Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 7 July 2006

• /Archive1: January 2006 - February 2006 (mainly a heated dialogue on short-selling that I'm tired of looking at).

The Nation

Hope you're enjoying Romania. I actually have relatives there but have never been.

Anyway, on the talk page of The Nation magazine there is a renewed discussion on this left vs. liberal issue to which you contributed a while back, in case you have a sec to weigh in.--Mantanmoreland 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I put in my 2 cents. I'm barely on Misplaced Pages right now and may not be for another month or more, so I greatly appreciate it when people "ping" me on things like this. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I've clarified my vote to indicate I prefer left-liberal, by the way.--Mantanmoreland 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neighborhood boundaries

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't have a good source on that. I live in Queens, so most of what I do on that topic is from my own knowledge, but I've found that finding neighborhood info is somewhat difficult for Staten Island, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. (Manhattan is Manhattan, so of course it's adequately covered; Queens is much more defined by its neighborhoods than the other boroughs, so such information as neighborhood boundaries is more important for residents of that borough and thus is more easily found.) In any case, as I'm sure you know, "boundaries" are more often than not vague and ambiguous and are hardly ever "official." Having noted the Fordham article's lack of sources, as well as various maps I've seen online (e.g., at New York League of Conservative Voters, NYC Dept of City Planning ), it looks as if maybe someone looked at the placement of the labels "Fordham" and "Bedford Park" and judged 196th Street to be the boundary from its median position. Since you have knowledge of the area, I'd just suggest that you change the article, asserting your experience of the area, and explaining your reasoning to anyone who objects. — Larry V (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Norwood-205th Street

Well, you must have seen the cream of the crop of the NYC subway articles, since (in my opinion) most of them are very inadequate; most station articles were copied off of nycsubway.org. I'm working on them, though. I do agree that a few of the articles (New York City Subway, Times Square-42nd Street, to name two) are quite well done.

About Norwood-205th Street: One of the things that vexes me immensely is the MTA's lack of true "official" nomenclature. For instance, one would think that it would use the same station name whenever it refers to a particular station, but this is far from the truth. The Map says "Norwood–205 St," but many route info signs in Template:NYCS D stations say "To 205 St all times," and unless they've changed it very recently, the signage in the station itself declares it to be "205 Street Station." I've found this to be situation for most terminal stations that the MTA has prefixed neighborhood names for. For example:

• Harlem-148th Street (IRT Lenox Avenue Line) is signed "148th Street–Lenox Terminal"
• Wakefield-241st Street (IRT White Plains Road Line) is simply "241st Street"
• Jamaica-179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) is just "179th Street" (even on the relatively new ADA-compliant elevators)
• Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard (IND Fulton Street Line) is signed just "Lefferts Boulevard"
• Inwood-207th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) is just "207th Street"
• Bay Ridge-95th Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) is simply "95th Street"
• Eastchester-Dyre Avenue (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) is "Dyre Avenue"
• Long Island City-Court Square (IND Crosstown Line) is nothing more than "Court Square"
• Crown Heights-Utica Avenue (IRT Eastern Parkway Line) is signed "Utica Avenue"

Fewer are actually signed with the neighborhood names (e.g., Main Street-Flushing (IRT Flushing Line), Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, Ditmars Boulevard-Astoria (BMT Astoria Line), Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue (IND Rockaway Line), Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street (IND Rockaway Line), Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer (Archer Avenue Line)).

For article titles I prefer to go with the most commonly used variant of the name (in this case, "Norwood–205th Street"), but in the infobox and within the article itself, I lean towards using the name signed in the station itself ("205th Street"). In cases where the signage and the common name are equivalent ... well, there aren't any problems there, obviously.

— Larry V (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Hello, thank you for voting there is a discussion at the +cats Category talk:Anti-Semitic people talk page. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion that I change my vote. The vote to keep is prevailing thus far 34-35 to 24, so my vote wouldn't matter much. I think that the potential for abuse of these categories as User:Kasreyn pointed out are reason enough to leave my vote as it is. I do think that there are people that should be in this category, however. Hitler is one of these obviously. I think that Ku Klux Klansmen should be put into it. I just think that the jury is still out on Luther. I am opposed to anti-Semitism. I like the Jewish religion and tradition, and perhaps I should be a little more concerned about anti-semitic writing over the years. If it comes up for a vote again in the future I will simply abstain perhaps, deferring to my Wikipeers who have seen fit to retain it. Thank you for your clear thinking and advice. All the best, --Drboisclair 01:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. My understanding is that admins are not required to go by literal vote tallies, and are allowed to give "more weight" to opinions they feel are better put. In general, those who put forward a consistent and rational defense of their position are given greater weight than those who simply say "keep" or "delete" and move on. Best wishes, Kasreyn 22:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This was my response to your comment on my talk page: It was a difficult personal struggle for me as a Lutheran and a Luther scholar. It is always difficult when our "heroes" are found to have feet of clay and black eyes. I reacted subjectively and not with the objectivity of the scholastic. --Drboisclair 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my latest addition to the talk page of this category. I think that you very well understand me as a reformed edit warrior, because that is what I have been. I have also posted the note onto Doright's page. It's time to let bygones be bygones. Take care,--Drboisclair 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comments too -- you have my admiration.--Mantanmoreland 02:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your kind word and Wikifriendship

My good Wikifriend and fellow editor, thankyou for your kind words. I have not been very successful through life financially, and I have not been able to secure a graduate doctorate, which I think I have the competence for: I may apply for admission to my seminary's doctoral propram since there is a new Director of Graduate Studies there. That having been said, I have to say that it is kind wishes of my Wikipeers like you that make me feel like my life has been worthwhile. I know that this sounds a bit over the top, but when you reach 50 years old the goals that you had in life when you were 21 begin to fade. In short, thank you. I think that the heated debates on this website help us meet new friends. I now think that I have some very warm Wikifriendships now. CTS, StanZegel, you, Archola, Kasreyn are folks that the Wikicyberspace has put the old boy in touch with. I look forward to exciting online give and take.--Drboisclair 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

What is helpful in meeting new friends is to get new perspectives. As far as Luther is concerned someone with his graduate masters from Concordia Seminary may not read or hear too much about what scholars on antisemitism are saying about Luther. This, I think, is why my stance was so unbelievable to someone like Slim Virgin, who is more well-read in contemporary non-fiction than I am, and can see the universality in which contemporary authors find Luther to be an antisemitic person. With Slim's dedication to NPOV this can be the only explanation. In your coming on the scene with Kasreyn, you have been able to put a "kindlier, gentler" face on this matter. For me, JPGordon's views were also decisive. CTSWyneken and myself have really had a crash course on Luther and antisemitism. We have been hitting the books. It has been a growing experience in more ways than one! I wanted you to know all of this. Sorry for the length.--Drboisclair 13:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pelham Parkway, IRT Dyre Avenue Line station

Hey, I figured since you've lived in the Bronx, you could answer me this trivial question. What neighborhood would you consider Pelham Parkway (IRT Dyre Avenue Line) station to be in? It is located at Pelham Parkway and Williamsbridge Road (MapQuest map). I'm thinking Morris Park, but I'm not sure, being more of a Queens guy myself. Thanks in advance. — Larry V (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the basic impression I got, that it was kind of on a boundary, but I wasn't sure. Thanks! — Larry V (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad the Anti-Semite

Thank you for your comment on my talkpage... What should be an obvious fact for any rational person is somehow "controversial" for some islamic apologist Misplaced Pages editors --FairNBalanced 19:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, MM. FYI, Sarastro777 violated 3RR (as well as many other WP:RULES) and is banned for 24hrs. ←Humus sapiens 23:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Marble Hill

I had the impression that Marble Hill was simply part of the Bronx in a physical sense, but still part of Manhattan and New York County. Maybe it should be mentioned that it's the only part of Manhattan on the mainland though. — Larry V (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, it's probably too minor of an issue to mention on that particular page. — Larry V (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for comments

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. This issue is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#User:Israel shamir - anti-semitism and personal attacks.Timothy Usher 06:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Miscarriage of justice

This whole FNB business seems to be just an opportunity for certain editors to congratulate themselves for being so tolerant and compassionate in theory by being intolerant and uncompassionate in practice. It's patheitc that wikipedia editors trip over one another to enforce taboos on pigs and the purportedly sacred character of Arabic script.Timothy Usher 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

It's not just Ahmadinejad supporters who translate it differently. I've cleaned up the text to make it more factual. In the end, it's a rather silly debate; whether he said that Israel needs to be "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from the "map" or "pages of history", it all means the same thing. These tiny quibbles over words show that the translators themselves are ignoring the real issue. Jayjg 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it is too long. The section is a summary, so the whole thing should be smaller. The problem is, Ahmadinejad apologists keep finding it, and not liking what they see, so they then insert various defenses of him into it. Another thing that needs fixing is that people keep trying to conflate his Holocaust denial with his calls to destroy Israel, as if they were the same thing. The Holocaust material in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel article needs to be moved to an Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial article. Jayjg 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Well I yanked the Holocaust stuff out of the Israel section." I'm not sure what you mean by that. Jayjg 21:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, but somebody immediately messed it up again. Jayjg 01:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of section title: "Relationship between religious and racial anti-Semitism"

Please take a look . --Doright 19:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland, lenght of what?--Doright 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mantanmoreland, "Who is on first." ;) I think we have some confusion here. I'm not sure we are talking about the same "it." I am referring to a title. What are you referring to when you say, "it seemed at first blush to be a bit long?" The "it" I'm looking at is only 6 words. --Doright 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Wikipedians' notice board

It is indeed an unabashed vote-stacking and revert-solicitation system, which is, sadly, a rule rather than an exception on Misplaced Pages. However, the treatement of such projects depends on their political orientation. Conservative noticeboartd was speedily deleted and protected among the calls "salt the earth!" An attempt to delete the LGBT notice board went nowhere. Thus, I doubt that anything could be done to the Iranians' page. Pecher 06:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the situation is that a notice board will hardly be assailable if it is devoted to a certain encyclopedic topic. I'm not sure that a "tolerance" notice board will qualify as such. Pecher 11:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at Misplaced Pages:Regional_notice_boards. For some reason, these are deemed acceptable, and of course, LGBT notice board is also beyond criticism. Upon reflection, I must say that Misplaced Pages:Jewish_wikipedians_notice_board may be worth a try, even though screams of a "cabal" will become even louder. Pecher 12:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to talk awhile responding, I've been busy with other things. Pecher is right, on all counts.

Stop by my talk page anytime..Timothy Usher 06:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

83.91.187.9 at Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

I'm not sure what can be done with this IP editor any more. He's set on reverting to his version, and seems impervious to the content policies, insisting that he must publish "the truth" instead (as he sees it). The current version gives a nice chronological listing of events, and I can't see what else to do at this point but revert him. Do you have any ideas? Jayjg 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind e-mailing me? Jayjg 15:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your removal of the dispute flag from Cat ASP

Hi Mantanmoreland, I noticed that you removed the flag from the Category:Anti-Semitic People. That makes a difference to me in that I trust your judgment in this, so I just wanted to tell you that I would not revert and put the tag back on. I take it that you feel that there is no longer any dispute. As User:Pecher has told me that the burden of proof is on those of us who dispute it and did not answer my request that he/she in a friendly way show me why the tag should be removed, I thought that you wouldn't mind sharing with me why you think that the tag should be removed. Considering that this would be coming from you, you may persuade me about the just and fair reason to have this category as it stands named in Misplaced Pages.--Drboisclair 19:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to your courteous words on my talk page. You and I are on the same wavelength, I think. Your help is much appreciated.--Drboisclair 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I may want to continue the dialogue on this category, but I will not put up the dispute flag. I think that it is helpful that you and other fair-minded editors maintain the "pro" side of this discussion courteously. I notice, though, that there are some editors who have the same view of this category for the same reasons as I do, and I would explore that in terms of how the category relates to things like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, etc. I am glad, though, that you are monitoring the placing of people into this category because you will not permit any egregious actions. I do oppose maintaining the "con" side of the debate stronghandedly. Thank you for being in the ongoing work here. Cordially,--Drboisclair 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On the Jews and Their Lies

Please take a look at user Doright's recent addition here. I'm curious as to what you think of it. --CTSWyneken 11:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most scholars, Lutherans included, view it as either a vile anti-semitic or venomous anti-Judaic piece. The most... ever... is a bit OR without quotation marks and probably the opinion of one author. More anti-semitic than, say, oh, Mein Kampf?? KKK lit? And how would we know? --CTSWyneken 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll likely do that. A simple "so-and-so says..." would fix it. As far as its resonance, it only resonated in the late 19th and 20th Century. If you'd like I can send you the Wallmann article via email so you can examine the data that supports that contention and judge for yourself. --CTSWyneken 16:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Doright has reverted you. It appears they were OR weasel words. --CTSWyneken 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've done that before. It was deleted. --CTSWyneken 17:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Anyway, I think this subject should probably be discussed on the talk page of the article as I indicated. Frankly I think the current version -- single quote linked -- is fine.--Mantanmoreland 17:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears Doright does not think so. I do not have time for a major expansion, but when I do, I will either do that or put the POV flag back. --CTS Wyneken 11:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either a "major expansion" or POV flag is warranted. He simply added another source (and an undeniably authoritative one), as you yourself suggested on the Talk page.--Mantanmoreland 12:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It does convey the impression that there is more consensus on this issue than there is. Slim's adjustment of his added statement in the intro helps, but it needs to be clear it is the opinion of that scholar only. When time permits, I'll substitute the scholar's name for the 'it is thought' clause.

Right now, the major problem is that it makes this obnoxious document is more important than it actually is. To fix that will take an addition of the history of its' non-use for four centuries. --CTS Wyneken 13:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that it does make the book more important than it appears. Again, I am not an expert on the subject but am just a layperson reading the article and citations.--Mantanmoreland 13:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that not all of the scholarship on the issue is there by a longshot. For example, deleted from this article completely is an essay that carefully explored the influence of On the Jews. It concluded that the work was more or less ignored in the 20 yrs following his death, resurrected by one follower with limited effect at that date, republished once and awhile for a few years and then... from the early 17th century to the late 19th, not mentioned at all, even by rabid antisemites. His "That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew" was the predominant one until the rise of German nationalism, eugenics and Hitler. When the book was discovered by the Nazis, they lamented it was so unknown. This was chronologically after the beginnings of their evil ideology. I think one of us will try again to summarize it and put it there. Until then, the article exaults a book that should go back into absurity. --CTS Wyneken 02:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with that essay for the reasons I stated on the talk page. It droned on far too long and spends far too much time attempting to shift attention to another anti-Semite. It struck me as special pleading, whitewashing and minimization all rolled into one. It needs to be either briefly summarized or not mentioned at all. Yes, I realize that while modern day admirers of Luther would like for this book to be "go back into absurdity," it is not the role of Misplaced Pages to accomplish that objective by skewing the POV of this article.--Mantanmoreland 14:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you get a copy? If you did and you read it, you will notice that it is not whitewashing in any way. It gives the results of historical research. It is not favorable to Luther. Wallmann deplores the use of Luther in the 20th Century. I don't like how some editor before you came on the scene edited the Halsall quotation to push his slanted POV without allowing the material that showed the wider evidence of medieval anti-semitism to come through. It is a deliberate POV to bash Luther, and distort history. I believe you to be a more objective scholar, but I think that you need to weigh material before you dismiss it out of hand. The article does not "drone on". Just because it shows the inadequacy of modern opinions about Luther's anti-Jewish writings is no reason to dismiss it. All people like Michael do are read the documents themselves. They are not familiar with the documentary history. All the indictment against Luther comes with the material on H-Antisemitism website, and is the views of one scholar. By this I mean the ones that put all the blame on Luther for Nazism. Is what is verifiably factual whitewashing? When this material is suppressed it comes very close to making Misplaced Pages a propaganda source for a certain POV. I know that that can go both ways. Don't dismiss Wallmann simply because you disagree with him.--Drboisclair 16:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is fast becoming unencyclopedic and needs to be summarized. I tried, but then it became the subject of still more adds as each side tried to buttress its position. I am fast becoming fatigued with the whole thing.--Mantanmoreland 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. It would be helpful if you read the article by Wallmann to give an objective digestion of its contents. I trust what I believe to be your unbiased judgment.--Drboisclair 16:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is not online. I have no way of knowing if it was fairly quoted or excerpted. --Mantanmoreland 21:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The qualifier in that Halsall quote on On the Jews and Their Lies

I think that the qualifier is needed there to describe what Halsall is saying. If you do not have it, you are not pointing out the role of medieval anti-Semitism. I think that it should be returned.--Drboisclair 20:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it was good of you to remove the bit about medieval Chr. A.S. I think that the way I have it now is the way it should be. Please look at it at your leisure.--Drboisclair 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Replacing LCMS Statement

Dear Mantanmoreland: On what basis do you conclude the ELCA statement is more significant? You'd expect sensitivity from a liberal church body. But from a large conservative one? --CTS Wyneken 17:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nationwide body vs. regional one. Also the Missouri statement, as you know, was as much a defense of Luther as a repudiation. It was clearly placed in that section specifically for the purpose of defending him from the anti-Semite charge that is a hot button with some editors. --Mantanmoreland 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The Missouri Synod, is not a regional body at all. It is a national body of 2.3 million members and over 6,000 clergy and congregations. Before spinning off international districts (The Lutheran Church-Canada and a sister church in Brazil) it was international. It owns over a dozen small Universities and two seminaries. Please take a moment to learn a little about us before you make assumptions. It comes off as disrespect, one of the things that pushes my buttons and others.

You are also, once again, ascribing motives to editors which may or may not be true. In the case of me, it is not true. I have two reasons for wanting our resolution in. One is that we are distinct from the ELCA and do not want the confusion to reign. Second, the resolution is exactly what we say it is -- a rupudiation of Luther's anti-semitic works. It should not surprise anyone that we value much of Luther's contributions. For me, none of this direct quotation is necessary. If you are offended by our statement, then lets go back to the original summary, which in itself is a negotiated text. --CTS Wyneken 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns that I previously raised, I am concerned about editors writing on subjects in which they are personally involved, and the extent to which that only makes it harder to maintain a neutral tone and POV. Your personal involvement in this matter simply illustrates my point. The fact that one editor who is on "your side" in this issue has gone off his nut and is on a vandalism spree this evening has only confirmed my beliefs in this regard.--Mantanmoreland 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

--Mantanmoreland 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)== Please stop unilaterally editing the Martin Luther article ==

Mantan, please do not unilaterally edit the Luther article. This is not fair to other editors although it is your privilege on this website.--Drboisclair 03:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

"Unilaterally edit"? I'll have the wife sit with me next time.--Mantanmoreland 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it has come to this on this website. This is a sad day.--Drboisclair 04:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to what? "Unilateral editing" (whatever that is)? Focus on the edits, please.--Mantanmoreland 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Come to a potential edit war. I think that MPerel is right about the paragraph in the ML intro. It should be returned to the end of the paragraph.--Drboisclair 04:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is being discussed in the talk page, so go there to discuss. Not here.--Mantanmoreland 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know, but there was other matter in the postings above that may not have been germane to the ML talk page.--Drboisclair 04:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The encounter group is closed for the night.--Mantanmoreland 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lutheran doctrines of the orders of creation

You may find some explanatory power in the Lutheran doctrines of the orders of creation and its connection to Lutheran racism (including antisemitism), Luther and the Nazis, etc. --Doright 06:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this slander is unfit for this website. Lutherans and Lutheranism is not racisitic. --Drboisclair 14:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not "slander" to make a comment on an article. If you cannot withstand vigorous discussion of an article that contains historical elements related to anti-Semitism, do not participate in the editing or discussion of the article. Do not make manipulative, false charges of "slander" when no one was "slandered."--Mantanmoreland 15:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Lutheran doctrine is slandered by user:Doright here, but since it is Lutheran doctrine, it doesn't matter. So much for WP:CIVIL.--Drboisclair 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL prohibits comments personally directed at editors, so to my way of thinking the violator of that policy is yourself. If you have a bone to pick with Doright's analysis, say so -- preferably on his user page. Don't disrupt mine with yet another attack on this editor with whom you have a long history. WP:POINT--Mantanmoreland 15:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is where the matter is being discussed, so it is fair game to place comments here related to it.--Drboisclair 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Take it to a more appropriate venue, please.--Mantanmoreland 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA Warning re: Talk:Martin Luther#intro

Hello, I'm ]. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Misplaced Pages is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. --CTS Wyneken 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no personal attack. Reporting -- in the context of a discussion, started by someone else, of supposed user religious prejudice -- that I had received an email from an editor that contained vicious anti-Semitic comments, such as that certain named Jewish administrators were making "anti-Luther" comments in the Martin Luther article, is not a "personal attack." I did not name that editor. However, if it is permitted by Misplaced Pages poilicy I will post that email in full, and include the name of the editor, so that its contents may be judged by the community.

Please don't clog my user page with meritless accusations. They are disruptive.WP:POINT.--Mantanmoreland 16:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling users "bigots" is a personal attack. Please stop this. It would also be nice if you would return to content issues. --CTS Wyneken 16:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask a neutral party if such is a personal attack. There are ways of reporting unpleasant behavior without returning the attack. --CTS Wyneken 16:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If an editor states that certain named "Jewish administrators" are prejudiced against Martin Luther, in my view the unecessary "Jewish" label indicates that that person is a bigot. I did not name the editor, but I would be happy to do so if that editor gives permission or if it is allowed by Wiki policies. An editor raised the issue of bias among editors. It was on-point.

He claimed, without proper cause, that certain editors were "anti-Lutheran." Apparently you don't feel that is a personal attack. But it is a personal attack for me to respond that an editor expressed anti-Semitic views in an email to me, and in my view that unnamed editor is a bigot. Let's not play games, CTS.

I would appreciate some guidance from an aadministrator as to whether it is permissable for me to identify the editor, so that this whole matter can be fully aired.

As per my formal warning, please don't disrupt my user page with meritless, manipulative allegations aimed at silencing discussion.--Mantanmoreland 16:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, and without naming the bigot who sent me this email, an editor sent me an email saying, inter alia, that "I think that Jewish admins like and edit these pages simply to make Luther look worse than he is."

I was surprised to read that these adminstrators were "Jewish," as that is not evident from their user pages. In any event, in my opinion this mention of their religious or ethnic background was not only deeply offensive to me personally (and I am not Jewish) but should be offensive to everyone.

Yes, CTS, I welcome more opinions as to whether my characterizing this edtior as a bigot, for this and other such comments, was a personal attack even though I did not name the editor. CTS, I would like your opinion of this remark as well. Does it offend you? Do you associate yourself with those remarks? I have more, if you want to read them.

Remember, I raised the issue of these emails in response to an editor's allegation that certain editors were "anti-Lutheran." In my view, the greater issue is feelings of thee kind expressed in this email. --Mantanmoreland 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all the talk of Jewish editors forming some kind of cabal is uncalled for. What I'm asking is that, as difficult as it is, you keep editors out of your posts. Let's focus on the articles at hand. It never helps to call names, even if justified. It just antagonizes them.

But there is another side to this. Please go back and read the posts, assuming you are a Lutheran. How would you take them? I took them as follows: our integrity was questioned, we do not know what our church body teaches, our church is insignificant. At the very best, it is not likely to win friends when, as a another editor did, that the sincere words of a Church Body, approved in a convention are inferior and substandard. These are kinds of comments are likely to set off some editors, who certainly do not need much urging to be set off in any case. If you have a bone to pick, take it up with the editor or an admin or find to people to swear out an RfC.

When you came to the On the Jews and Their Lies article, you did a fine job of balancing all the issues and treated all at hand with respect. What I'm asking for is that return to that model. Leave editors, the motives you think they have, the biases you think they have, etc. out of it. If you think a text is biased, cite the specific text and why you think it's biased. Please receive the reply charitably, no matter what you think of it and the reasons you think are behind it. If this can be done, then I'm convinced we can work together. --CTS Wyneken 19:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, CTS. I am not the one who commenced a discussion on the Martin Luther talk page of supposed editor religious prejudice. That was commenced by Drboisclair, impugning the motive of editors who disagree with him by saying that such and such "is the view of those who have a strong POV against Luther and Lutherans."

I have seen similar irresponsible, manipulative comments made in the past in Martin Luther-related articles. They are a real problem and I have spoken out on the subject in hte past.

Drboisclairthen stated "Jewish POV is acceptable, Lutheran POV is not. That is what is going on here."

These are appalling comments.

I responded to this ugliness by pointing out, inter alia, that bigoted remarks were made to me in an edit summary and private emails by two separate editors. Rather than condemning or apologizing for them, you and Drobisclair compound matters by screaming "personal attack."

You show no outward expression of dismay at comments of the kind I just quoted when expressed by people who are allies with your position on Martin Luther, but jump up and down at even the slightest hint of lack of sympathy toward Luther. So please spare me the condescending lectures. --Mantanmoreland 19:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The observation goes both ways. Since we are not getting anywhere, go ahead and have the last word. I'll not continue if you are not willing to see why you had such a negative response to your recent comments. --CTS Wyneken 19:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the obvious reason, further indicated by the vandalism spree last night, that there are certain editors who are overly wrapped up in the subject of Martin Luther, who pretty much are here for the purpose of editing stories related to Martin Luther, and who are famously intolerant of any viewpoint they see as hostile to Martin Luther. Added on to that, as I have noted, is that at least two editors are clearly anti-Semitic. (Again, I am not Jewish, and this is no skin off my posterior -- I am stating a fact.)

I note that you won't come within a mile of that subject. Why is that? Again, I am more than happy to give you the full details if you desire them. --Mantanmoreland 19:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Thank you for your comments and insights. As a reminder, the Misplaced Pages policy on vandalism is pretty specific. It states: Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Certainly I respect your opinion, but can't see how my contributions meet this standard. If you disagree, please list your specific concerns here. Let the truth be told. 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)