[1] I want to qualify the initial description of the conflict, which was as one between racists and anti-racists. It may well be a conflict between racist and anti-racist editors, but I do not believe it is a conflict between racist and anti-racist edits. I would suggest rather that it is a conflict between racist and non-racist edits. In other words, it is a conflict between POV edits and NPOV edits. Fourdee has admited he is a racist ( "I also wanted to say that while I am not morally opposed to "racism" and would even be proud to promote some varieties of it for some purposes") and that he is intent on pushing his own POV ( "My intent here is to prevent the article from having misleading material inserted which implies there is not a genetic cause for physical appearance, that these traits are not heritable, that these traits are not associated with certain ethnic groups, or that there are not differences in genetics between populations - because those are lies.") - and he admitted this even after I reminded him that our NPOV and V policies make it clear that the standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability and not truth. He even admits that the people he is opposed to are not the other editors as such, but academics: in the same edit as the one just cited, he also wrote, "Sometimes lies (and other deceptions) are promoted in academia through various means as part of sometimes shadowy and nefarious and sometimes overt campaigns, and I fully intent to accurately portray any such lies or deceptions as the fringe theories." Note: his confederate Phral has used this argument to justify removing relevant content that expresses this point of view, clearly identifies the point of view, and provides a verifiable and reliable source [2]. The other editors involved in this dispute, e.g. Ramdrake, are not to my knowledge deleting, or demanding the deletion of, any content added by Phral, Fourdee, or others solely because they oppose that view. As far as i can tell they object only to material that violates our NPOV or NOR policies. So it is clear to me that the real issue here is POV-pushing versus NPOV. It so happens that the POV being pushed is racist, but as the above examples make clear, the actual edit conflicts have more to do with Phral and Fourdee deleting any mention of views other than their own from the introduction, and in some cases deleting discussion of views other than their own from the entire article. The other editors only want to ensure that the article is compliant with NPOV by including multiple points of view, and compliant with NOR by ensuring that any verifiable source is accurately represented in the article. They are not pushing a specifically anti-racist point of view, they are pushing for compliance with a neutral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[3] didnt like the way Neranei let Ramdrake's biased and quite frankly incivil version stay while labelling my version as redundant and then removed it [4]
- And when Slrubenstein was being the Jewish head of Inquisition [5], he wasnt warned to tone it down while she told me "to remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks" [6]. I'm sorry but I fail to see the neutrality here. And formal meditation is better as it is enforcing... KarenAER 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[7] (→Mediator notes - Oh nevermind, a more experienced meditator may be even less neutral, you never know...)
[8] ::You must be living in a cave if you do not see the "villification" difference between racism and political correctness.
KarenAER 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[9] [10] ::::Wikipedia should strive to be better than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The one advantage we have over major Encyclopedias is that we can incorporate the most recent advances in research (Encyclopedias revise themselves but often only after many years have passed, and even then they never have every article revised or rewritten, but only a set portion). The EB article is using an antiquated notion of race. Besides, I thought we agreed this would be about Europe's ethnic groups? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- You want to research writing an encyclopedia article by reading ... other encyclopedias? You don't know how to read books or peer-reviewed journal articles? Interesting how you sling around the word moronic. And as for agreement - I was referring to your 12:12 17 August comment. But I guess you disagree even with yourself. I guess that is going to make trying to agree with you pretty difficult... Slrubenstein | Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- I dont have a 12:12 17 August comment here. LOL... KarenAER 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I Quote:
- How about this? We can turn this page into a disambiguation article and move most of the contents to the new European peoples article?
- At the beginning of European peoples article, we can add this:
- This article deals with Europeans as an ethnic group(s). For information about residents or nationals of Europe, see Demography of Europe. For information on other uses please see the disambiguation article European(this one) KarenAER 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- LTM Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a point you are trying to make rather than the stupidity of the fact that you are simply fabricating arguments for me then saying I dont agree with myself? KarenAER 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[11]::The problem with looking at the actual numbers of people killed where is that it is impossible for anyone to do honest work on the topic. So the jewish-dominated academic journals publish their prevailing view and anyone who doesn't agree gets the finkelstein treatment. Anyone who doesn't use these numbers is labeled a racist, and often is, let's be honest, a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Most of the people who care about "jewish lies" are either convinced everyone is out to get them, or are people who don't necessarily see the nazis as a bad or wrong government. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That is still soapboxing to say that this article is full of lies. We don't buy original research. You need to cite sources. Reginmund 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not adding material to the article I'm trying to establish what should be added or removed and what sources are nonsense. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You should have mentioned that before. Well, which ones are? Reginmund 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[12] ::All the ones by jewish authors. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- We need sources that say that they are incorrect. Otherwise, you are engaging in original research just to say that they are wrong. Reginmund 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[13] ::The article lacks credible sources. How can you have a bunch of jews tell you about what supposedly happened to them at the hands of the Nazis? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[1] I want to qualify the initial description of the conflict, which was as one between racists and anti-racists. It may well be a conflict between racist and anti-racist editors, but I do not believe it is a conflict between racist and anti-racist edits. I would suggest rather that it is a conflict between racist and non-racist edits. In other words, it is a conflict between POV edits and NPOV edits. Fourdee has admited he is a racist ( "I also wanted to say that while I am not morally opposed to "racism" and would even be proud to promote some varieties of it for some purposes") and that he is intent on pushing his own POV ( "My intent here is to prevent the article from having misleading material inserted which implies there is not a genetic cause for physical appearance, that these traits are not heritable, that these traits are not associated with certain ethnic groups, or that there are not differences in genetics between populations - because those are lies.") - and he admitted this even after I reminded him that our NPOV and V policies make it clear that the standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability and not truth. He even admits that the people he is opposed to are not the other editors as such, but academics: in the same edit as the one just cited, he also wrote, "Sometimes lies (and other deceptions) are promoted in academia through various means as part of sometimes shadowy and nefarious and sometimes overt campaigns, and I fully intent to accurately portray any such lies or deceptions as the fringe theories." Note: his confederate Phral has used this argument to justify removing relevant content that expresses this point of view, clearly identifies the point of view, and provides a verifiable and reliable source [2]. The other editors involved in this dispute, e.g. Ramdrake, are not to my knowledge deleting, or demanding the deletion of, any content added by Phral, Fourdee, or others solely because they oppose that view. As far as i can tell they object only to material that violates our NPOV or NOR policies. So it is clear to me that the real issue here is POV-pushing versus NPOV. It so happens that the POV being pushed is racist, but as the above examples make clear, the actual edit conflicts have more to do with Phral and Fourdee deleting any mention of views other than their own from the introduction, and in some cases deleting discussion of views other than their own from the entire article. The other editors only want to ensure that the article is compliant with NPOV by including multiple points of view, and compliant with NOR by ensuring that any verifiable source is accurately represented in the article. They are not pushing a specifically anti-racist point of view, they are pushing for compliance with a neutral point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
[3] didnt like the way Neranei let Ramdrake's biased and quite frankly incivil version stay while labelling my version as redundant and then removed it [4]
- And when Slrubenstein was being the Jewish head of Inquisition [5], he wasnt warned to tone it down while she told me "to remain civil, and refrain from personal attacks" [6]. I'm sorry but I fail to see the neutrality here. And formal meditation is better as it is enforcing... KarenAER 18:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[7] (→Mediator notes - Oh nevermind, a more experienced meditator may be even less neutral, you never know...)
[8] ::You must be living in a cave if you do not see the "villification" difference between racism and political correctness.
KarenAER 14:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[9] [10] ::::Wikipedia should strive to be better than Encyclopedia Brittanica. The one advantage we have over major Encyclopedias is that we can incorporate the most recent advances in research (Encyclopedias revise themselves but often only after many years have passed, and even then they never have every article revised or rewritten, but only a set portion). The EB article is using an antiquated notion of race. Besides, I thought we agreed this would be about Europe's ethnic groups? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- You want to research writing an encyclopedia article by reading ... other encyclopedias? You don't know how to read books or peer-reviewed journal articles? Interesting how you sling around the word moronic. And as for agreement - I was referring to your 12:12 17 August comment. But I guess you disagree even with yourself. I guess that is going to make trying to agree with you pretty difficult... Slrubenstein | Talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:45, August 23, 2007 (UTC).
- I dont have a 12:12 17 August comment here. LOL... KarenAER 16:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I Quote:
- How about this? We can turn this page into a disambiguation article and move most of the contents to the new European peoples article?
- At the beginning of European peoples article, we can add this:
- This article deals with Europeans as an ethnic group(s). For information about residents or nationals of Europe, see Demography of Europe. For information on other uses please see the disambiguation article European(this one) KarenAER 12:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- LTM Slrubenstein | Talk 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a point you are trying to make rather than the stupidity of the fact that you are simply fabricating arguments for me then saying I dont agree with myself? KarenAER 19:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
[11]::The problem with looking at the actual numbers of people killed where is that it is impossible for anyone to do honest work on the topic. So the jewish-dominated academic journals publish their prevailing view and anyone who doesn't agree gets the finkelstein treatment. Anyone who doesn't use these numbers is labeled a racist, and often is, let's be honest, a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Most of the people who care about "jewish lies" are either convinced everyone is out to get them, or are people who don't necessarily see the nazis as a bad or wrong government. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
That is still soapboxing to say that this article is full of lies. We don't buy original research. You need to cite sources. Reginmund 01:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not adding material to the article I'm trying to establish what should be added or removed and what sources are nonsense. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- You should have mentioned that before. Well, which ones are? Reginmund 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[12] ::All the ones by jewish authors. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- We need sources that say that they are incorrect. Otherwise, you are engaging in original research just to say that they are wrong. Reginmund 01:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
[13] ::The article lacks credible sources. How can you have a bunch of jews tell you about what supposedly happened to them at the hands of the Nazis? -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 01:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)