[WikiEN-l] Re: WHEELER's anti-Semitism

[Anthere]

steven l. rubenstein wrote:
> I am concerned with WHEELER's anti-semitism.  He has made some offensive 
> remarks in the past, but ones I could dismiss as poor communication in 
> the course of heated debate.  Now he really has posted an ad hominem 
> non-sequitor on the following page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft#personal_pedigree
> In the context of a discussion with AndyL over the relationship between 
> the Austrian and Hungarian National Socialist movements, WHEELER posted 
> the following:
> 
>     And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because
>     your relatives suffered under the Holocaust. [As far as I can tell,
>     this is not true; Andy L always bases his arguments on historical
>     documentation -- SLR] The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the
>     island of Crete.  My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground
>     fighter.  It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the
>     Nazis.  It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the
>     camps as well.  And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the
>     Orthodox Church in Russia.  Many a Christian died in Jewish
>     concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single
>     Jew.  So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my
>     face.[[User:WHEELER|WHEELER]] 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
> 
> Not only does this have nothing to do with the article, it is simple, 
> base anti-semitism -- a simple association of bolshevism with Judaism 
> that the Nazis themselves mastered and promoted.  I think WHEELER should 
> be banned for it, personally.  At the very least it calls for a profound 
> and sincere apology.
> 
> Steve
> 
> Steven L. Rubenstein
> Associate Professor
> Department of Sociology and Anthropology
> Bentley Annex
> Ohio University
> Athens, Ohio 45701

Evening Steve :-)

Upon reading the entire wiki talk page, I can see that basically none of 
it is showing much wikilove between editors. Even before the paragraph 
that made you react, it seems most of the exchange is pretty dry. I can 
see a sort of growing tension between the various parties, and I can't 
say I am surprised of the outcome of it. This is really unfortunate. I 
think it would be beneficial in such heated or potentially dangerous 
discussion, to refactor as things go.
It many controversial topics as this one, it is frequent for all 
parties, to say things that they may regret later, or things they wont 
regret, but realise afterwards are not facilitating discussion. It is 
often a good move, a constructive move, to change one's comments 
afterwards, when one realise they may offend. I noticed RK was also 
frequently doing this, and I think it is a good idea he does so. I think 
that if both parties had toned a little bit, this might not have happened.

I have trouble realising the level of offense you feel Steve. Offense is 
something very personal. But obviously, you feel very upset, so that is 
important.
Sam Spade made a wise comment on the talk page. He wrote "I think this 
particular thread should be dropped. Sam 16:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)".
The paragraph in question was obviously meant to hurt.
One option is to refuse to be hurt. You may observe a very deep silence 
in front of it. Or you may remove it. Or you may remove it and copy it 
on Wheeler talk page. To express your disapproval. If it was hate speech 
intended to mislead people, it can't mislead people since it is no more 
there.

About deep and sincere apology request. I suppose I could go on forever 
on this one. The best is that I suggest that you read : 
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology
I think mixing calling for ban or requesting apology at the same time is 
tricky. It sounds a bit like a threat, and if the user gives the apology 
as an attempt to escape the possible ban, then it is not very likely it 
will be sincere.

I am unhappy about that, but it is a fact unfortunately that on 
Wikipedia, some very uncivil comments are made to other users. When it 
happens, and if you make a comment stating your deep disapproval, two 
main things may happen :
* the uncivil comment was meant to hurt you and to win a battle, and the 
offender does not care about you or preserving your relationship. Chance 
is that no apology and no removal/refactoring for the comment will be 
done, whatever the request. Either the hurt person drops the topic, or 
it goes to some punishment for the offender
* the uncivil comment was given in the heat of the discussion, and the 
offended feelings or the community reaction is important to the 
offender, and apology or repair of some sort will be offered.

In the first case, mediation is useless. If you care very much about the 
topic, try arbitration.
In the second case, arbitration would be disastrous, as you will ruin 
chances for peaceful settlement.

Does that answer your question ?