Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WHEELER

Evidence of organized effort against WHEELER
Sam [Spade] 03:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 03:22:55 User talk:Jwrosenzweig . . AndyL (Talk) (WHEELER)
 * 03:22:02 User talk:172 . . AndyL (Talk) (WHEELER complaint)
 * 03:21:13 User talk:John Kenney . . AndyL (Talk) (WHEELER complaint)
 * 03:17:36 User talk:Adam Carr . . AndyL (Talk) (WHEELER complaint)

Another example!
WHEELER's comment on the request for comment page is a perfect example of anti-Semitism: "any criticism is laid against the Jews, they are labelled AntiSemetic" Slrubenstein

I think he meant, "anytime someone criticizes the Jews, that person is labelled anti-Semetic." I don't this statement in itself is Anti-Semetic. Just my opinion. --DanielCD 19:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OF COURSE that's what he meant. It's the same with blacks, gays, women, etc. Anytime a white male criticizes someone of a minority group, he is AUTOMATICALLY BRANDED a racist. This is obviously what's happened with WHEELER. His "comments" were facts, and a Jew didn't like that he was saying something "negative" (but oh so true) about the Jews! Do the Germans get pissed when people talk about what mindless tools they were under Hitler? No! Why should they? It's the truth--they WERE tools! The fact that Andy gets pissed over a similar factual comment shows that it's HE who is a pro-Jewish racist and who feels non-Jews are inferior to him!152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It is anti-Semitic. "The Jews" are not one collective unilateral body.  We don't all hang out together, we don't all think the same thoughts, or do the same thing.


 * Neither are the blacks or the gays. But, that doesn't prevent things like "BET" or "queer culture" from existing.  "The Jews" ARE a culture, just as "The Germans" are.  If "The Germans" could be held responsible for Nazism, and "The Soviets" could be held responsible for Communism, and "The Muslim World" could be held responsible for terrorism and fanaticism, and "The White Man" can be held responsible for killing Indians and enslaving blacks, and Bill Cosby can hold "the black community" responsible for "its lack of wealth and knowledge", then, YES, we can also hold "THE JEWS" responible for something their community did!152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can't criticize one whole group of people as if it were one entity. That's called a generlization at best and predjudice at worst. In fact the Nazis did the same thing.


 * Are you making a generalization of the entire Nazi culture now?152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They had a policy called "collective responsibility." Say that a small group of Jews escaped from a camp. Well then other Jews would suffer more and be blamed for the escape, as since they were Jews as well, they were responsible for the entire Jewish collective. When anyone ever attempts to sling mud at a group of people that is essentially racism, anti-Semitism, etc. An entire group of people are not responsible for the actions of individuals, thus it is wrong to fault them for such. StoptheBus18 21:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * And, to date, Jews continue this "collectivism" with such crap as that they're "the chosen people", the Holy Land is "theirs" from God, Muslims are "infidels", etc, etc. Those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones!  THIS is the very point that WHEELER was making.  It's acceptable to generalize the European peoples and cultures, the American culture and people, the white man, straight people, Christians, etc.  But if a MINORITY group is generalized against, all hell breaks loose!  If Bill Cosby was not black and said what he had to say about the black culture, you expect me to believe Jesse Jackson wouldn't be on top of his ass crying "racist!" every chance he got!  The world's full of hypocrites.  People like me, WHEELER, and Rienzo are not such people--we're real, we stand up for ourselves, our beliefs, and our cultures.  People like you and Hyacinth, whiney minority members, think you're better than "us" (whatever "us" is) because of our non-minority status, and immediately assume ALL non-minorities are bigots, as you did with WHEELER and Hyacinth has done with Rienzo, and likely me too!  THIS BELIEF OF YOURS IN ITSELF IS A RACIST BELIEF!  YOU'VE PROVED WHEELER'S POINT, HANDS DOWN!

He's also accusing "Jewish Bolsheviks" of destroying the Russian Orthodox Church which sounds to me like the old trope about the Bolsheviks being a Jewish entity, the Bolshevik Revolution a Jewish plot etc, etc. AndyL 21:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Given that and the context, it probably is anti-Semitic.--DanielCD 14:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In his summary, WHEELER writes, "I am only pointing out his inconsistencies and his attitude toward quotes." For a moment, I want to give WHEELER the benefit of the doubt.  WHEELER, if you are sincere in this statement, please consider the possibility -- and, in light of the way I and others have responded, the fact -- that you can point this out in a much less offensive and far more effective way.  You write, "This happened in Berea College, This goes on everywhere I go." so I see this has happened to you before.  Well, if this happens to you everywhere you go, there is a good reason -- a reason you can learn from.  Obviously you do not present yourself effectively (I mean, what you write does not have the effect you want it to have).  Wouldn't you rather write more effectively?  Wouldn't you rather have your words have the effect you want them to?


 * I* understood him perfectly, and he's right152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The effect of your words is anti-Semitic, and unconstructive.


 * BULLSHIT152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you really do not want to have this effect, why not try writing/expressing yourself in a different way? I am absolutely sure you can do this without compromising on your intentions, if they are as honest and honorable as you claim. For example, without sarcasm or bitterness, you could have explained to Andy why you thought his attitude towards quotes is inconsistent and ask him and others to explain where they are coming from (for the record, I am sure that you believe you have done this. I certainly believe that Andy, I, and others have tried to explain it to you without calling you an anti-Semite.


 * But Andy DID call him an anti-Semite, hence the purpose of thise friggin' page!152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, whatever you and I believe we have done, that is not how it was percieved -- thus, we were ineffective). Another example: you clearly are deeply upset that "200,000 Orthodox priests were outright murdered by that regime," and upset that others do not, or do not seem to, care.


 * No...he's upset at the HYPOCRISY! People have been killed in genocides throughout history.  It's OK for the Jews to bash the Germans and the Nazis all they want--but it's NOT OK for someone of WHEELER's background to bash the Jews for the SAME reasons as they bash the Nazis?  DOUBLE-STANDARD alert!152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But WHEELER, if this is what matters to you, don't you see how you hurt your own cause by making it sound like you were blaming Jews? EVEN if you thought AndyL or others were blaming Catholics for the Holocaust, two wrongs do not make a right.


 * It's called Devil's Advocate! WHEELER was pointing out a HYPOCRISY in Andy's thoughts, which exposes ANDY as the racist.  The fact that Andy overreacted to WHEELER'S comments, even after making his OWN similarly disparaging comments, just cements the fact that Andy's racist all the more strongly.152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Dispute Andy's claims as much as you want, but do not make a claim that you do not believe and that diverts attention from your own cause in response. Finally, I really think you do not appreciate how anti-Semitic your words have been.  As you know, I myself have disagreed with you in the past without calling you anti-Semitic.

Where's ANDY'S similar criticism for having been anti-Catholic, anti-white, anti-German, and (to me) anti-Wiki-members-who-choose-not-to-use-login-names?152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So obviously to suggest that I would call anyone who disagrees with me anti-Semitic is offensive. Also, you surely understand that even if a prison guard or warden is Jewish, that fact may simply be a coincidence and does not mean that he killed, or ordered the execution of, Orthodox priests because he was Jewish.  The first head of the NKVD was Polish but I wouldn't blame the Poles for all that the NKVD did!  Stalin was Georgian but I wouldn't blam the Georgians for what Stalin did.

BUT, it's OK to blame "the Germans", "the Japanese", and "the Italians" (MY people) for WW2 and the Holocaust, isn't it?152.163.253.103 17:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated. But we are judged by how we act in anger, even when we are (or feel) provoked. We often say things we didn't mean, and regret it as soon as the words leave our lips. But when you write on Wikipedia you have the opportunity to take time, to consider and reconsider your words, before hitting the "save page" button. I meant and mean everything I wrote, on the listserve and on the early National Socialism draft talk page, about the anti-Semitism of what you wrote. But if what you wrote truly did not reflect your feelings and intentions, all I can ask is that you take my own words seriously, and try to understand why what you wrote was so offensive. I meant what I wrote then, but I also mean what I write now: I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I want to see how you respond to my words now. Slrubenstein

Wow. Thank you 152.163.253.103 (catchy name by the way)


 * I should have KNOWN you were racist against those of us who use I.P. addresses! Figures!172.131.142.96 03:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

for proving my point about generalizations and predjudice. You're basically implying that as I'm a Jew, I'm responsible for something Paul Wolfiwitz does, even though I think he's a giant shithead and he wets the bed.


 * Nope. But you are responsible for something "The Jews" do, as a group, at least so long as you can make the same sweeping generalizations about the Christians, the Germans, and everything else that you ain't, scumbag!172.131.142.96 03:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But since we're both Jews, I guess to you, we're responsible for each other?


 * To you, you mean?172.131.142.96 03:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is that what you're implying? (Also big man on not using a handle, very brave of you) StoptheBus18 01:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly as I said--racist against those who choose not to login. It is rather brave of me, is it not? You'd not dare expose your I.P. address and still let your mouth write checks that your ass can't cash! BTW, look up the definition of the word "ironic"--better yet, read the Wiki article on Alanis Morissette! What a poser!172.131.142.96 03:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S. Why are you so eager to defend the Nazis? Nazi ideology wasn't exactly the most benelovent towards human kind (especially not towards my Heeb ass)

Oh, and they loved us Catholics and Gypsies, didn't they? But you're too busy thinking your people were the only ones wronged by Hitler to know (or care) about any of that, aren't you?! How the FUCK is WHEELER anti-Semitic? Stop beating around the bush and answer the goddamn question!172.131.142.96 03:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll explain only if you explain to me how I'm being "racist" against you for not using a user name. What in the name of Captain Crunch does that have to do with your race? StoptheBus18 15:05, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

An additional slur
I recently saw an interview w ms. applebaum wherein she pointed out how Stalin had Jews appointed in disproportionate numbers to "stereotypical" and antagonistic positions. These included secret police, informers, and gulag guards. While this doesn't necessarily acquit WHEELER of being less than tactful with his statements, it does shed some light on claims by SL and others that what he said was factually inaccurate. Sam [Spade]


 * The statement in the article by Wheeler, "I did not make any anti-semitic comments. Andy is free to attack the Catholic Church all he wants to. I just come back that it was Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. This is the truth. He doesn't like the truth and so labels me anti-semetic." is utterly unacceptable. It is far more than a personal attack. It is hate speech. Sam Spade's attempt to streach for a factual basis for this slur is of the same temper. Fred Bauder 21:12, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't accept the concept of hate speech. I do think WHEELER was rude, but I also feel others had been rude to him for some time, possibly hoping for him to slip up as he did, or worse. Their rudeness to him, and the long, drawn out nature of it, they’re outnumbering him and consistently harassing and reviling him... Quite different from the sort of statement he made. His statement gave a window into his psyche. He likely embraces certain propaganda techniques of anti-semitism, indeed he is rather likely to be anti-semitic. What he said however was not an "anti-semitic attack", nor did it in anyway outweigh the barrage of abuse he had so long been suffering.


 * In any case I don't believe in special rights. The reason why the concept of "hate" speech or crimes is offensive to me is that it suggests that crimes or incivilities against some (racial, sexual, etc...) are more important than crimes or incivilities against others. It creates a legal racial hierarchy, promoting the status of some, and therefore reducing the significance of similar crimes against others, or for other reasons.


 * The conclusion is a complex one. WHEELER is struggling in the community. There are some very good things he brings to the table, an emphasis on citations and verifiability forefront among them. I strongly recommend he be contacted by a mediator and treated in civil fashion. In many ways he is the one who has been wronged during his time here on the wikipedia, but I admit it may turn out this is not the best place for him. The high levels of his unpopularity would be one clear issue there. (moved from User talk:Fred Bauder) Sam [Spade] 06:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Please join the discussion at Hate speech. Fred Bauder 12:29, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Right wing - Left wing
Wheeler in this comment: "My authors are constantly called "rightwing"cranks. Cranks is the word they used. That is a slur. but will that be punished noooooo just Wheeler.WHEELER 17:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)" implies that this dispute somehow turns on a political dimension. "Crank" is a rather mild epithet compared to language which implies responsibility of a race for mass murder. As to your being punished, you might consider an apology rather than repeating the offense. Fred Bauder 12:25, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly that "crank" is less serious of a personal attack (usually it was WHEELER being called a crank, not his sources) than the confused statement he made alleging Jewish culpability in the Russian gulag system (or maybe communism generally, it was hard to tell). Sam [Spade] 17:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think you should consider the implications of equating anti-Semitic hate speech with calling someone a "crank" (or, for that matter, of denying there is such a thing as hate speech). AndyL


 * If you seriously think I haven’t considered such I'm not sure what to do to bolster your amazing lack of confidence in my abilities. More likely you simply don't know a better way to express the extent of your disapproval than incredulity? Sam [Spade] 23:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you have considered that then you haven't considered it very thoroughly. But you are correct, I do lack confidence in your abilities AndyL


 * Bumhug. Sam [Spade] 18:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Remedy
As WHEELER has not only not apologised but dug himself somewhat deeper what is the best remedy for this? I don't see that there's anything to mediate. AndyL:


 * No, this offers an excellent chance for mediation. If I were mediating this I would take Wheeler aside (perhaps not that easy online) and ernestly explain to him his prospects if this case goes to arbitration which are dismal indeed. At that point, if he has any sense at all he might begin asking, "What the hell has got them so upset?" and armed by a skillful mediator with the answer to that question make an apology. I will be recusing myself should this go to arbitration, after all I have been fussing about it for 24 hours nonstop, but Wheeler is on an evil path if he keeps on. Fred Bauder 22:53, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyone who can get across to him why people are so incredibly upset at the things he says that they want to make whole new hard policy over them will deserve a Nobel Prize for Diplomacy Under Fire - David Gerard 23:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to try to mediate, assuming there is a convenient non-wiki way to communicate w him. Sam [Spade] 23:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam given that you seem to think it's unreasonable for people to be upset at him and that you think an anti-Semitic slur is no worse than calling someone a "crank" I don't think you're a good candidate to explain things to him. And given what happened when you acted as Paul Vogel's "advocate" I don't think it's in WHEELER's interest to use you as an intermediary. Sorry. Perhaps Kim_Bruning could talk to him? He seems to trust Kim and she's patiently tried to explain things to him in the past with mixed success. She'd probably have the best chance at getting through to him. Otherwise, what about Fred or David?AndyL:


 * Whichever, I reccomended Kim on your talk just a moment ago. As far as your critique of my skills as an advocate, I can't quite come up w any advice on that not so colorful as to get me my own RfC ;) Sam [Spade] 04:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Fred would be an outrageously bad choice. David might work, I donno. Sam [Spade] 17:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm a he, and I have been explaining some things about wikipedia and internet discourse to WHEELER. It's been a bit of a slow thing, and it was free advice in the first place. He has actually been taking some of it, but it's slow going.

I've been worried whether he'd learn first, or whether he'd make it to requests for comment first. In this particular case I don't think he's deliberately being anti-semitic. It's more like he likes quoting stuff, but he has some selection problems.

I think that as wikipedia grows, we'll get more and more WHEELERs and less and less of the more skilled people that make up the current cadre. This means we should learn how to deal with this kind of thing constructively at an early stage.

Kim Bruning 17:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The primary method appears to involve "Flaming the new user until things get so crazy a ban/policy change is needed, repeat as necessary". I prefer Kim's method of thoughtfully discussing wiki policy. Thanks Kim. Sam [Spade] 18:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think WHEELER's been here longer than I have! Anyway, the reason I suggested Fred is it would be good to have an experienced hand who could explain to WHEELER why his comments are considered anti-Semitic. Perhaps not as a formal mediation (where there are recommendations made etc) but more an intervention.

WHEELER is no Paul Vogel, I don't think he's being deliberately anti-Semitic either but obviously he's absorbed some anti-Semitic thinking somewhere along the way and this isn't the first time it's come up either - I think if people were setting a trap for WHEELER just waiting for him to fall into it the other anti-Semitic comment a few weeks ago would have triggered a complaint. And if you look at the TALK page in question the comment I made didn't touch on Judaism, the Holocaust, WWII etc at all, in fact WHEELER's comment was a complete non-sequitor, completely out of left field, so I disagree with this suggestion that's been made that WHEELER has been somehow set up or provoked.

Also, I think WHEELER's broader problems with wikipedia is more than his liking to quote stuff - I think he doesn't know how to do basic research and approaches it with blinkers on ie he hunts and pecks for things that re-enforce his pre-existing assumptions to the extent that he plucks things out of context or mistinterprets information and quotes that he finds making a lot of what he writes unreliable.

I think his whole fixation with the Italian Encyclopedia article on fascism is a good example of this. A book by Hoover misquotes the article (by Mussolini) as saying that fascism is an ideology of "the left". Every other translation of that passage says of "The right" and when we found the original Italian it said "destra" which means right but rather than accept that Hoover was wrong WHEELER convinces himself that there was some sort of conspiracy to falsify ever copy of the original Italian encyclopedia! How can you reason with someone who is so willing to ignore all facts that do not fit into an assumption he's bought into?AndyL:23:05, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I've put in a mediation request at Requests_for_mediationAndyL 05:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I blame the academics... StoptheBus18 15:03, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)