[WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177

Fri Sep 19 15:16:18 UTC 2003

> Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 14:49:51 -0400
> From: rednblack at alum.mit.edu
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] sigh, 142.177
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org

> Hi,
> 
> I've been fighting for roughly the past half-day
> with 142.177.*.* (formerly
> 24.*.*.* and EntmootsOfTrolls) over [[Islamism]] and
> [[militant Islam]]. I
> must admit that I'm not really a very patient
> person, especially when the other
> party is not at all willing to engage, refuses to
> respond to my points, and
> is only interested in pushing his idiosyncratic
> viewpoint. It's even more
> irritating when the user has been hard-banned
> several times, and writes totally
> terrible, unfocused and irrelevant crap on top of
> everything else.
> 
> So, I'd like some advice on how to deal with this
> situation. 
> 
> See [[Talk:Islamism]], [[Talk:Militant
> Islam/Delete]], and [[Wikipedia:Problem
> users]], where he listed myself and RK after I asked
> to have [[Islamism]]
> protected, for discussion. I'll admit my bias: I
> wrote most of [[Islamism]],
> and while it isn't perfect and needs a whole lot of
> work, I feel that the
> changes 142 is making are totally inappropriate.
> 
> Saurabh (Graft)

Your issue with 142 is - imho - a perfectly classical
edit war, with two different sets of opinions,
yours/RK versus 142.

I can't help but take with a grain of salt the issue
you raise above, with the fact you listed [[Militant
Islam]] for deletion just after RK redirected it with
justifications which were not convincing.

I know little of the topic (though, as you may know
about 10% of the french population is of muslim
religion, and we have our share of religious
extremism), so when you listed it on vfd, I just asked
you whether the issue was that the term did not
existed at all, or whether you thought the content was
wrong.

Your answer to my question was

"The concept does not exist, as even the article
admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's
like having an article called militant Christianity?,
and listing all the Christians who have ever been
violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support
themselves. We could do it, but what would be the
point? The only common thread is that they're militant
and Christian... why not start an article on Blond
Presidents?? or Atheist Right-Fielders??"

When I looked at the two terms, both existed (militant
islamist has over 34200 hits on google). This was
confirmed by Jt who said 

"It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely
used in academia, in the media and in politics,
whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much
outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an
article on Militant Christianity? as it too is a real
term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe
that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that
violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas
like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism,
secularism, etc." 

For those interested, read 
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Militant_Islam/Delete

Obviously, though you share opinion with RK that the
concept does not exist and think that the article
should disappear, it seems that others have another
opinion. And that not only does the concept exists,
but that also it is relevant and informative for
readers. I do think it is quite reasonable to think
that on these types of matters, we cannot expect that
everyone agrees.

Hence, it is not a question of banning or
idiosynchrasy, or such, it is just a matter of
diversity of opinion and perception. Just the essence
of Wikipedia, not a personal matter. Accepting that
other people have different opinions, no matter how
much total crap it appears to us.

In this, the fact you loudly claimed the concept and
the word did not exist, while obviously the word
exist, and Jt opinion is that the concept exist and is
important, should be proof enough that we sometimes
are wrong. Nothing to be ashamed for, if we knew
everything, we would not need wikipedia.

You also openly admit your own bias and the fact you
wrote alone most of the Islamism article. 
Perhaps then, would it be good to imagine that *one*
person cannot know everything on a topic and that it
would make sense that such a wide topic be worked on
by more people than just a couple 

Whatever the effort you will put to be at your best in
terms of neutrality and completude, do you think you
would ever be able to "think" and see things like a
"fou de Dieu" is (You certainly have a term for these
people, those seeing God as a mean and an end, and
revolving every matter in their life around Him)?.

I understand very well you may think 142 is writing
inappropriate things. This is what we think each time
we have an edit war with someone. Each time we
disagree and get hot over it.

The only thing I can think of to help you here, is to
remind you that we are all different, and ever will
be, and each day I read the english wikipedia, I see
that and am amazed.
Also, to focus on the content, and not to divert your
thinking in the dear hope to see someone you disagree
with be banned, because if an opinion is serious and
relevant, it will come back by the back door. Hence, I
would say to face this issue rather than trying to
avoid it.
And if need there is, to choose a neutral party to
help you (given that RK who will certainly be in the
discussion, is not a neutral party :-))

And...yes...just to give you my opinion on the
islamism article. It is good and informative. But
biased.

When I read the below paragraph

"Much Islamist activity since has been directed
against governments in Muslim societies, which
Islamists oppose because they are governments
according to human law, not divine law. However, a
considerable effort has been made to fight Western
targets, especially the United States. The United
States in particular is a subject of Islamist ire
because of its support of Israel, its presence on
sacred Saudi soil, what Islamists regard as its
aggression against Muslims in Iraq, and its support of
the regimes Islamists oppose. In addition some
Islamists have concentrated their activity against
Israel, and nearly all Islamists view Israel with
hostility. Osama bin Laden, at least, believes that
this is of necessity due to historical conflict
between Muslims and Jews, and considers there to be a
Jewish/American alliance against Islam. "

I cannot help repressing a sad smile, and think of all
the difficulties my country has in integrating muslim
population, some of it being islamist, of how much
infrastructure was destroyed in the past years by
attacks, how many people died in my country during
these religious battles, of how many euros were spent
in rebuilding, of all the discussions over the FIS in
Algeria, of the islamists in Marocco, Egypt, Jordan
trying to have their voice heard through legal means.

The current article is informative, but it does not
answer my questions, and does not help me to
understand why from time to time women and children
die when in Paris subway, or when they go shopping for
presents around Christmas. It does not help me to
understand why, from time to time, I can't park my car
in front of my children school because the terrorist
alert is on again. It does not help me to understand
why recently a teenager has burned alive a young girl
refusing to cover her head in one of our cities. Or
why some people get wild at the though of their wife
head naked on identity pictures. It does not help me
to understand why some french people refuse islamic
religious cult building in their town. It does not
help me to understand just why some people are so
extremists when muslim people may be so delightful.

And if anyone read french here, I invite them to read
this speech given by Nicolas Sarkozy over french
muslims

http://www.religioscope.info/article_143.shtml

I dunno where you are from, Graft (America I suppose)
and I dunno what your relationship with islam and
muslims is, I can just say the current article needs
work and other perspectives than yours and RK. Because
right now, if I look at the article history, I see
that you two are basically the authors of this
article.
Steve was censored right ?

I suspect an article on islamism, reflecting all
points of view (per Wikipedia goal) should not be
restricted to a "two head american authorship".

If you want the world to read this article with the
feeling it is fair and deeply informative, or if you
want american people to better understand why they
have suffered such a terrible loss, please do not
cling to that article. Rather try to understand and
acknowledge other views. Please Graft.

Anthere

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com