Personal essay removed - Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Conservatism isn't about preventing people from having their own beliefs. You're not even advocating the conservatists, you're making them look arrogant and authoritarian. You, in your super-conservatist ranting, are setting yourself up as a fascist, insisting that you are correct and that there is no other possible way of looking at the subject. You say 'liberal' as if it were an insult. People like you, people who confuse conservatism with Nazi-like forced obedience and absolutism, do not deserve a place in society.
You are exactly what you seem to think you're rallying against: An authoritarian fascist who believes that anyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a piece of scum. You're nothing but a fanatic, an ignorant fool spreading anti-leftist propaganda. You, sir, are no better than the Nazis. -- CHEESEFACE3
Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view again. "Distilled essence of evil" does not fit the bill, let alone the rest of it. If you continue this behavior you will be banned from this system. - Hephaestos 10:57, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It sounds like a lot of liberal leftist pseudointellectuals dominate this site, ensuring that the articles appease evil rhetorically. Everything in my article is FACT. [From JoeM]
- Hi. Ironically, you display the same kind of parochial fanaticalness as your Islamofascist opponents. Why don't you grow up and help us write a high-quality encyclopedia, instead of a propaganda piece. No matter how worthy your views are, this isn't the place for them. -- AdamRaizen 11:44, 2003 Aug 10 (UTC)
Excuse me? Are you saying that there is a moral equivalency between Americans, like our troops in Iraq and the firefighters who died on 9/11, and the Islamofascists who dug all those mass graves in Iraq and flew those planes into the twin towers? That is a very twisted POV. It does not belong in encyclopedia articles. Facts, like the ones presented in my article, do. JoeM
- No, I was commenting on your style, not on the substance of your views. -- AdamRaizen
If you cannot follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, then please leave. Understand that just because you believe something to be so doesn't mean that everybody believes that - we have to attribute opinions to those who hold them, and "Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant" is an opinion. --Camembert
Hello, Joe. I'm currently editing Islamofascism, trying to fairly represent your opinions within in the NPOV framework. Please let me know how I'm doing. -- The Anome 15:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
From http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-August/005787.html
This sounds like an only 10% milder counterpart to the Palestinian
activist from last week. Well, if he keeps it up, I approve that we
should put him on auto-revert unless and until he gets the message.
(by Jimbo Wales)
Your additions contain loaded language. That's what's wrong. Can you prove that the CPC intentionally committed genocide? Or did people die of unintentional miscalculations? --Jiang 17:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
You know that with your stated opinion on the countries as above (from invading Syria and Brasil to destabilzing France) it is highly inprobable that you will be able to make NPOV edits on relevante country entries? -- till we *) 18:29, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Re the answer on my talk page: yes, I'm a pacifist, mostly, and for invading countries (off-list or on-list), at least there should exist an UN mandate (as it was the case with Afghanistan, and as it wasn't the case with Iraq). To think the USA should do unilateraly in world politics what it think it's right is an big mistake, in my opinion. World peace and global human development won't come to existance with unilateral self-nominated world police officers like Bush, only with multilateral international and transnational organizations. Oh, and re Neville Chamberlain -- yes, Wikipedia told me a lot about him, and especially about his politics re Nazi germany. Maybe you should read the Chamberlain entry, too, because maybe, just maybe, it won't fit in your opinions. (Nice from me to give you lot's of hints what you should try to edit, too, isn't it?). -- till we *) 18:42, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Just one more point -- isn't it contradicting to say that one wants every country invaded that democratically elects someone more left than a Republican (e.g. Brazil), on the one hand, and to express anger and sadness about the loss of democratic rights in countries like China, on the other hand? I'm a bit confused about your political point -- is it freedom and democracy for everybody, with the help of a strong US military, or is it a mild dictatorship by the US military, unless they democratically elect whom the US likes? -- till we *) 18:59, Aug 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Ooooh, logic. Stop it before my brain explodes. -- AdamRaizen
Does the M in joeM stand for 'moron'? Mintguy 18:34, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
So you want the US to invade China? Which US city do you want nuked first? -- AdamRaizen
- Of course not! He just wants weaken the communist rebels!
- There is only one China in the world and the mainland is part of China. The government of the Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China. The Communist rebellion must be immediately put to an end and the mainland must be reunited with Taiwan under the national government. The reunification of the motherland is the common aspiration of the Chinese people. The patriotic compatriots do not wish to see reunification delayed indefinitely. The great revolutionary forerunner of the Chinese nation Dr. Sun Yatsen once said: "Reunification is the hope of entire nationals in China. If reunification can be achieved, the people of the whole country will enjoy a happy life; if it cannot be achieved, the people will suffer."
- Therefore, for the sake of humanity and fairness, the United States (and most of the world) must immediately withdraw its "diplomatic recognition" of that Communist entity and re-establish full diplomatic relations with China. The US should also supply China with enough arms to crush the rebellion and liberate the mainland. China must also re-establish its nuclear program and develop at least a couple dozen nuclear tipped ICBMs so the world, conspiring with the Communist rebels, cannot blackmail her. The world must stand up to oppose Communist imperialism. The Republic of China must stand for ages to come!
- Uhm, so yeah. Communist bad...
- --Your comrade, Jiang
Hey Joe! I'd just like to ask you: which of the armed forces are you a member of? Or if not, which are you signing up with? -- The Anome 21:43, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
--"Saddam Hussein is an evil tyrant" is an opinion--
The 'evil' part is fairly unnecessary since the act of being a tyrant is inherently evil. But the idea that Saddam Hussein being a tyrant is just an opinion with equal weight as the opinion that he is not is a bit of a reach. Too many bodies buried in the sand for that. There are certain objective measures of tyranny and Saddam meets them easily. One would be hard pressed to find evidence that Saddam was not evil using the standards of about any culture on earth, even though that word carries additional baggage and is unnecessary in this instance.
Neutral point of view is the way to go, but to say that there can be no moral judgments is going a bit far isn't it? "Some people view Hitler as an evil dictator whereas some think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread." That is a neutral statement also, but its not better.
Probably the best thing to do is list his crimes and any reader with any sense will see for themselves that he was indeed evil and a tyrant. Use an Amnesty International report or something to satisfy those on the left. --anon
- That's exactly right. List his crimes, give cites for proof, and we're with you all the way. You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" -- we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, cite your sources. -- Karada 23:15, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- The article probably needs a section to highlight his crimes. The article has a lot of good stuff on the politics but not much on the human cost of his reign. For instance, his genocide (both literally and environmentally) against the Marsh Arabs and the "Arabization" of northern cities are not covered thoroughly. Amnesty International probably would be a good source. --anon
- Indeed. It isn't "going a bit too far" to avoid moral judgement - that's just the thing that we should avoid. We're not here to pass judgement on people's actions, no matter how repulsive we might find them. State what was done, give sources for claims of what was done where these are disputed, and let readers draw their own conclusions. --Camembert
- There are some moral judgments that are so universal that refusing to acknowledge them is just crazy. There is nobody in the world that can seriously argue that murdering tens of thousands of your own people, ordering environmental and actual genocide against the Marsh Arabs, starting a war with Iran and using chemical weapons, etc. do not an 'evil tyrant' make. The simple solution is to put information from the Amnesty International reports in the article to stop the controversy. But the word tyrant has an objective definition spelled out in the dictionary and Saddam meets that definition easily. Its not an opinion. --anon
- I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that to say he is evil is an opinion (do all his supporters think he is evil? I suspect not). Just say what he did, with sources for the claims if needed, and that'll do. This is a silly discussion - if you want to edit Saddam Hussein, you're free to do so. --Camembert
- I'm all for just putting in Amnesty International info (particularly on the Marsh Arabs) and letting it go at that. That should satisfy everyone who is reasonable. My point was that there is a point where taking into account the opinion of those who are so obviously wrong to avoid offending them seems a bit much. Some folks have the opinion that the earth is flat, refusing to say its not "to be fair" is not a realistic option. Words have definitions and if someone meets those objective definitions, then thats what they are even if its something not nice.
- I half-agree with you, but believing that Saddam is not evil doesn't seem to me to be comparable with believing the earth is flat: the latter can be scientifically disproved, while the former can't (if for no other reason that "evil" is badly defined and presupposes a set of moral codes and norms). Anyhow, we agree on the best approach to the Saddam article, that's the main thing. --Camembert
We must face the truth that an invasion against Red China would be immensely unpopular and costly. We should instead put pressure on the UN to readmit the ROC and reestablish diplomatic relations with the ROC. Our government is filled with pink wimps afraid of pissing off the commies. There is no more USSR left to necessitate befriending the Communist Chinese.
Please be careful with the language you use. You failed to qualify "China" on your userpage with "red", "bandit-controlled", "communist", or "People's Republic of". Thus, you equate China with PRC and label the Republic of China a renegade entity. You imply that the PRC has replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. Please be more careful next time.
--Jiang 00:57, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)
---
Hey, what if killing humans is good, since they're dirty and shit where they live, and killing humans who are self-righteous and think they "own stuff", like the world, is even better? Just another possibility. The kind of thing that becomes more credible, when one reads a list of dozens of nations to invade.
Nice program and a real sense of democracy. This is Political Science according to Randy Newman ?
Ericd 00:53, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
JoeM stated in an already-deleted discussion in his ban page that Americans voted for George W Bush. Isn't that inconsistent with the following 2000 results?
George W. Bush (W) 271 Electoral Votes - 50,456,002 Popular Votes - 47.87%
Al Gore 266 Electoral Votes - 50,999,897 Popular Votes - 48.38%
Probably, he should have said: "George W. Bush received more electoral votes". Please, note that I agree with the legitimacy of George W. Bush election: in fact he was elected in all fairness, since that is the system America uses to elect the President, a system with as many qualities and faults as any other democratic system. It was only a reminder to JoeM that sometimes we do not own truth and some facts can be seen in a different light without making us worse people. Cheers to all, including JoeM, of course!
Marco NevesMarco Neves
Don't discuus this is democracy. Democracy is a system where people are free to vote for any candidate they want except communists like Gore ;-)
Ericd 01:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Moved from the Ban page of this user
You people are cowards. You know that one common sense conservative can topple down the delicate house of cards made up users who are at least 90% far left. That's why you want me banned. Well, you might be able to ban me when you control the machinery, but my views are those of the majority of Americans and we now have an all-GOP government now. :America voted for Bush. Bush's approval rating are high. We have a GOP House and Senate. Americans supported the war in Iraq. Americans prefer Republican governors. We prefer the free market, tough on crime stances, a strong foreign policy guided by moral clarity, freedom, and national security, smaller government, lower taxes, and more freedom. Americans love Reagan and W and we defeated Communism and socialism. However, a bunch of leftists are censoring me because they control this site and not America. JoeM
- What does any of this have to do with Neutral point of view? RickK 01:31, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- He's trying to justify not getting banned.Vancouverguy 01:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[irrelevant discussion of politics removed]
Thank you. I should have removed that that. Vancouverguy 01:25, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Can we please keep the discussion relevant? It must be noted that JoeM would not be banned for his political opinions, but for repeated NPOV violations. Evercat 01:18, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- FALSE!!! Can you people be banned for your NPOV violations? Right now, the conservative viewpoint isn't represented in the homelessness article. What about the view that the freer the market the less unemployment and homelessness? What about personal responsibility? We can have NPOV if you let me write the conservative view and you can write the liberal views. However, you insist on solely writing from the left and censoring the right. If you worked with me and cooperated, we'd have NPOV. However, you chose to censor me and impose your POV through banning users and protecting pages. JoeM
You can include the conservative viewpoint. But, firstly you should stop using loaded language. Secondly, if you are going to claim, for example, that Saddam Hussein is evil, then say something like that explains why some people feel that way about him, not in the intoduction, but, in a section that explains public opinion about him. PS: Don't use this as an excuse to go off topic and rant about Saddam.Vancouverguy 01:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- What? You don't want me to remind you that if you had your way Saddam would still be digging all those mass graves? JoeM
Yes, let's stay on topic.Vancouverguy 01:19, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
JoeM is NPOV all the other aren't because they're brainwashed by communists.
Ericd 01:33, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I have not been brainwashed by communists. Besides, how is saying that going to help JoeM or you? Vancouverguy 01:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Can't you tell a joke when you see it? -- Miguel
- Yes.Vancouverguy 01:42, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that's what it is. RickK 01:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Vancouverguy you've been brainwashed by communists. In real democracy people like you will be reeducated ;-).
Ericd 01:44, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- In Guantanamo. -- Miguel
- No, by watching FOX News. Get Hannitized. JoeM
- BTW Canada wasn't very active in supporting the liberation of Iraq. Are there all communists ?
- Ericd 01:48, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Did you know that the Canadian capital was the only site of looting during rhe power outages. THat's liberalism run amock. And BTW, Canadians, especially that stupid French prime minister, are all ungreatful. We defend them with our military and this is how they repay us. We need to punish Canada for that. JoeM
- Did you know that you're wrong -- 20 arrests were made in Brooklyn over one incident of shoe store looting alone. It does seem that there was more looting in Canada, and that is too Canada's shame, but don't go throwing too many rocks in your glass house. It shouldn't be any surprise that looting happened in both countries; both countries have elements of lawlessness and those elements will naturally be revealed in times of crisis like the blackout. As will tendentious nationalists. -- Tlotoxl 23:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I prefer the Vancouver Sun newspaper. BTW: British Columbia is run by a right-wing government. This is really off topic.Vancouverguy 01:51, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- Can we PLEASE stay on topic and talk about this somewhere else???Vancouverguy 01:56, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)\
- Too much common sense from JoeM on a single page, right? JoeM
- Too much common sense from JoeM on the wrong page.Vancouverguy 02:12, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I propose the copy of this part of this page to the JoeM Talkpage, where it belongs. Marco Neves
- Copy it now before it gets really out of hand.Vancouverguy 02:00, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've had enough for tonight. However, I'll be back soon writing some good content on the liberal media. Your liberal POV and censorship is safe for now that I go offline. JoeM