Portal talk:Current events/2008 February 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

[edit] Current Events

The editor who has added Scientology persecution has recently been warned for typing almost the exact same hateful speech on other pages. Every one of his edits under the IP he uses is an edit bashing Scientology. I really do not care about them or their beliefs but they do not deserve to be badmouthed in a place reserved for contemporary global affairs. I know I owe you no explanation, but it cannot hurt to have my thoughts on the matter in words. There is a time and a place for everything. Current events is not the place for intolerance. I add and edit the portal almost daily. this is by no means a claim of ownership, only meaning that I think I know what I am talking about and my opinion on the subject should have some merit over somene whose sole purpose for adding the item is intolerance. I'm sure every day there are anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-american, anti-isreal, anti-sweatshop, anti-fur, KKK gatherings, neo-nazi marches, the list goes on and on (im not claiming any position on any of those examples). The point is that this is not the place for that. Current Events. say it with me. Contemporary geopolitical affairs that are of interest to the international community. A "protest against a church" (exactly what it says) is not current events. WikiTony (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I added the line about Scientology protests back again. I'm not entirely sure if it's notable enough, but your complaints about "hate speech" are both wrong and irrelevant to Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • And either way, it is in a neutral POV. There was no violence involved anyway. If I said they were 'attacking' the church, or they were protesting the 'cult' it would have been slanted mind. Honestly, I approve of it, because anyone who protests a hate group that wants to kill me is O.K. with me. (The church of Scientology advises killing those with developmental disorders. I have Aspergers. Aspergers is a developmental disorder.) Le Blue Dude (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Please do not talk about NPOV. Every single one of your edits under your IP is disparaging towards the Church of Sceintology. Why do you make these edits (and only these edits) under your IP and not your username? Why do you mention your own developmental disorder and then pretend to have a nuetral position on the subject. The exact wording of this dribble says, "protests the church." not "protests a particular policy of the church" or "protests a particular leader of the church." What you are doing is allowing the slander of people simply for having a faith that is different from yours that you do not understand. What you are doing is saying that they should not be allowed to practice whatever faith they choose. That they should not be granted the dignity of having their religion respected in a place reserved for REAL NEWS. this is disgusting.

Apoc, your guess is correct. It is not news. There is a time and a place for everything. This is certainly not it. WikiTony (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

      • I make no statements using the IP, but I use the IP in support of Anon. My edits with the IP (to my knowledge) are simply adding this occurance, and adding it to various correct areas. Different people in the group protest different policies. I think most of them are protesting disconnection, and the policy of suppressing information, as well as the SP laws, the buisness structure as church and other things. Oh, and the 'well poisoning rule'. 'always attack, never defend'. And still, I'm the civil one in this debate. I accuse you of nothing. You accuse me of slander, libel, being a neo-nazi, being KKK, being... And they are not a faith different then mine. I'm an aethist. I have no faith in anything, and so I do not protest them for their beliefs, as they're no more silly then any other religion. I just dissagree with their practiced policies. I feel like I'm protesting the nazies, and you're accusing me of being against freedom of speach. They can say/belive what they please. I don't give a bean about that. The massive corruption in the higher ranks and massive usery... well, that's something different. Read about the issue. Quit kneejerking. Le Blue Dude (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
For the fifteenth time, i never accused you of being a nazi, or KKK. I only compared your behavior to theirs (quite fittingly, actually). I also did not accuse you of libel. I do not think you know what libel is, seeing as it is impossible to do on this encyclopedia. As for the slander, yes. You are slandering the name of an organized religion who has not who has not committed any known wrongdoing. You are defending a group (a group I can only assume you are a part of since you are so persistent in your attacks against their church) who anonymously hacks into the website of a church. In my country (USA), this is highly illegal. What you are doing is publishing (and defending) illegal activity. hate crimes. terrorism. You may not like these people (obviously) but regardless of what they believe, they do not deserve to be hate mongered. especially not here. And trust me, i have read about the issue and am not "kneejerking." You have an admitted bias against these people (your disability). Please take your bias elsewhere. Also, you keep saying your intent is not against the church but rather against the "usery" (a term that is not in this encyclopedia). That is clearly not what your edits state. what it does state is "protest the church." what you say you mean and what you say are two very different things. WikiTony (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I see, so you never called anybody a nazi, you just said "quite fittingly" that they're acting like one? An utterly useless distinction to justify continued ad hominem attacks. This is a portal for current events, not a soapboxing platform for or against Scientology or Chanology. The incident in question got considerable news coverage, and it's patently absurd to describe the addition of this text as vandalism. Certainly we should be careful how this is presented, but that doesn't imply it should not be presented at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And now you accuse me again of being a nazi.And it's not highly illegal in the USA, this is where I live, and freedom of speech is widly recognized as something important here. Fraud, usery, however you want to term it. Taking money, large sums. And you don't explain why this shouldn't be here STILL. I ask you to explain, and you wikilawyer and kneejerk. I could put in what specificaly they're campaigning against: But that would put the church of scientology in a very dark corner, so I don't 128.255.187.32 (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


haha oh man. even when i say "im not calling you a nazi," you think i'm calling you a nazi. what a gem you are. you do sympathize with religious persecution and intolerance, so maybe you do have some things in common with them, but no, for the squigillionith time, i am not saying you are one. And yes, hacking into a church's website IS highly illegal in the united states. In fact, in most jurisdictions it falls under hate crimes, and in our post 9/11 world, under the PATRIOT Act, can be considered terrorism. Please keep this in mind when defending and publicizing the actions of intolerant individuals. You say, again, that the focus of the protest is against the "usery," not against the church. that is not what it says. it clearly states "protest the church." If you mean what you say, the very least you could do is clarify.

Thanks for reaching a compromise. I was not involved with, nor did I approve of the DDOS. DDOS's are still not 'hacking into'. Anyway: I don't really care that you're calling me a nazi. I'm just pointing out how juvinile you were behaving. But now that we have an agreement, let us never speak of this again. 128.255.187.32 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no compromise. What you wrote and what I wrote are two totally different things. And, of course, I did not call you a nazi (or anything else). WikiTony (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to see it that way I won't stop you. I see it as a win. I don't care how it's phrased, and the current phrasing feels much less NPOV then mine (And the current form feels slanted against the church too), but eh. Also don't be surprised if other people complain when you compare them to unsavory groups. This might not be TECHINCALY calling them nazies or whatever you are comparing them to, but socially, and effectively, it is. So it tends to offend people. Both of these results are because subtext, content and context are different things. When comparing someone to a unsavory group, the subtext is 'you are similar, so you are the same'. And the context made it 'feel' a lot like name calling. But eh. I'm not miss manners. Good bye, hopefully we will not see each other, or clash, ever again128.255.187.32 (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

The users who have been edit warring here have been blocked for 8 hours each. Please do not edit war as otherwise the page will be protected or further blocks issued. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)