![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of discussions originally held at
Talk:Anti-Semitism between February 7, 2004 and February 9, 2004. Please do not edit or modify this archived text.
I removed the section because it had the following significant problems:
In short, this is unfounded opinion, based on some personal agenda someone has with Jews during the Soviet era.
It's clear from your writing (particularly your discomfort with correct articles of grammar) that you're a former Soviet citizen with a admirable but hardly native grasp of English, and a fuzzy understanding of the difference between "opinion" and "fact." I further question your disregard for historical accuracy -- as per your claim that "facts chek [sic] themselves out" -- and whether you have the capacity to do the research necessary to present unbiased articles, rather than offering political or emotional diatribes, such as your reaction -below- indicates.
-- LeFlyman 00:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The section was not added with a "detailed explanation" thus, it did not deserve one for removal. It was obvious to anyone with a sense of reason that it was inappropriate for the article. Vandalism, if you'd bothered to check, is the "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" (ala Webster's Unabridged) -- thus the inclusion of a false and derogatory item like that section was the true vandalism; removing it was not. If you can't tell the difference between the two, perhaps you should spend some more time with the subtleties of language.
I understood perfectly well the poorly-written anti-Jewish text; it's you who can't understand English. The sentence "The Soviet Union hasn't existed for nearly 15 years!" refers to the present -- as in, the Soviet Union does not exist now, nor has it existed for the last 13 years (yes, I rounded too high), since the fall of communism. You remember that, don't you -- when the coup against Gorbachev failed and all non-Russian Soviet republics declared independence in 1991? My comment points out that there was nothing contemporary in the entire section.
The writer said "committees to fighting an [sic] Anti-Semitism" -- you apparentally aren't up on the concept of bracketed ("[" and "]") information. It's clear that "fighting... anti-Semitism" would make them "anti-Semitism committees," however for the quotation, I bracketed the word -- which means that whatever is inside was added by editorial comment.
Yes, I mis-typed Who's political opponents? The word who's is the contracted form of who is, which apparently confused you. However (and obvious to an English reader) the sentence was intended as "Whose political opponents?" Mis-typing "who's" is a common English typo, on par with it's = its.
Of course the "political opponents" were not Jews. The author is implying that Jews on these supposed, unnamed and uncited committees silenced their political opponents through what he claimed was "abusing the term anti-Semitism." The section, itself, is anti-Semitic and your inability to get your head around why is astonishing. It must come from your Soviet background, Michael, which was colored by such propaganda.
Get onboard the cluetrain: The author claims that there is now a "growing menace" of Jews, in conspiratorial groups (either in an "organization fighting the [sic] Anti-Semitism" or "committees"), who attack those opposed to Jewish interests ("political opponents') and silenced them through intimidation. He further includes a false example of a 1920s-era assassination of a Ukrainian leader by a Jew, whom he refers to as an agent of Soviet intelligence/Soviet spy -- even though historians have refuted that and only Ukrainians have made that claim.
From such a claim, one can conclude that the section was created by a Ukrainian non-Jewish writer with a personal agenda against Jews.
Learn some logical reasoning skills, man! Spend some time with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series, and perhaps you'll figure out how to make some proper inferences.
-- LeFlyman 11:47, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To Cautious:
Your attempt (re-presented below) to create a "neutral" version of the same section is admirable, but it is still non-factual opinion. Separate your own personal emotions in the matter, and realize that the material is inherently flawed. Your changes continue to have no basis in reality, nor have they improved the text in any way. In fact, you introduce new problems on top of the ones already there.
Develop your critical thinking skills. When attempting to write something with authority, you have to be able answer some basic questions -- The 5 Ws and an H: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. In the case of your re-written section, one can ask:
And that's not even an all-inclusively list of unanswered questions. The process of creating an impression of "fact" where none exist, the insinuation of wrongful behavior (in this case, abuse of a term or label, and even murder) without evidence is rightly called propaganda
As Mikkalai realized (see above) any label 'can' be abused. The only purposes someone could have in creating such a specific section as "Abusing of the term Anti-Semitism" is:
Now if you can't see why that, in and of itself, is a prejudiced way of thinking, then perhaps you should stick to writing in less difficult categories. LeFlyman 21:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(Your text below)
A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism broken anchor.
The label of anti-Semitism can be abused by labeling the political oponents or the groups.
Allegedly, it was abused in Soviet Union, when some state-controlled organisation were used to fight anti-Semitism.
The alleged anti-Semitism of the victim, can be also the ground for political assasination, i.e assasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, who was murdered in 1926.
Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.
Cautious: Please learn to format text for readability -- its bad enough you have difficulty with your own English, but don't make my entries as incomprehensible as yours. Your responses have been consolidated below: ( LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC))
Your way of reasoning seems logical, but the abuse of the term Anti-Semitism happens, despite your theretical proof, that should not. The statement, that anybody that sees abuse of the label Anti-Semitism is an Anti-Semite itself, is better for rhetoric then for factual truth. Try to verify your opinions with the practise or move to mathematics. There, pure reasoning, has the future. Cautious 21:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with my original reason to remove the section because it was "Soviet-era propaganda" -- you have no contemporary examples outside of the "Soviet times." Nor do you have any factual bases or citation for any of your statements, saying that, "As far as I am concerned, it ca happen right now."
Answering the question "Who specifically abused the label" with, "Everybody who uses the term, against somebody, who is not Anti-Semite" is called " begging the question." With your every response, you demonstrate your inability to think. As the adage goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of discussions originally held at
Talk:Anti-Semitism between February 7, 2004 and February 9, 2004. Please do not edit or modify this archived text.
I removed the section because it had the following significant problems:
In short, this is unfounded opinion, based on some personal agenda someone has with Jews during the Soviet era.
It's clear from your writing (particularly your discomfort with correct articles of grammar) that you're a former Soviet citizen with a admirable but hardly native grasp of English, and a fuzzy understanding of the difference between "opinion" and "fact." I further question your disregard for historical accuracy -- as per your claim that "facts chek [sic] themselves out" -- and whether you have the capacity to do the research necessary to present unbiased articles, rather than offering political or emotional diatribes, such as your reaction -below- indicates.
-- LeFlyman 00:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The section was not added with a "detailed explanation" thus, it did not deserve one for removal. It was obvious to anyone with a sense of reason that it was inappropriate for the article. Vandalism, if you'd bothered to check, is the "willful or malicious destruction or defacement of public or private property" (ala Webster's Unabridged) -- thus the inclusion of a false and derogatory item like that section was the true vandalism; removing it was not. If you can't tell the difference between the two, perhaps you should spend some more time with the subtleties of language.
I understood perfectly well the poorly-written anti-Jewish text; it's you who can't understand English. The sentence "The Soviet Union hasn't existed for nearly 15 years!" refers to the present -- as in, the Soviet Union does not exist now, nor has it existed for the last 13 years (yes, I rounded too high), since the fall of communism. You remember that, don't you -- when the coup against Gorbachev failed and all non-Russian Soviet republics declared independence in 1991? My comment points out that there was nothing contemporary in the entire section.
The writer said "committees to fighting an [sic] Anti-Semitism" -- you apparentally aren't up on the concept of bracketed ("[" and "]") information. It's clear that "fighting... anti-Semitism" would make them "anti-Semitism committees," however for the quotation, I bracketed the word -- which means that whatever is inside was added by editorial comment.
Yes, I mis-typed Who's political opponents? The word who's is the contracted form of who is, which apparently confused you. However (and obvious to an English reader) the sentence was intended as "Whose political opponents?" Mis-typing "who's" is a common English typo, on par with it's = its.
Of course the "political opponents" were not Jews. The author is implying that Jews on these supposed, unnamed and uncited committees silenced their political opponents through what he claimed was "abusing the term anti-Semitism." The section, itself, is anti-Semitic and your inability to get your head around why is astonishing. It must come from your Soviet background, Michael, which was colored by such propaganda.
Get onboard the cluetrain: The author claims that there is now a "growing menace" of Jews, in conspiratorial groups (either in an "organization fighting the [sic] Anti-Semitism" or "committees"), who attack those opposed to Jewish interests ("political opponents') and silenced them through intimidation. He further includes a false example of a 1920s-era assassination of a Ukrainian leader by a Jew, whom he refers to as an agent of Soviet intelligence/Soviet spy -- even though historians have refuted that and only Ukrainians have made that claim.
From such a claim, one can conclude that the section was created by a Ukrainian non-Jewish writer with a personal agenda against Jews.
Learn some logical reasoning skills, man! Spend some time with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes series, and perhaps you'll figure out how to make some proper inferences.
-- LeFlyman 11:47, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To Cautious:
Your attempt (re-presented below) to create a "neutral" version of the same section is admirable, but it is still non-factual opinion. Separate your own personal emotions in the matter, and realize that the material is inherently flawed. Your changes continue to have no basis in reality, nor have they improved the text in any way. In fact, you introduce new problems on top of the ones already there.
Develop your critical thinking skills. When attempting to write something with authority, you have to be able answer some basic questions -- The 5 Ws and an H: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How. In the case of your re-written section, one can ask:
And that's not even an all-inclusively list of unanswered questions. The process of creating an impression of "fact" where none exist, the insinuation of wrongful behavior (in this case, abuse of a term or label, and even murder) without evidence is rightly called propaganda
As Mikkalai realized (see above) any label 'can' be abused. The only purposes someone could have in creating such a specific section as "Abusing of the term Anti-Semitism" is:
Now if you can't see why that, in and of itself, is a prejudiced way of thinking, then perhaps you should stick to writing in less difficult categories. LeFlyman 21:13, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(Your text below)
A notable example is discussed in Section #Disputes over modern manifestations of anti-Semitism broken anchor.
The label of anti-Semitism can be abused by labeling the political oponents or the groups.
Allegedly, it was abused in Soviet Union, when some state-controlled organisation were used to fight anti-Semitism.
The alleged anti-Semitism of the victim, can be also the ground for political assasination, i.e assasination of the emigration leader of Ukrainian Peoples Republic, Symon Petlura, who was murdered in 1926.
Another kind of abuse is putting label of "anti-Semitism" onto the whole nations as their inherent nature.
Cautious: Please learn to format text for readability -- its bad enough you have difficulty with your own English, but don't make my entries as incomprehensible as yours. Your responses have been consolidated below: ( LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC))
Your way of reasoning seems logical, but the abuse of the term Anti-Semitism happens, despite your theretical proof, that should not. The statement, that anybody that sees abuse of the label Anti-Semitism is an Anti-Semite itself, is better for rhetoric then for factual truth. Try to verify your opinions with the practise or move to mathematics. There, pure reasoning, has the future. Cautious 21:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing with my original reason to remove the section because it was "Soviet-era propaganda" -- you have no contemporary examples outside of the "Soviet times." Nor do you have any factual bases or citation for any of your statements, saying that, "As far as I am concerned, it ca happen right now."
Answering the question "Who specifically abused the label" with, "Everybody who uses the term, against somebody, who is not Anti-Semite" is called " begging the question." With your every response, you demonstrate your inability to think. As the adage goes, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
LeFlyman 22:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)