<Talk:Stevertigo
- I appreciate your vote of solidarity, and that others are willing - but numbers alone wont do it. An incredible amount of work is involved in purging bias of all kinds, but this is particularly true of Jewish bias against Arabs...
- Sharpness of criticism, and ultimately a change of minds is required.
- Keep in mind that this bias really has nothing to do with Jews, in particular - it's very present in the western media, and stems from the fact that to criticize Israeli policy (and therefore American-Jewish defense of Israeli policy) would eventually lead to an examination of the entire political power-system that US thrives on.. and the human rights abuses that happen along the way. Among other things.
- Finally I dont want 'Neutrality' to somehow be turned into a euphemism for an anti-Jewish bias. Just because there is percieved problem of people bending articles in one direction doesnt mean that this should go in others... It is fear- and fear alone that makes the first bias become an issue.
- Fear need not be feared.
- -Stevert
Thanx for cleaning up my white space. I hope the Fire department doesn't put a hose on you for it. The whole thing is much easier to read and might actually serve the purpose, all those cuts and pastes were meant to help. It is actually a listing of all the abuse of procedure that I saw in IPF. Also do go see Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Christianity I wrote the First 2 paragraphs. I think it will stand up to the kooks and premptively challange the most noxious POV commonly found in the wikipedian ecosystems. (But I've been so wrong about the quality of reasoning here -- that I have down graded my judgement to laughing stock status in my own eyes. :-{ ...any truth is better than make-believe!).
My response to some of your comments on my talk page:
SV -- I sense a natural tendency of you and Dan, generally, to take his side on this issue. Yes, you chastise him for cockadooing and chuckling all the time, but its like the child who keeps acting up, while his mother simply says "Now, thats a nono." The rod is spared, and the child never learns.
- SR -- First, I do not think I have a natural tendency to side with RK – I disagree with him often, and tell him so. I think Danny disagrees with him even more, and more vociferously. I recently chastized RK for criticizing you for content in an article you did not actually write; he should have done a little mor research before expressing his opinion. I think you need to in this instance as well. If you had read all the various exchanges between me and RK, and between Danny and RK, I do not think you would have written this. Second, I try not to treat any adult like a child. Third, of course I spare the rod – it is not my place to punish or discipline anyone in this project. What would your metaphorical rod be, in this case, anyway? The only real punishment available is banning, and I am neither a sysop with the power to ban, nor have I ever called for someone to be banned. slR
- SV -- Well, understood. Rk has been in the habit lately of completely reverting anything I do, and then beating the pot of anti-semitism, or radicalist Chomskyite theories, or whatever. The fact that he's still around and Lir is not suggests a bias to me. Not that Im too familiar with his case or hers, but on first impression, RK qualifies as being unreasonable enought to stick in the corner for a week or two, while he thinks about what he's doing...
- SR -- All I can say is, take it up with a sysop. I never called for Lir to be banned either; banning is not a decision made by one person or even a few people; if Lir was banned and RK not, it is certainly not because I or Danny made onke kind of choice or another. You'll have to ask the people who make these choices.
SV -- I understand preferentiality. In fact you were keen to point out to me, on the IPF article, that I may be swayed by my own biases as someone who's ancestors hadd to come over here on a boat, ( and become destitute, depressed, drunkard, abusive, and miserable bastards... - How much easier it would be for Israelis, if Palestinian Muslims sank into alcoholism... )
- SR -- hmmmm. I think you may have missed my point on IPF. Yes, you were expressing your own point of view. But my larger point was that there is no one point of view on the famine; that professional historians, politicians, and people in the Irish diaspora may have different views, and a good encyclopedia will present all of them as well as make clear the contexts in which each view developed.
- SV -- Understood. Unfortunately, its clear that the balance of this selection of opinion is not fair nor accurate in representing Muslim issues. Perhaps, since people are so keen to delete "hurtful" semitism, we can delete "hurtful" Islamism? Do not please claim that I cannot represent an Arab pov; you avoid my point entirely, if you think this.-SV
SV -- I am not alone at all in saying that there exists a bias, - a pro-Jew bias, and that this is excused to a large degree by other Jews for natural reasons. This is Judeocentrism.
- SR -- A bias where? In me personally? In Wikipedia? In America? In the World? In one very limited and technical sense I think RK does have a “jewish” bias in that he contributes to articles concerning or of interest to Jews. Bear in mind too that I do not always agree with him – but I believe that most of the time he has deleted content, it is because he believed it was anti-semitic; moreover, I do not believe he has ever inserted content that was racist against another group, and he certainly has never inserted content that claimed that Jews or Judaism are better than other groups or cultures or religions – never. In that sense, he is most definitely not Judeocentric.
- This is nonsense, and perhaps, (at a glance) - disingenous. Im not attributing this bias to him alone, either- keep this in mind. And like water, this... tendency im feeling is ; next to impossible to explain to a fish. - SV
SV -- As for tokers claim that there be no such articles that single out specific groups? - B*!!$#!^! - look at Arab Anti-Semitism!
- SR -- Toker did not write this. This is the second time in this one comment of yours that you misconstrue what others have done. All you need to do is slow down, read what others have written more carefully, and you will make fewer of these mistakes that might piss other people of, and also damage your credibility.
- SV -- Fine, ill stipultate, but he did address, as I recall what wikipedia should do... Maybe I misread it. Haste comes, in part as a factor of feeling "outnumbered", in this context. And reasonable people may disagree, (even on a biased basis), but once again unreasonable people dont belong... We wouldnt allow aryan racists to come in here and add bias to the Judaism pages? Why do we allow RK to do it to the Islam pages? Haste, once again exasperates me, and I must appeal to you SlR, as someone far more reasonable than some, to understand this basic point. Context in the entire world is irrelevant. Dont counter bias in the real world by instituting it here.
- SR -- as far as I know, RK has made statements about Muslims that he believes are based on facts and presented in an NPOV way. If you (or anyone else) thinks he is wrong, it is something to discuss in a clear and reasonable way on the talk pages. But let me give you two pieces of advice, if you do not mind. First, when responding to RK on these matters, do not presume to speak for Muslims. I say this only because in some of your comments to me you have made points about Muslims preceded by an "of course." I admire your desire to be sympathetic and respectful to others. I strive to do it myself. But I'd never say "of course" as if I (a non-Muslim) had some authority to represent the interests or views of Muslims. This does not mean that as a non-Muslim (if I infer correctly about you) you have no right to work on pages addressing Muslims. You and RK both have a right -- as long as you are committed to NPOV and accuracy. This leads me to my second point: please please do not act as if RK's right to contribute to pages addressing Jews or Judaism is based on his being Jewish. It is not. It is based on his having done research. I do not believe that he, Danny, or I reacted negatively to what you wrote on the "semitism" page because you were non-Jewish; we reacted because we saw claims that not only seemed to reveal a lack of research, we saw claims that contradicted what we had researched. As RK himself wrote somewhere, he has drawn on scholarship written by non-Jews about Jews and Judaism. Solid scholarship is solid scholarship, regardless of the race/ethnic group/religion of the scholar.
- SV-Understood. And I unequivocably disagree with the validity of said person's sources, and the caliber of his scholarship or of his NPOV. The best bookworms often make the assumption of knowing something they do not, and frankly theres alot of crap out there, especially when it deals with exploring issues in other cultures. - how well-informed are Non-Jewish Americans about life in Israel? Much of the Hebrew translated to English is highly suspect. Said person is a specialist, in a certain kind of Judeocentrist dogma and propaganda against Arabs. He regularly quotes extremist Arab propaganda as translated by Jewish dogmatists, and propagandists. This is the extent of his "research" - hardly of any scholarly depth. This is very, very, very, backwards scholarship you allude to. I stipulate nothing - as to the quality of said persons' research... understanding of course that you find his sources more familiar, and may tend to agree. I will deal with this subject carefully, and make a case for his suspension. 'Blood and milk...
SV -- "This unholy alliance, for Jews, is a deal with the golem, as well: "Christian" advocates only go so far as to quote scripture, and say that Jews be restored to Israel."
- SR -- Personally, I agree with you about the dangerous alliance between Christian fundamentalists and right-wing Zionists (and many Zionists and Jews also question this alliance, vocally) – but clearly, you do not know what the golem was. In any case, I do not see the relevance of this to a good article on “judeocentrism” or “semitism.”
- SV -- Ok: But you do see my point about idolatry - and when in the contexts of world faiths that espouse a deference to God, unubstructed by idols, its particularly disturbing to find acts and philosophies that deviate from the just and valid commandment agaist idolatry. Joseph Campbell (I think) pointed out that Jesus came around at a time when everybody thought the world was going to end... "Its in scripture"... "its been prophesied'... This sorta head in the sand thinking seems to be prevalent now among Christians, and thats were I was going with this - in biblespeak terms of course.
- SR -- Nothing disturbs me. You seem to assume that there is a "real" or "authentic" form of religion which is good, and that forms that deviate from it are bad. To me, this is another form of fundamentalism. I am not interested in judging others (at least, not in this forum). My opinions about Orthodox Jews or Evangelical Protestants are irrelevant. An encyclopedia article should not judge, it should try to understand. I do take it as axiomatic that what Jews and Christians believe today is very different from what they believed 2000 (or, for Jews, maybe longer) years ago. So what? This doesn't mean that they have somehow got something wrong. It simply opens up space for historical and sociological analysis.
- Yeah, I tend to agree, although, the politicization, and the excess pride (coming from attributes only attributable to God) is and has been, no doubt a source of conflict. And I assume nothing. Except what can be assumed. If that makes any human sense at all.-sv
SV -- "Once again, trading of something holy; faith, for an attached value to a symbol. This is what I refer to when I called Judaism an unadvanced religion - as all religions are, when they do not stipulate the value of faith over the symbols."
- SR -- This is an offensive remark, certainly against Jews and your qualification that other religions can be equally “unadvanced” does not save you. We are working towards an NPOV encyclopedia and this kind of statement will only insult some, and will do nothing, nothing at all, to help us write better articles.
- SV -- Well, you could have just not mentioned it. Poorly worded, I'll admit. I will say all religions - being developed forms ancient shamanism, (developed from art rituals) are, by definition, "primitive". This does not mean religions are irrelevant to human life; nor is the power of spirituality something the secular world can replace.
- SR -- some people like Eliade do in fact claim that modern religions developed out of shamanism -- and you can report this claim in an NPOV way. But many historians of religion disagree with Eliade, and there is no compelling proof for this argument and frankly, I doubt we will ever have enough evidence to know how these religions first developed. Any attempt is speculative and probably does a serious disservice both to religion and to whomever we think developed religion however long (5,000? 40,000) years ago. In any case, even if you were right (and to be clear, I do not think you are), if chamanism is "ancient" then in these terms shamanism is "primitive" in the sense of "first;" anything that developed out of shamanism is by definition not primitive. Anyway, you used the term "unadvanced" and I understood you to mean that "advanced" is somehow better than "undadvanced." Was I wrong? Because if I was right, I still strongly object. You are claiming that religions that stipulate the value of faith over the symbols are better than religions that stipulate the value of symbols over faith. Such a claim is clearly not NPOV and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia and cannot be the basis of any good encyclopedia article. Furthermore, I think you are oversimplifying all religions by dichotomizing faith and symbol, and I think you are being unfair to many many people who practice a religion that you would see as privileging symbols over faith.
- Sv--Your mincing words, SlR. Primitive? Advanced? You read a value judgement in there where I meant none. I'm stating the case that human cultures, over time, tend to improve (hopefully) - more words to describe things, more things to do other things with. "More" meaning "broader." ...Granted noone likes to see their faith, or aspects of it treated in a non-lauditory way by the non-faithful! And secularists are everyones enemy - because 'they dont take a side' at all - or so its said. The general point, is that as people see the world through their own particlar-colored glasses, they each are supposed to represent their point of view. How is this to be resolved here? The adversarial system?; a team-sport mentality toward addressing how pages are edited? You and I may be in agreement that simply polarizing issues is not something that is feasible in a modern ethnoconvergent context. We may disagree as to whether the preservation of cultures takes precedent over issues of justice, and the just reporting of issues.
- SR -- I am sorry, SV, but I simply donot agree with you that I am mincing words. You clarify your position to mean that "human cultures, over time, tend to improve" and the implication is that some cultures are better than others -- the word "improve" is a judgemental word and I disagree with your statement. But you do raise a legitimate question about how to achieve NPOV. All I can say is, our talk pages aren't really the place for this discussion; a LOT has been written about the NPOV policy and how to achieve it -- surve around and also check out the meta pages and you will find much to think about and others with whom you can discuss this. Slrubenstein
- Well youre right, as usual. Improve, however is not, once again, judgemental - its discerning. You seem to make the assumption that development of cultures cannot be in anyway quantified - though my saying that is perhaps a lot like Tannin's claim on 'race and intelligence' that 'people are smarter than yeast, because of genetics..' its axiomatic. back to the context... NPOV requires that if you let your dogs run wild, you ought not be so keen to point where my dogs do their business.-SV
SV -- "We know by our experienced knowlege of human nature that man is a hypocrite."
- SR -- Maybe you do. As for me – well, I know from my “experienced knowledge” not to make sweeping generalizations nor to put people down hastily. – Slrubenstein
- SV -- Im glad you wrote back. -Stevert
- SR -- Well, thank you. I am glad you responded to my comments thoughtfully and honestly, and hope you don't mind my responding further, Slrubenstein
- SV -- As a final question, on the subject, but off-note: "Jew", it strikes me, just as "anastazi" or "cherokee" or countless other ethnic names of self-description, is best defined as simply "human" or "the people". This notion of 'us being people' and 'them being not people' , was easy to carry off in ancient, sparsely populated times. In the modern context, where we understand that 'race' is invalid, ethnocentrism is self-centered, and cultures that were once unto-themselves must reconcile themselves with others; what does this do for the Judeo-Christian notion of the "Jew" as being "the people" - "La raza", when its carries a separatist, non-universalist meaning? In general, of course. -Respectfully, Stevert
- SR -- Sorry, but wrong: it is true that in many languages the name of a people is simply their word for "people," but this is not the case with Jew. Since "Jew" is not the same word as "people," when a Jew says "I am a Jew but you are not" s/he is in no way suggesting or implying that the other person is not, or less, human. Slrubenstein
- Well, I appreciate the answer. Although, its no doubt, the extremely rare exception to the rule. It would have nice to explain it that way. Its an interesting question. But theres too much Judeocentrism on my part here, theres other stuff to do. Be well.-Stevert