Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AAA765 (talk | contribs) at 02:15, 4 August 2006 (→Bishonen has not been especially patient with His excellency). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bishonen has not been especially patient with His excellency

I just realized workshop pages tend to be ignored by arbitrators once they've placed proposals there (I'm referring to an apparently unread comment at the RFAr Eternal Equinox workshop), so I'm reposting here my comment on Fred's proposed finding of fact that "Bishonen has been very patient with His excellency":

Nonsense. I'd be gratified if I were commended for general patience and good faith, but this is unjustly phrased at the expense of User:His excellency, as if he were a child to need any particular "patience with". It was no conjuring trick on my part to notice the circumstances and the kind of pressure that provoked him into the "wikiharakiris" and other gestures of frustration. IMO cause and effect lie open and visible to anybody of good faith who has studied the sequence of events, noting especially the timing of the blocks in relation to the heated comments, and noting the withdrawal of such comments, and the harsh "ownership" climate at the Islam articles. His E is rather to be commended for resilience in his efforts to negotiate the barbed wire round those articles and in continuing to edit in circumstances that have driven off so many others. User:Zora comes to mind, and I've just added my own small-scale frustration at Bernard Lewis in my evidence section, as an unimportant but illustrative example. The arbcom needs to consider the toll such a climate takes on the temper of the pushed-out "outsider". I feel distinctly less pleasant for the experience myself. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Non-rhetorical question: have you ever stopped to ask yourself how you'd feel were you one of the editors attacked by "His excellency"? I'd be curious to hear your answer.Timothy Usher 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said in Workshop to this duplicate message: H.E. began his campaign of "frustrated" vile personal attacks long before he came near the Islam articles, as my evidence section clearly shows (read the section on his attacks against Celestianpower for some choice quotes). He was not transformed from a decent, hardworking editor because of any "barbed-wire" fence - he brought the same behavior with him from articles like Ann Coulter and Fox News to Islam. His behavior and his problems are solely of his own doing, and to claim otherwise is to treat him as a child instead of as a responsible adult. I honestly cannot fathom your faith in this individual. - Merzbow 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But H.E. has a point and it should be heard. Do you guys think Bishon, Zora, I and H.E. are all complaining about a completely non-existent problem? or that all the problems has its roots in H.E's personal attacks? --Aminz 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, he has engaged in a range of personal attacks and incivility far greater than anyone else has on these articles, in a manner very similar to how he behaved as Amibidhrohi on previous non-Islam articles. This is hard evidence that the real cause of H.E.'s problematic behavior lies within himself, not with the articles. Second, the positions he takes regarding issues of bias by other editors on these articles is consistently 10x more extreme than anyone else to the point where it is clear he cannot work with any other editors ("There's absolutely nothing in the realm of good faith in the works of any of the editors participating in the Islam-related articles" ). That's just one example from my "Misplaced Pages as battleground, conspiracy theories" section. I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing. - Merzbow 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are content problems. The most serious problem by far is the lack of any serious scholarship in the majority of Islam-related articles. You've got to have sourced content in order to have something to be neutral about. Otherwise, it's just the proclamation of an informal non-expert committee, and utterly useless to any serious research.

A few editors have solved this problem in a few places. Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly.

The solution is for other editors to read the sources and join the discussion in a sober-minded way to curb perceived excesses in the selection and treatment of sources in a principled and non-arbitrary manner.

"I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." - Merzbow's hit the nail on the head, as usual. Generally speaking, scholars enjoy correcting one another. The more well-informed serious-minded editors there are, of whatever persuasion, the more likely excesses will be uncovered and corrected.

It is wholly unnecessary and unproductive to observe that editors have points of view: the way to check them isn't to denounce other editors, but to inform oneself, argue the specifics, and stay involved.

Whereas more editors are needed, H.E. subverts this goal by driving other editors away. It’s entirely possible that some articles will come to reflect solely H.E.’s point of view, simply because few will be willing to undergo the treatment to which he’ll subject them. I know I’m not, and it looks like Merzbow’s not, either. No content dispute is remotely worth it.Timothy Usher 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Merzbow, I agree with you especially on the point "I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." The point is the cost actually paid. Misplaced Pages works based on consensus and not vote of majority unfortunately. If an editor doesn't want to accept the view of majority, everything stops. This will also discourage other editors. I think we should discuss this somewhere else as it seems irrelavant to this talk page. --Aminz 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Timothy, re: "Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly." Timothy, would you please kindly and for the sake of God get the Lewis book from the library and read it yourself. Just first 10-20 pages is enough. You can read it online on books.google.com or amazon.com . I *swear* that you will change your point of view. I have a roommate who has borrowed the book from me (actually by force); he says Lewis always talks bad about Iran and always praises Ottoman empire. He jokes that probably one of Lewis's Jewish ancestors have became an advisor to an Ottoman king since he says Lewis writes very good about Ottomans. (or simply compare this version of Dhimmi article with Jewish Encyclopedia's sentence that brotherhood between Ishmael and Isaac was probably the reason for the tolerance which Muslims almost universally showed to the Jews, or this . Yes at times the situation was bad (e.g. when the Ottoman empire was weak and was under threat at its borders) but that was not the general case) --Aminz 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I had read it, though not the whole book, but at least the parts to which you’re referring. The first pages are thoughtful discussion of the meaning of tolerance, the validity of judging the medieval Islamic world by modern standards, as discussed on ]. Lewis is on the mark, but I think Pecher’s right that it’s off-topic. Maybe there’s something else you had in mind. This fix, “While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe”” strikes me equally POV as what it replaced (“were reduced to the status of second-class citizens”), off-topic and more overtly argumentative. I agree, however, that the earlier version was too strident in its choice of wording. But that’s just my opinion. We could continue this discussion on Talk:Dhimmi were it not for the certainty that His excellency would take his attacks to that forum as well.Timothy Usher 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, and you do know that Lewis comments about the very phrase you referenced "the status of second-class subjects citizens(see the article) " that: "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.".

Fine, you think it was a good faith representation of source and as equally POV as "While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe". Fine, this is the second point at which I can not continue discussion. You have your POV I have mine. I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. --Aminz 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"