User talk:Moses ben Nachman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, an andere Bundist! Sholom aleichem! :-) Danny
- Sorry Danny, I am not a Bundist. I am just a human being, trying to get along in this world. --Moshe Nackmen
You regularly attend synagogue -- that's why you link to virulently anti-Semitic articles? -- Toby 13:16 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
- My rabbi says, and I agree with him, that the only safety for my people is to be honest with each other, and with others. As soon as you start dismissing the truth, you stray from reality, and set yourself up for a hard fall. The article, which I quickly glanced over, seemed factual and well researched. If you don't care about the truth, and objective fact, I suggest that you don't bother involving yourself with an Encyclopedia project. To mention the fact that Bugsy Seigel was a Jew is no more anti-Semitic than it is to say that Boss Tweed was Irish. The article on McCarthy and Roy Cohn falls into the same category. Please, get over yourself. You are giving me a lot of pain and heartache. I really worry for the future of my daughter in a world like this, where people are actively trying to alienate the Gentiles against me and my kin. Remember the pogroms! -- Moshe Nackmen
Kindly explain how those links are "balanced". Evercat 23:46 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It is quite simple. I read through them, and they were balanced and factual. If you want to claim the links are "unbalanced" and "unworthy" of the Wikipedia, you have to do a lot better than just waving your hands around and crying that they must be bad because they were written by "right wingers". This makes it obvious that you are editing articles to have your own leftist slant on things. --Moshe Nackmen 23:53 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I didn't say they were "bad" because they were all written by right-wingers, I said they were unbalanced because they were all written by right-wingers. A balanced article would either include links from both right-wingers and left-wingers, or neither. Evercat 23:56 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Actually, you did strongly imply they were bad. Also, who are you to label the articles as "right wing"? They presented the facts calmly and neutrally, and they shed a lot of light on the severely unbalanced material in the Joseph McCarthy article. Right wing or left wing, the facts need to be represented. Assuming the righteous mantle of "balance" you are seeking to destroy the feeble efforts others have been making to instill some balance into the article. I say, Shame On You! Shame! If you feel the articles are unbalanced or biased, be open about what you feel is unbalanced and biased. I don't buy into your blanket accusations of "right winger". Your unwillingness to provide any hard facts is lowering your credibility with me more and more. --Moshe Nackmen 00:03 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
If you feel the other content of the article is unbalanced, why don't you correct it?
Anyway, I'm bored of this argument. I shall leave the links as they are, and we shall see whether I am the only one who feels they should not be there. I see from the page history that your content has previously been removed by Zoe, JohnOwens, Reboot, and Infrogmation. It has also been queried by Goatasaur. So I'm quite confident that your links will not survive for long. Evercat 00:22 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I think they should be there, but properly categorized, and described (see Wikipedia:Describe external links). --Eloquence 00:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
