[WikiEN-l] Saladin1970 (new thread)
Philip Welch
wikipedia at philwelch.net
Tue May 23 12:05:24 UTC 2006
I've decided to post one last message to clarify my views on this
matter. If I'm asked additional questions about it, I'm gladly
willing to clarify beyond this, but I'm done arguing.
I support the indefinite block of Saladin1970. He has made no useful
edits, and has committed copyvios, violated NOR, violated the 3RR,
and has shown a significantly biased editing pattern. This much is,
as far as I can tell, undisputed by anyone except the blocked user
himself.
Saladin1970's biased editing patterns, particularly in the case of
the Harold Shipman article, are problematic. This disturbed me a
great deal. He denounces much of Wikipedia's content as "pro-
Zionist", as well as the admin Jayjg as a "pro-Zionist editor". This,
along with the Shipman obsession, provided significant evidence of
anti-Semitism.
For the purposes of this message, my religious and political views
are completely irrelevant; however, to show that I'm not acting out
of bias, I'm going to clarify a few things. I'm not Jewish, although
I have known my fair share of Jewish people and report that they are
excellent people. For that matter, I'm not Christian either, although
many of them are excellent people too. I am not a conservative, and I
do not support the Bush administration. I think the war on terror and
the war in Iraq are scams--although I'm not a big fan of terrorism
either. I don't have a settled opinion about Israel yet, but I don't
think it was fully moral for the Jews to claim Palestine as their own
and take the place over. I understand the argument that "Zionism is
racism" and give it some credence.
So why do I find this editor's obsession with Zionism evidence of
anti-Semitism? Sensible people don't go around accusing random people
(i.e. Jayjg) of being Zionists. Sensible people don't accuse
administrators in general of favoring a pro-Zionist bias unless they
see a Zionist conspiracy around every corner, which I have to say is
a pretty clear indicator of anti-Semitic conspiracy nutjobbery.
in contrast to my earlier opinions, I don't think that being an anti-
Semite in and of itself justifies a ban. Anti-Semitism is...well,
it's not "fine", but it's tolerable if you keep it to yourself. This
editor's mistake was not keeping it to himself. Even if he doesn't
cop to it now, his editing pattern is not only biased, it's nakedly
biased in favor of a highly offensive viewpoint, in a way that
communism or anarcho-capitalism or furry fandom are not highly
offensive. The distinction in this case is that while communism and
anarcho-capitalism may offend some people's sensibilities, they do so
merely out of disagreement. Anti-Semitism, and any other form of
racism, offends people by attacking an important aspect of their
identities. Whether or not you agree with me that editing towards a
heavily offensive and racist bias is worse than editing towards a
political or ideological bias, I think we can all agree that editing
towards any bias is unhelpful.
A couple more points of clarification. Regarding his use of the name
"Abu Hamza", I can't reliably argue that it's a deliberate reference
to [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], the British Islamic claric convicted for
racial hatred and incitement to murder. It's been argued that "Abu
Hamza" isn't an uncommon name among those Muslims who choose to use
an Arabic name, and it very well may be. I also have no evidence that
this editor in any way supports terrorism or any of the other
violence advocated by Islamists, so I apologize for earlier
suggesting that he did.
Speaking of that word, I think my usage of it was insufficiently
explained. If you look up "Islamism" on Wikipedia, you'll see that
"Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from
Islamic fundamentalism. Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not
only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal,
economic and social imperatives of the state according to its
interpretation of Islamic Law." My denouncing of Islamism was only
meant to apply to these ideologies, and not to the Islamic religion
as a whole. In fact, Wikipedia also reports that "Some Muslims find
it troublesome that a word derived from "Islam" is applied to
organizations they consider radical and extreme." I will agree with
this--"Islamist" is indeed an unfortunate term to apply to the
ideologies of Abu Hamza al-Masri, Osama bin Laden, and their
followers. But it is perhaps necessary for the lack of any better
term, as "Islamofascist" and such are ridiculous terms invented by
right wing nutjobs with little understanding of Islam or fascism.
In either case, I'm fully able to distinguish between the ideology of
Hamas and the Islamic religion. The ideology of Hamas is something I
object to rather strongly--the Islamic religion, in contrast, is no
better or worse than Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or any other
sensible religion. For those of us who understand analogies well, let
me put it this way: Islamism is to Islam what Christian Identity (the
ideology of the Aryan Nations and other white supremacist groups) is
to Christianity. Stated more plainly: Islamism is an attempt to twist
an otherwise sensible religious faith into a justification for murder
and mayhem. Islam is a sensible religious faith practiced by
countless sensible individuals, some of whom I have been fortunate to
have known. If there are any Muslims reading this exchange, allow me
to apologize to them for any misunderstandings I have created.
That is all. Thank you for your attention.
--
Philip L. Welch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list