[WikiEN-l] POV nomenclature

[stevertigo]

--- Dabljuh <dabljuh at gmx.net> wrote:
> First of all, thanks for actually reading my stuffs.

Sure. Ive learned over the years that community consensus can be misplaced at times.

> Regarding my ban: I don't want to go too deeply into the details but in my
> understanding,
> I was removed from Wikipedia by POV warriors in administrative positions for not
> backing down when confronted with their POV. I have written a short essay to this
> list
> "Wikipedia's Administrative System: Corrupted to the core" in reaction to that.
> You furthermore speak of "you people" as if I was of arab descendence or had lebanese
> affiliation. I am not.

I think the point is that they percieve you as generating [[m:more heat than light]]
with your comments. Accusing others of also making heat doesnt *do anything, and
writing up critiques entitled "corrupted to the core", even if its somehow true, doesnt
really make you look like anything but a troll. All I meant to say was that though your
English is good, and people here make all sorts of assumptions based on English
speaking capacity. Its a prejudice, but when you make bigoted or personal comments its
easy to disregard you.
 
> Our personal views are never besides the point, they are THE point. We are all
> influenced
> by our personal and badly informed opinions. We write what we believe is true into
> these articles of Wikipedia. But the process of coming to believe what is true and
> what
> is not is a long and complex one. And not everyone succeeds: People believe in
> magic, believe in ghosts, believe in deities, some believe in THE TIME CUBE, 
> all of which has no basis in science, in my understanding.

No, this is where you are way off base. Its one thing to say that the reality is that
people are biased. So what else is new? Show some civility and do some actual work
instead of trying to be some petty revolutionary. I understand sometimes its
frustrating, and people's comments can get out of line. Thats why there is WP:DR. But
keep your own language clean first.

> Similiarly, one believes for example that the israeli attack on Lebanon is a
> righteous
> and just reaction to something Lebanon did. This as well is, in my personal
> understanding,
> a misjudgement, and is not covered by western humanist secular philosophy. In that 
> particular occasion, it is not even supported by the Torah: "Eye for an Eye" exactly
> means that you should not bomb 60 Lebanese civilians to smitherines because some of
> them
> kidnapped 2 and killed 6 more.

See, when you say "not covered by western humanist secular philosophy" it becomes
apparent that you are either trolling, or otherwise just dont know what you are talking
about. POV on any particular issue has nothing to do with "western humanist
secular[ism]" -it has to do with POV.

> So, by pretty much all objective, neutral ethical standards, the Israeli attack on 
> Lebanon is a disproportionate injustice that will only work against Israel in the
> long run 

I agree with that, but thats just my view.

> by rallying support for more antisemitic sentiments in the region and the entire
> world.

No. Dislike of violence is not antisemitic. Enlightened people dislike violence
regardless of who perpetrates it or what reasons are given for it.
 
> Of course you can now point out, that this is "but one POV". But unlike certain other
> POVs like "Israel has the right to do whatever it feels" or "Arabs are the innocent
> victims of Zionist supression", I believe, my POV warrants some merit by being
> objective without favoring one side over the other. You could call it, "neutral".
> Consider a judge who sentences someone for murder after his guilt has been proven
> beyond the shadow of a doubt. Is that judge partial to anyone because he condemns
> the murderer?

Yeah, but even if you were some fancy opinion writer from some magazine or somehting
your opinion really isnt the issue. Sorry - we all have opinions, and we all like to
think they are correct and neutral. Understanding this is the basis for civility.
Failing to understand this is called "inflated ego" or something like that.
 
> The enlightened path for competing nationalism, is to reject all nationalism
> altogether.
> Behind the dehumanizing descriptions such as "Hezbollah Terrorists" or "Zionist
> Nazis"
> there are always people, that are suffering because of the stupidity of others.

Sure. 
 
> But instead going ahead and justifying the israeli attacks on lebanon with small
> time criminals and terrorists, now that is horribly POV. I wanted to point that
> out, and make clear to Jay"Superturbozionistdeluxe"Jg that other people probably are
> more objective and neutral when it comes to judging what the title of the article
> should be, and that he should keep out because all he does is make Wikipedia more
> POV.

I agree. I also occasionally see some rationalization and whitewashing. Mostly what I
see is a lack of the other side. My edits to the Qassam missile article simply quote
someone who puts those in perspective with a similar kind of violence - which is far
out of proportion. Providing counterbalance may occasionally get you called an
"anti-semite," but thats OK - the important thing is Civility - its our formulation of
the Golden Rule. Making personal attacks is not acceptible, regardless of how
outnumbered you feel. Be like Ghandi; now he was a fine Hindu; he even got the British
to leave. 

SV



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com