User talk:Godfrey Daniel

 ''Hi, and welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting   at the end. Feel free to talk with me about any of the topics listed here, or on any topic for a page where I've made changes. Since I am (amongst other things) a writer and have extensive editing experience, many of the changes I make are for style or clarity, so I don't claim expertise for all the topics for which I've edited pages. [ Start a new talk topic.]''

Templates
cite news:

refs: on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karm a  fist  19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Small intervention request on the Japanese version of Wikipedia
Dear Daniel, In the light of the present debate occuring in the Holocaust Denial article talk page, and the fact several arguments in favor or Revisionism come from the Japanese version of the article on the Holocaust, I hereby request you cooperation in delivering the following message to our fellow Japanese editors, in regard to the verifiability of their claims and the apropriate use of footnoting: In the "Doubts about the Holocaust" section of the Holocaust article, the Japanese editors mention, in point ten, the role played by the International Red Cross, namely the fact they directly supervised the Concentration camps from February 1943 to 1945 and that forced laborers were given at least 2750 kcals/day. Aditionally, point 11, mentions the celebration of wedding ceremonies, the birth of over 3,000 children and even the presence of a creche in the camp's premises. While all this is relevant information, there is hardly an footnoting at all. Where is the 1944 Red Cross report mentioned in the article? Where can it be found? Under normal circunstances I wouldn't be bothering you with this request, but given your credicials as a capable biglot, I believe this to be the most apropriate course of action, due to my inability to write in Japanese (I can only read). Earnestly waiting for an asnwer, Ishikawa Minoru 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for thinking of me. I'm sorry, but I've scaled back my Wikipedia participation. While I appreciate your concerns, and wish I had the time to help you, I'm afraid that I won't be able to do anything about this. Still, I wish you the best of luck in getting your point presented, and in creating a better article. Godfrey Daniel 22:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Civil Practices
I won't be making much of an argument in terms of the list itself here; as, like I said, you can continue the argument there if you want to continue, but I'll be making some very pertinent points here: First, breaking up two parts of a person's point to make them look stubborn is pathetic. I said it can't be added, and then went on to explain why. Isolating the first sentence to make it look like I'm saying, "because I say so" is intentionally misinterpreting. Second, it doesn't matter who is or isn't an expert on terrorism. The list isn't of possible terrorist incidents. All entries need to be pretty cut-and-dry. It's essentially a list of 'accepted' terrorist incidents. If there's bloody good reason to question whether or not the tag fits, or if there's enough citable evidence to say that it isn't generally accepted as such, then you'd at least need a much stronger argument than, "but he's a muslim". Third, stop the bloody racism. I made a very simple point: An action either is or isn't terrorism. A non-terrorist action doesn't become terrorism just because a muslim commits it. A terrorist action doesn't cease being terrorism just because you find out he wasn't a muslim. I'll say it again. If you aren't capable of making a case without using his religion, then you have no case. Fourth, again, stop the bloody racism. I don't care about the history of islam. I don't care if muhammed said, "smite ye all the jews, and while you're at it, fly some planes into as many buildings as possible!" It's immaterial. It's a tangent. And, frankly, it's disgusting. If you want to try adding it to the list, then take it to the talk page first. If you want to try making any more arguments, then stop using, "but islam is violent" as a justification for any argument. Sweeping accusations about a religion do nothing to prove your point. And you should really be careful about making such despicable sweeping statements, and unrelated racism, as it's likely to get you banned eventually. Bladestorm 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts.


 * Moslems are not a race, so how can criticism of them be racist? Or is all criticism of Moslems inherently "racist"?


 * Is stating historical fact "racist"?


 * Do you consider it irrelevant that most current-day terrorists are Moslems? (Of course, I know that the vast majority of Moslems are not terrorists.) Is there not the hint of a possibility that there is a connection between their religion and their actions? Or am I being "racist" again?


 * May I suggest that you try to learn something about Islam? Islam has a long history, and I'm sure you could pick out the patterns in it. I'm just summing them up.


 * Truth be told, it's zealots like you that have turned me off from Wikipedia. I'll keep coming back, but, if you like, you can turn me away again with your continued apologetics for terrorists. Even better, turn me in to Jimbo as a "racist." I'm sure that the suppression of dissenting opinions is in keeping with your worldview of "tolerance" and "diversity."


 * Ta! Godfrey Daniel 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Holy crap, this is insane.
 * I know that muslims aren't a race. Though it's my first and only tongue, I still freely acknowledge that the english language is pretty crappy, and doesn't make it easy to make such distinctions. But that's splitting hairs and you know it.
 * No, historical fact isn't racist.
 * No, it isn't irrelevant that most modern-day terrorists are muslims.
 * No, I'm not a zealot just because I stick to facts rather than bigoted prejudice.
 * Here's the difference:
 * Saying that a person's religion contributed to their behaviour: Observation.
 * Saying that, yes, a person must be a terrorist solely because of their religion: Bigotry.
 * See the difference? I was saying it didn't fit the description, and that you should be able to classify an event one way or the other solely on the merits of the facts at hand; that directly pertain to the event. Adding in, "yeah, but he's muslim!" doens't really strengthen your point. And it's disgusting.
 * But, seriously, what type of zealot do you think I am? Islamic Fascist? I'm not muslim. Overly PC-hippie? I'm not PC, and I'm not a liberal. I just don't believe in bigotry, prejudice, or allowing personal predispositions enter into logical arguments.
 * And I have little desire to turn you in to anyone. I don't think anyone would care about your bigotry. Everyone has biases, some minor, some major. I have a buttload of them. I just don't let them interfere with rational arguments. Bladestorm 15:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now we're getting somewhere! I like you a lot more now than I did before. You're obviously much smarter, and more mature, than I thought, and I apologize for my underestimation of you.


 * First, I took your suggestion to heart, and argued my point(s) on the talk page, without mentioning Islam (except in quotes). Thank you for the suggestion; I believe it makes for a fuller argument.


 * To address what I believe is your main point:


 * You are asserting that bringing up a person's religion in association with their actions is bigotry (you were asserting it was racist, but have since altered your choice of words). The correct response to this assertion is: it depends.


 * To say that David Berkowitz (aka the Son of Sam) was motivated by his religion is ludicrous, because Judaism does not promote or sanction murder, and because he is known to be mentally ill.


 * To say that Adolf Hitler was motivated by his religion is equally ridiculous, because his actions were clearly out of line with Christian belief and practice. Furthermore, Christians repudiate him and his actions.


 * Things get trickier with Moslems. I've already stated I don't believe that every criminal act committed by a Moslem is automatically connected with their religion. That would certainly be a bigoted position. What I have been saying all along is that certain kinds of acts by Moslems may very well be inspired by their religion. If you don't believe me, just look at what Osama bin Laden and his ilk say. They quote the Koran as justification--and the verses they quote support their position unambiguously. They're doing exactly what Islam commands of them. Furthermore, while some Moslems may be opposed to terrorism and other acts of violence committed by their co-religionists, I have never heard them condemn such acts as un-Islamic. The reason they haven't is simple: the Koran supports the interpretation of the terrorists.


 * If you read the Koran (as I have), you will find passages explicitly urging Moslems to convert or kill the infidel (i.e., non-Moslems). ("People of the Book"—Jews and Christians—get a third option: living as third-class citizens if they pay jizya, which is more or less the same as "protection" money paid to the Mafia.) Going beyond that, one has to understand the interpretive traditions of Islam. There are two important principles. One is that Moslems believe the Koran to be the verbatim word of Allah (who, incidentally, should not be confused with the Judeo-Christian God), and that it therefore must be read literally. The second is that the Koran was "revealed" over a period of years, and that when there are later passages which contradict earlier passages, the later passages abrogate the older ones and are authoratative.


 * Now, consider that throughout Islamic history, Jews have been the special targets of Islamic scorn--and violence. Consider that this scorn and violence are part of Islamic doctrine, in both the Koran and the traditions known as the hadiths, which are non-Koranic sources on Mohammed and commentaries on Islam. Consider this hadith:


 * "...Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him..." (Salih Muslim 041:6985, accessed here, the USC-MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts)


 * In this light, the murderer's religion is highly relevant. Mentioning that this murderer is a Moslem is not bigotry; it serves to deepen our understanding of the motivation for the crime.


 * Now, I know the standard responses. I will debunk them.
 * "That's just one line in one hadith." Yes, and there are scores of others that support it.
 * "Moslems aren't the only ones being violent; Christians do it, too." Yes, and their fellow Christians condemn those acts as being non-Christian. In contrast, Moslems do not condemn their fellow Moslems for the violence they commit.
 * "Some Christians have used the Bible to justify violence, too." Yes, they have. But if you read the Bible, you'll see that it doesn't actually support or condone violence. On the other hand, the Koran exhorts its followers to violence.
 * "The Old Testament is pretty bloodthirsty, too." Yes, but in the modern world, neither Christians nor Jews are quoting it as justification for their violence, but Moslems do quote the Koran to justify theirs. Unlike the Koran, the Old Testament doesn't preach jihad against all others, does not preach the centrality of war, and nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments are there sections that abrogate all the benevolence promoted elsewhere in those books. Finally, Jews and Christians aren't quoting scripture before blowing themselves up; in fact, they aren't blowing themselves up at all. That's because it's only the Koran that promises paradise for those who die while fighting the infidel.


 * Finally, one of the reasons I dismissed you earlier was your use of the hyperbolic term "racist." In modern parlance, all it means is "your views are so different from my own liberal ideology that I refuse to even deal with you." Like the Communists who clamped down on all expressions of dissent, the "racist" label serves only to shelter the PC status quo from examination.


 * Having said that, I will happily concede that there are, indeed, racists and bigots (like David Duke and Jimmy Carter), and they deserve no place in civilized discourse. However, I find that the "racist" smear is applied to anyone who even questions any modern PC belief. For example, the conventional wisdom holds that all religions are "equal," and that criticizing someone on the basis of their religion is wrong. However, when you start to examine some of the tenets of Islam, like "holy" war, sanctified hostility towards non-Moslems, subjugation of women, oppression of non-Moslems, suppresion of free speech, barbaric punishments, and the like, you begin to see that many Islamic values are incompatible with Western values. So while none of these points may seem immediately relevant to the issue at hand--whether or not the murders at the Seattle Jewish Center were terrorism--when seen from the larger perspective of Islamic doctrine and history, they are. And for pointing that out, I'm a racist--well, now a bigot.


 * So, am I still a bigot? Godfrey Daniel 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Macrons, etc, cleanup of martial arts articles
I noticed your edits to the Shito-ryu article. I have been fighting a losing battle for ages trying to get martial arts articles to conform to a standard of romanization, italicizing foreign words, etc. Your help is much appreciated. Keep up the good work! LordAmeth (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Actually, having gotten tired of fighting left-wing ideology (see exchanges above), I rarely do content anymore, but am happy to lend my editorial experience to make articles easier to read and more accurate. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand and agree completely. I stopped editing anything related to the State of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict ages ago. I have experienced much frustration on Wikipedia as the result of debates with pro-Chinese, pro-Korean, or otherwise anti-Japanese editors, and took a lengthy break as a result. For what it's worth, I'm with you on this. Thanks again. LordAmeth (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I browsed your talk page, and noticed that we are both IUC graduates. Small world! I received some education in Japanese art history as an exchange student at Waseda, though I'm sure I don't know half what you do. Are you still in grad school, or have you gotten out? I got my Ph.D. some years ago, and am in a semi-academic position now.


 * In any case, I hope we can work together to make Wikipedia a better resource. Godfrey Daniel (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Julius Ford for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Julius Ford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael Julius Ford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)