Talk:Katherine Franke
Latest comment: 3 months ago by 47.230.70.138 in topic Colombia Letter and Response
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
Letter shared by Katherine Franke
editI am trying to find a copy of this open letter, from students at Columbia, and reportedly shared by Katherine Franke. There is much discussion about it, but I have not been able to find the actual text of this letter. Please post it here, or post a link to it. Thank you. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Franke Letter
edithttps://twitter.com/ProfKFranke 89.207.171.76 (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Colombia Letter and Response
edit@84.110.128.130, I don't want to engage in an edit war. While the whole situation may suffer from recentism, I don't believe it's appropriate to give so much space to a clearly non-neutral source. Pointing out Franke wrote a letter and some of her colleges were critical is more than sufficicent. -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @84.110.128.130 - The problem with even the revised blocktext
- “There is no justification for raping and murdering ordinary citizens in front of their families, mutilating babies, decapitating people...We are horrified that anyone would celebrate these monstrous attacks or, as some members of the Columbia faculty have done in a recent letter, try to 'recontextualize' them as a 'salvo,' as the 'exercise of a right to resist' occupation, or as 'military action."
- is the only relevant part is the end, which is fairly summarized by "faculty criticized Franke's letter". Franke's letter calls for none of the former claims and does not "celebrate" the attacks. Its inclusion only aims to sensationalize and push a POV that is unnecessary. -- MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 21:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- @84.110.128.130: Why do you feel your version is better?
− In October 2023, following the [[2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel|Hamas massacre of Israelis in southern Israel]], Franke authored a letter, signed by over 150 Columbia faculty,“supportingourstudents'righttocontextualizethewarinIsrael/Gazawithinthe75yroccupationofPalestine”.Theletterwas criticized in asubsequentletter signed by 300 other Columbia faculty membersasanattemptto“‘recontextualize’[Hamas]as a‘salvo,’as the‘exerciseof a right toresist’occupation, or as‘militaryaction.’”+ In October 2023, following the [[2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel|Hamas massacre of Israelis in southern Israel]], Franke authored a letter, signed by over 150 Columbia faculty, that “aim[ed] to recontextualize the events of October 7 … as an occupied people exercising a right to resist”. Franke was criticized in a letter signed by 300 other Columbia faculty members for trying "to 'recontextualize' [the October 7 massacre] as a 'salvo,' as the 'exercise of a right to resist' occupation, or as 'military action', saying that they were 'horrified' that the letter 'justified', among other atrocities, "raping and murdering ordinary citizens in front of their families"- Why clip quote used in the tweet and strip the context of the students being able to contextualize the war? Where in the citation does it say "Franke was criticized"? – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 17:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The referenced language is inclusive of Franke: "as some members of the Columbia faculty have done in a recent letter, try to "recontextualize" [the referenced rape, murder and other atrocities] as...the "exercise of a right to resist". Franke is the lead author of the letter and therefore clearly included in the "some members" reference. 84.110.128.130 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source says
"Lemann said they wrote the letter in order to condemn some of the ideas espoused in the first faculty letter."
which is not what your version says, singling out Franke. - Why do you insist on claiming the
"Columbia faculty, that “aim[ed] to recontextualize the events of October 7"
when they supported the students' rights to do so? - I assume you are now are aware of the CTOP Arab-Israel policy and how it relates regarding IP editing
- The source says
- – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please re-read the referenced language. It is now a deeply watered down summary that makes no reference to the central point of the second faculty letter: that the faculty who wrote the first letter, of which Franke was the lead author, justified atrocities including rape and murder by "recontextualizing" those atrocities as the "exercise of a right to resist occupation". Elimination of the point of the paragraph, which is uncontestedly accurate, leaves the paragraph with no meaning and I have to question the editor's objectivity. I recognize that Wikipedia has had issues with antisemitism in recent months (most notably the ADL scandal) but I still ask the moderators to consider. Thanks. 84.110.128.130 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- No answer. I didn’t think so. So when you’re moderators are biased, Wikipedia, is there no recourse? 2A0D:6FC2:54E0:2600:10E4:2692:897C:F0EB (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- That’s why this is so dangerous. It used to be that when you got overwhelmingly frustrated over your own failures you would resort to the power of sheer numbers and try to kill a small minority. You can always succeed that way. Now you gain control of the power to distort truth itself. Shame User:Macaddct1984. Shame Wikipedia. 2A0D:6FC7:261:DA2A:6920:6332:75AE:E7BD (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a forum and contentious topic talk pages are subject to WP:ECR
- Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions
- – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 18:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am accusing a moderator of bias in proactively revising an article to remove demonstrably accurate quotes six months after they were previously moderate. I am pointing out that it is widely accepted that Wikipedia, because it is crowdsourced, is now rife with racism and anti-Semitism masquerading as moderation, and I am flagging this as a clear example. 47.230.70.138 (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a forum and contentious topic talk pages are subject to WP:ECR
- That’s why this is so dangerous. It used to be that when you got overwhelmingly frustrated over your own failures you would resort to the power of sheer numbers and try to kill a small minority. You can always succeed that way. Now you gain control of the power to distort truth itself. Shame User:Macaddct1984. Shame Wikipedia. 2A0D:6FC7:261:DA2A:6920:6332:75AE:E7BD (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- No answer. I didn’t think so. So when you’re moderators are biased, Wikipedia, is there no recourse? 2A0D:6FC2:54E0:2600:10E4:2692:897C:F0EB (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please re-read the referenced language. It is now a deeply watered down summary that makes no reference to the central point of the second faculty letter: that the faculty who wrote the first letter, of which Franke was the lead author, justified atrocities including rape and murder by "recontextualizing" those atrocities as the "exercise of a right to resist occupation". Elimination of the point of the paragraph, which is uncontestedly accurate, leaves the paragraph with no meaning and I have to question the editor's objectivity. I recognize that Wikipedia has had issues with antisemitism in recent months (most notably the ADL scandal) but I still ask the moderators to consider. Thanks. 84.110.128.130 (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The referenced language is inclusive of Franke: "as some members of the Columbia faculty have done in a recent letter, try to "recontextualize" [the referenced rape, murder and other atrocities] as...the "exercise of a right to resist". Franke is the lead author of the letter and therefore clearly included in the "some members" reference. 84.110.128.130 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)