 43DF895B.90409@vankalken.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
On nl: wikipedia we have a user (Torero) who under him quoting the rights of freedom of speech is insulting the islam and everyone who doesn't think like him on a regular basis.
Today he wrote:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overleg:DemoCrates.net&diff=30... 1&oldid=3011315
Allah Akbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler.
This is not the first time he did this. He has insulted the islam and muslims on multiple occasions. Also he constantly accuses people of being leftwing etc.
Unfortunately this is "tolerated" on nl: by the mods and anyone else who do not dare to pose an opposition against these kind of users. And everytime he apologises some time later. But what does an apology count for if he keeps on repeating himself time and time again. And again a user who happens to be muslim is going on wikibreak because of this.
Freedom of speech ?????
Waerth/Walter
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 30, Issue 40
Craig Franklin wrote:
Walter,
This chap sounds like quite the fool. If he's actually putting this in articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common vandalism. Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite clearly POV.
Well, they are both the war cries of fanatical extremists, so it's not a minority POV, and is therefore mentionable as part of NPOV.
That said, if he's just hitting up talk pages and his own user page with this sort of nonsense, I'd let it slide. Yes, it stinks, and yes, I disagree with it, but it's better to let him make a fool of himself than start censoring. It's a slippery slope from "no racist comments" to "don't question Jimbo Wales IX, Supreme Overlord and God-Emperor of Wikipedia!".
Oh how I wish we did the latter more often... maybe a little more sanity would prevail?
This also works in reverse, so all of the nonsense on the talk page of [[en:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons]] about getting rid of images that are potentially offensive to Muslims is rubbish. There is no room on Wikipedia for self-censorship to pander to any minority group, be they Muslims or racists.
Actually when I first saw the cartoons I thought we would have a repeat of the autofellatio debate where the end result was that regardless of decency, offense or censorship, the images were copyvio :)
Alphax (Wikipedia email) napisa³u:
Actually when I first saw the cartoons I thought we would have a repeat of the autofellatio debate where the end result was that regardless of decency, offense or censorship, the images were copyvio :)
Wasn't the original autofellatio one also a copyvio?
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
Waerth/Walter
* Walter van Kalken:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
It's also the constant pressure of people wanting to ban users for their opinions that has made at least one user leave, so please do not see it al so black-white.
When I read the discussions about WP-NL on this list, I see a lot of biased information, or stories that give only a part of the truth. (Not that I would be able to do it better, though.) Therefore I ask outsiders who want to have an opinion, to make a small study of the history over there, instead of shouting things based on messages on this list.
It's a complicated world out there...
Sander Spek
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
This is unfortunate, but in combatting a problem we have to make sure we don't introduce a worse one.
Consider a vaguely similar situation on en: at least one American user I know of has left (at least temporarily) after some non-Americans made particularly vociferous anti-American comments, along the lines of "Americans are bigoted idiots who voted in a fascist president and don't know anything about world affairs" (paraphrase). Should we ban people for making such comments? I think they should be discouraged, and people should be banned if they're being disruptive (e.g. going around specifically to make offensive comments), but being too ban-happy is problematic also.
-Mark
May I ask... are anti-American or anti-Christian statements going without notice/care/concern? Some articles on the German wiki could be biased, then...
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:01 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Insulting the islam is allowed on nl: wikipedia
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
This is unfortunate, but in combatting a problem we have to make sure we don't introduce a worse one.
Consider a vaguely similar situation on en: at least one American user I know of has left (at least temporarily) after some non-Americans made particularly vociferous anti-American comments, along the lines of "Americans are bigoted idiots who voted in a fascist president and don't know anything about world affairs" (paraphrase). Should we ban people for making such comments? I think they should be discouraged, and people should be banned if they're being disruptive (e.g. going around specifically to make offensive comments), but being too ban-happy is problematic also.
-Mark
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
We had this question (comics with Muhamed) on Serbian Wikipedia. Up to present, all people who wanted to talk about it concluded that we should not care about anything which can be treated as offensive inside of religious groups (nor Islam, nor Christianity, nor...).
On 2/2/06, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
May I ask... are anti-American or anti-Christian statements going without notice/care/concern? Some articles on the German wiki could be biased, then...
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:01 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Insulting the islam is allowed on nl: wikipedia
Walter van Kalken wrote:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
This is unfortunate, but in combatting a problem we have to make sure we don't introduce a worse one.
Consider a vaguely similar situation on en: at least one American user I know of has left (at least temporarily) after some non-Americans made particularly vociferous anti-American comments, along the lines of "Americans are bigoted idiots who voted in a fascist president and don't know anything about world affairs" (paraphrase). Should we ban people for making such comments? I think they should be discouraged, and people should be banned if they're being disruptive (e.g. going around specifically to make offensive comments), but being too ban-happy is problematic also.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 2/2/06, Milos Rancic millosh@mutualaid.org wrote:
We had this question (comics with Muhamed) on Serbian Wikipedia. Up to present, all people who wanted to talk about it concluded that we should not care about anything which can be treated as offensive inside of religious groups (nor Islam, nor Christianity, nor...).
Of course, in the sense of comics :)
So, if 10 good users decided to leave en.wp because of some user (say... Bonaparte), does it mean he should be automatically blocked?
Although they may have left due to his actions, it's not directly his control. It's not as if he pushed a button that said "Make users X, X, X, and X leave out of frustration and anger".
Mark
On 01/02/06, Walter van Kalken walter@vankalken.net wrote:
Ermmm probably you didn't read about already one good user ..... who is a muslim ..... has left nl: over these remarks ..... and you say let this user stay on ?? Is there something wrong there? We will loose more users than this one who insults all who bring us. Are you on nl: wikipedia by any chance :|
Waerth/Walter _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- "Take away their language, destroy their souls." -- Joseph Stalin
Craig Franklin wrote:
Walter,
This chap sounds like quite the fool. If he's actually putting this in articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common vandalism. Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite clearly POV.
Hoi, It depends on how you want to read it. When you read it as "Allah Akhbar" and "Heil Hitler" are used in a similar way, as a greeting that also expresses something that is believed in, it should be possible to make this remark. It is however to be seen in the light of the context of what is to be achieved. When this remark is made in order to denigrate Muslims or Islam or push anti Islam sentiments it is wrong and it deserves action including a ban.
The problem in the Dutch Wikipedia is an increasing amount of POV pushing, this POV is obviously seen as necessary by the pusher. However "what is good for the goose is good for the gander", both sides of the spectrum are increasingly intolerant, vocal and drastic in their actions. When Wikipedia is to be a civil place, it is necessary to act against this pushiness never mind what side of an argument is being pushed. It is necessary to be even handed never mind who transgresses.
Thanks, GerardM
2006/2/1, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net:
This chap sounds like quite the fool. If he's actually putting this in articles (I do not read Dutch well, so I don't know exactly what was written), then it is POV rubbish and should be reverted like any common vandalism. Saying "Allah Akhbar is almost the same as Heil Hitler" is quite clearly POV.
No, it has been put on a talkpage.
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org