Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Salom Khalitun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Response to outside comment by Yksin

Below comment moved from RfC page per RfC instructions to put such responses on talk page. --Yksin 18:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yksin, with all due respect, the Holocaust article already has an entire section devoted to non-Jewish victims, with links to something like thirteen separate articles that already cover attrocities directed at non-Jews! That is why I think Khalitun was being entirely disingenuous and manipulative, and why I disagree with your assessment.

That is why, with respect, I think you are in error to view his attacks as a "tactic." The issue is not whether the Holocaust can be used to apply to other disasters; the issue is that this user refuses to believe that Jews can care about non-Jews, and wants to use these pages to smear the Jewish people. Even if "The Holocaust" refers only to the genocidal campaign against the Jews (in the same way that the October Revolution refers to a very specific event in a specific time and place), or if Jews use it only this way, that simply bears no relation to whether Jews acknowledge or care about the suffering and murder of other people. One is a question about the prevailing usage of a word; the other is about the character of a nation. They are two different things and the tactic used by this editor is not in my opinion a personal attack tactic to promote his view of the Holocaust. On the contrary, his tactic is to use discussion of the Holocaust to camoflage and also as a pretext to promote his views that Jews only care about themselves. His arguments about "the Holocaust" fall apart on sight because the article makes it clear that the use of the phrase "the Holocaust" with the definite article was first used to refer to the genocide against the Jews; the article makes it clear that the Nazis conducted genocidal campaigns against the Roma and also persecuted others; the article makes it clear that other groups sometimes use the term Holocaust to refer to their victimization. But there are no grounds for saying that the phrase "The Holocaust" refers to every bad thing the Nazis did and to say that "the Holocaust (meaning: genocide against the Jews) happened" simply does not imply - not by a zillion miles - that genocide against others, persecution of others, did not occur too. The article makes this clear. Khalitun really really is just not interested in any scholarship on the Holocaust, he was only interested in looking for opportunities to say that Jews only care about themselves. His doing it on the Holocuast talk page in my view I grant was just a diversionary tactic. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am in error to view his attacks as just a "tactic." But I can't legitimately claim that I really know with any certainty what his motivations are, any more than he can legitimately claim (though he does claim -- just not legitimately) that he knows the motivations of those writers/researchers on the Holocaust it that "they don't care about non-Jews." In the end, I can go only on the behavior he has actually displayed, & that's what I've tried to restrict my comments to. In any case, I agree with you that his behavior displays antisemitic attitudes. --Yksin 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum after your augmentation. Good points you make about the sections & other articles about non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. But further discussion here is moot, given the RfC has been closed. Keep up the good work on the article. --Yksin 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I admit one reason I responded at length (really providing my own view) was in case another admin is considering unblocking Salom Khalitun. In any event, I appreciate your fairness, considered remarks, and focus on his actual edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, given his response to the block, & the possibilities raised at WP:ANI that he might be a sock, I can live with him being blocked. --Yksin 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there are two completely independent aspects here. One is the meaning of the term "The Holocaust" (which apparently varies), the other is the behaviour of the user. This RfC is about user conduct, not about the content issue. --Stephan Schulz 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If he had stuck with the content issue, this RfC wouldn't have been necessary. --Yksin 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)