Misplaced Pages

BDORT

Hi SV, would you mind looking at the latest edits to BDORT? Thanks, Crum375 09:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a brief look earlier, but I'm not sure what to make of it. I'll try to find time later to read the source properly. SlimVirgin 09:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the source more carefully. It seems okay, though I don't fully understand the issues. The only thing I'd say is that the article should stick very closely to what the source said. SlimVirgin 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Crum375 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure

My pleasure to send you that article. I listed it in the sources of that article.

Just a comment: Could you please consider re-thinking the initial paragraph about anti-semitism in the Martin Luther article? I didn't want to start by editing it, without speaking to you, as you are extremely active on that page. I honestly find it a bit frustrating that his anti-semitic writings are given such a high place in the article. In the greater context of his life and work, anti-semitism isn't his defining hallmark. His anti-semitic writings had much to do with having been rejected by the jewish community (which he's initially hoped to recruit), and frankly seem to be indicative of a virulant character which was unleashed on more than one group which didn't hop on his bandwagon. Most reformers of the age were given to diatribe, but Luther was known for being extreme. He also might have gone a bit nutty in his dotage (or so it has been theorized).

The principal reason for the focus on his anti-semitic writings is the holocaust, and the fact that Luther was co-opted by the Nazis... but that doesn't make him the actual propagator of the holocaust (otherwise, you'd have to also put anti-semitic or Nazi-related comments in the first paragraph of articles on Wagner and Nietzche, who were similarly co-opted post-mortem). The article implies (at my last reading) that he laid the ground for the holocaust - but to be fair, anti-semitism was rife in Europe alongside of and apart from him and his influence. Otherwise, what would explain the pograms of eastern europe, and the strong anti-semitic feeling in very-catholic austria (which was, after all the birthplace of hitler, and which to a certain extent still harbors anti-semitism which Germany was shamed out of), as well as in Poland.

What really strikes me is the differential wiki-treatment of Luther vs. Kurt Waldheim (who passed away about 2 weeks ago). Waldheim successfully hid his Nazi past, and he was an SS officer in charge of teams which performed massacres in Greece. Yet Misplaced Pages puts his Nazi past in a cleansed lower paragraph. Luther wrote some nasty things in the mid-1500s, and he gets labelled in the first paragraph as this being a defining element of the impact of his life, and Waldheim gets to hide his REAL participation in the holocaust on Misplaced Pages just as he did when UN Secretary General. Doesn't seem right.

Moreover, the allusion on that article that Luther's works are still controversial isn't really true. They are only controversial if you are angry that he disrupted Catholicism - something that catholic scholars that I know don't seem perturbed about in the least. The only real controversy (as I see it) is the anti-semitism thing, and would you be so kind as to consider putting it in a lower paragraph where it contextually belongs?

The real blame sits with the modern Lutheran church which failed to, until recently, acknowledge that Luther had some bad sides, notably his anti-semitic writings, which they quite recently repudiated (after ignoring them for decades). This can only be seen as a part of historical evolution towards openness and freedom from prejudice, that isn't the domain of either various Lutheran synods, nor is the recent trend towards changed attitudes unique to anti-semitism. Rather, it is a general worldwide trend towards repudiation of all sorts of prejudices and apologies for past errors.

If you'd think about that, I'd be really grateful. I've been watching the ML article for a while, and wanted to talk to you before I attempted editing, to avoid misunderstandings or edit conflict.

Um

Since you didn't reply to the above message(which I forgot to sign) - just in case you are upset or offended by my request, just erase it. No harm was intended. BlueSapphires 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all offended, BS. I'll take a look at the issue when I have some time. SlimVirgin 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOURCE

David, please don't change protected pages. If you want to argue that WP:SOURCE should direct only to the SPS section, by all means argue it, but don't go ahead and keep undoing it yourself, especially not over page protection. SlimVirgin 19:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I haven't edited the shortcut in more than a week, and there was no indication that this matter remained unresolved. I merely corrected the documentation (along with the interwiki link). You just reverted the shortcut (once again without providing any rationale beyond "I said so") and then falsely claimed that I "inadvertently changed one of the shortcuts again."

2. I suggest that you read the protection policy. Edits unrelated to the dispute that led to the page's protection are not prohibited. —David Levy 20:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously a disputed issue, because here we are disputing it, so given the page is protected, it should be left on the protected version (which incidentally isn't the version I prefer). SlimVirgin 20:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're disputing it now, and you'll notice that I haven't reverted. Heretofore, there was no indication that this was any more the subject of a dispute than the interwiki link that you accidentally changed.

Why did you refer to my correction as "inadvertent" when you knew that it accurately reflected the shortcut as it existed at the time (and had existed without complaint for the past week)? —David Levy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You've edited a protected page five times since protection, despite being asked by two admins not to. Do not change it again until it's unlocked. SlimVirgin 20:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Again, there is no rule against editing a protected page for reasons not pertaining to the protection.

2. Edit #1 was a minor formatting correction. Edit #2 was the insertion of a protection tag. Edit #3 was the re-insertion of the protection tag following its accidental removal. Edit #4 was the correction of the protection tag (which you changed to a semi-protection tag for some reason) and the restoration of the correct shortcut documentation and interwiki link. Edit #5 was a dummy edit, which you inexplicably responded to by removing the protection tag and once again reverting to an outdated interwiki link. Why did you do that?

3. Who, other than you, asked me not to edit the page? As noted on my talk page, Marskell merely wanted to make sure that I was aware of the protection. —David Levy 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re "loadsa stuff" at WP:V and comments at WP:AN

Hi! If you would agree to not revert any further on WP:V I will agree to revert article to ElinorD's version until my 3RR is up. Okay? LessHeard vanU 20:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I would rather remain uninvolved re the debate. Is it okay to note at WP:NA that you will not revert and I will until expiry? LessHeard vanU 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ff

If you refuse to discuss the issue without a mediator, then make an rfm. It's not like it's so hard. Since I'm willing to discuss the issue regardless, I'm not going to make an rfm. Jav43 22:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You refuse to talk on talk.

Also, the ones who didn't want mediation are gone now.

Finally, this page isn't about the controversy. It's about the system that you forced to be termed "factory farming", a system more commonly known as CAFOs. Recognize that and this will make a LOT more sense to you. Jav43 23:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please don't post personal attacks. It's not necessary and it doesn't help anyone, least of all you. If you're getting stressed out, take a Wikibreak - don't take it out on others. -- ChrisO 23:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)