User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2017/Jun
Latest comment: 6 years ago by BrownHairedGirl in topic An unexpected citation
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Jewish identity and influence in 20th Century anthropology
Hi, Newyorkbrad. If you're concerned about whether some of my additions are notable, it's probably worth looking at my list of mainstream sources on the topic. I'm still adding to it, but there are already several.
Thanks, Franzboas (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Franzboas: My concern is not about the notability of any individual contribution of yours, but the editing pattern as a whole, which displays a disproportionate and undue interest in designating people as having a particular religious background. I won't go so far as the person who called your editing anti-Semitic, but I do find the pattern troubling, and the fact that you've now branched out to the Zionist Occupation Government conspiracy theory article hardly makes it less so. If this editing pattern continues it would not surprise me if you were compelled to desist, whether in an arbitration or elsewhere. I also find your choice of username, in the context of this editing, to be highly questionable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, but remember that I created this legitimate sock to lessen systemic bias on Wikipedia that I didn't feel comfortable addressing with my main account. I therefore use it specifically for contentious ethnic, religious, and political topics.
- I also understand your concern about my name. Reading about Boasian anthropology made me aware of the gap between the public's perception (including Wikipedians' perception) of objectivity in fields populated primarily by Jews and many legitimate mainstream academics' perceptions. I wasn't feeling creative when picking a username, so I went with an obvious one.
- Writers like Kevin B. MacDonald are contentious and, although I think he gets far less credit than he deserves, some of his writing is partisan. (I would argue that he's certainly no more partisan than the intersectional feminists cited on Wikipedia, but that's a separate bias debate.) However, many mainstream and largely uncontroversial writers (including many leftist Jewish academics) discuss the influence that Jewish identity, Jewish values, and Jewish interests had on major political movements and schools of thought. Many of these narratives are then exaggerated by far-right extremists, but excluding them from Wikipedia on that basis would be censorship.
- Like many other editors, I quietly took a long hiatus from Wikipedia because I was so frustrated with the systemic bias and how most editors were blind to abstract levels of that bias (e.g. how articles' topics are defined).
- Most specifically to your concern, I've realized that I tend toward identifying people's Jewish backgrounds primarily because it's a bulletproof addition when properly justified and cited. As seen in the Zionist Occupation Government bickering, trying to get editors to consider and debate abstract bias is far more difficult. Franzboas (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response but it has increased rather than satisfied my concerns. I understand your point that because I am speaking with an alternate account here, I am looking at a subset of your overall editing rather than all of it, but that fact goes only so far. I do not understand what "systemic bias" you allege Wikipedia has that is alleviated by edits such as adding "bulletproof" references to people's Jewishness all over the place. Nor do I know exactly what a phrase such as "the public's perception of objectivity in fields populated primarily by Jews" means, but that phrasing reeks of insensitivity at best. If this is the level on which you approach this topic, then frankly, I think your taking another "long hiatus" from the subject would be a splendid idea. In this regard, please review and think carefully about the principles articulated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Noleander. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Again, it is common knowledge and frequently discussed in mainstream sources that researchers' cultural, ethnic, and religious backgrounds affect their work in the social sciences. This applies to every group of people. If a school of thought that considered homosexuality a grave illness were manned mostly by born-again Christians from the rural southern US, you'd surely hear about it in the article. Our cultural sensitivity to antisemitism has caused us to aggressively self-censor about this effect in the context of characteristically Jewish movements and schools of thought. Franzboas (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Also, I think that arbitration case for User:Noleander is abysmal, but I won't discuss the details unless you want to. Franzboas (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- Brad, it's getting better and better: Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Adding_a_sentence_about_baseline_truth_to_the_lead: this editor thinks that a "baseline truth" is "Jews have been proportionally overrepresented, sometimes heavily overrepresented, in many Communist movements". I think it's time to make some decisions here. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like WP:Advocacy to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- This self-acknowledged alternate account is clearly a violation of WP:GHBH. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
- Looks like WP:Advocacy to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Brad, it's getting better and better: Talk:Jewish_Bolshevism#Adding_a_sentence_about_baseline_truth_to_the_lead: this editor thinks that a "baseline truth" is "Jews have been proportionally overrepresented, sometimes heavily overrepresented, in many Communist movements". I think it's time to make some decisions here. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response but it has increased rather than satisfied my concerns. I understand your point that because I am speaking with an alternate account here, I am looking at a subset of your overall editing rather than all of it, but that fact goes only so far. I do not understand what "systemic bias" you allege Wikipedia has that is alleviated by edits such as adding "bulletproof" references to people's Jewishness all over the place. Nor do I know exactly what a phrase such as "the public's perception of objectivity in fields populated primarily by Jews" means, but that phrasing reeks of insensitivity at best. If this is the level on which you approach this topic, then frankly, I think your taking another "long hiatus" from the subject would be a splendid idea. In this regard, please review and think carefully about the principles articulated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Noleander. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've indef blocked the user. I will post this at WP:AN for review as it is an unusual block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thursday June 22: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA
| Thursday June 22, 6-8:30pm: Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon @ MoMA | |
|---|---|
 Join us for an evening of social Wikipedia editing at the Museum of Modern Art Library's third annual Wiki Loves Pride Edit-a-thon, during which we will create, update, and improve Wikipedia articles pertaining to LGBT art, culture and history. All are invited, with no specialized knowledge of the subject or Wikipedia editing experience required. Themes for this event include art related to HIV/AIDS activism and on LGBTQ artists of the African Diaspora as part of the Black Lunch Table project. Experienced Wikipedians will be on-hand to assist throughout the day. Please bring your laptop and power cord; we will have library resources, WiFi, and a list of suggested topics on hand.
Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues! --Pharos (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. Stay tuned / sign up early for our Sunday June 25 Hackathon @ Ace Hotel, the Sunday July 9 Wiknic on Governors Island, and other upcoming events. | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
An unexpected citation
(@Carcharoth, Iridescent, and BrownHairedGirl: and others) I was bemused by the last sentence here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hasn't the UK suffered enough? Kablammo (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- (ec) Love it!
- I read it as including a dose of Speaker Bercow's trademark sarcasm, but even so, it is a reminder that we do have material which they can use.
- I remain bemused by how some English people are so perplexed by STV. As a kid in Dublin, were running mock STV elections at school aged 13, and found it easy enough. I'm sure that at least some of Westminster's denizens will manage it — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
- The mainstream thinking in both the large UK parties is that any form of proportional representation is the work of the devil, and there's thus a vested interest in making it appear as unworkable as possible. I'm certain that most members, on both sides of the house, would sincerely agree with the statement "I would rather my party be out of power for a generation than switch to a system which would potentially open the door to the BNP, Greens and UKIP". What happened last time a nationwide UK election was held using a proportional process is seared on the memory of every political party, even if the rapid-fire succession of subsequent crises has somewhat eclipsed it in popular consciousness. ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I remember endless discussion of the possibility of changing the election system for Commons elections a few years ago, though I never had a good idea how serious it was. Here in New York, the system was used for several years for community school board elections, in the context of up to 30 or 40 candidates running for 9 seats and sometimes without computers, so calculating and announcing the results sometimes took weeks, which was not seen as a positive for the idea. The irony of Bercow's comment in this instance, of course, is that there turned out to be just two Labour candidates (so it was just an ordinary election) and one Conservative candidate (so there was no election at all) for the three Deputy Speakerships. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The underlying prob with changing electoral systems is that by definition, the incumbent politicians are beneficiaries of the status quo. They have the power to block any proposal for change, and vote in their own self-interest.
- In Ireland, the Constitutional Convention recommended reversing the gerrymandering of STV elections introduced by Dev in the Electoral (Amendment) Act 1947 which reduced constituency sizes to impede smaller parties (in particular the insurgent Clann na Poblachta). But the Fine Gael govt simply rejected the proposal with a bland assertion that the rigged size "has served the State well since 1948". And that was that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dev was a cynical opportunist who froze Ireland's economy and culture in aspic for fifty years while the world moved on around it, but he did grasp one important point—when a society is suffering serious cultural and social divisions, an electoral system that marginalises the fringe candidates leads to greater stability than one in which there's true proportional representation and the governing party is forced to cut deals with hardliners, since under such systems the voters will turn to the extremist groups as they know it will give their position more sway in the negotiations. One only needs to look across the border—where at the time of writing over 60% of seats are held by the political wings of paramilitary groups, and the government is probably the most dysfunctional in the world outside of actual war zones—for an idea of what an Ireland with Sean Mac Eoin, Sean MacBride and Joseph Blowick all holding the fate of the government in their hands would have looked like. ‑ Iridescent 11:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It might not be wise to assume that stability is a virtue. In Dev's case it led to 3 decades of stable govt which, as you note, left Ireland frozen. The instability of a thaw would have been a relief to the thousands of emigrants for whom Dev's Ireland was a place of stable poverty.
- More currently, the political instability of contemporary Norniron has provided peace and economic growth after decades of decline and conflict. If Norniron had less diverse electoral system, such as FPTP, that would at best eliminate from the political scene the smaller players such as the UUP, SDLP, Alliance, PBP, etc; at worst it would bring a return to the crude majoritarianism of 1921–72, which ended in conflict.
- Better all round, I think, to have a political system which brings the various voices inside the building, rather than locking them outside. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- It might not be wise to assume that stability is a virtue. In Dev's case it led to 3 decades of stable govt which, as you note, left Ireland frozen. The instability of a thaw would have been a relief to the thousands of emigrants for whom Dev's Ireland was a place of stable poverty.
- Dev was a cynical opportunist who froze Ireland's economy and culture in aspic for fifty years while the world moved on around it, but he did grasp one important point—when a society is suffering serious cultural and social divisions, an electoral system that marginalises the fringe candidates leads to greater stability than one in which there's true proportional representation and the governing party is forced to cut deals with hardliners, since under such systems the voters will turn to the extremist groups as they know it will give their position more sway in the negotiations. One only needs to look across the border—where at the time of writing over 60% of seats are held by the political wings of paramilitary groups, and the government is probably the most dysfunctional in the world outside of actual war zones—for an idea of what an Ireland with Sean Mac Eoin, Sean MacBride and Joseph Blowick all holding the fate of the government in their hands would have looked like. ‑ Iridescent 11:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I remember endless discussion of the possibility of changing the election system for Commons elections a few years ago, though I never had a good idea how serious it was. Here in New York, the system was used for several years for community school board elections, in the context of up to 30 or 40 candidates running for 9 seats and sometimes without computers, so calculating and announcing the results sometimes took weeks, which was not seen as a positive for the idea. The irony of Bercow's comment in this instance, of course, is that there turned out to be just two Labour candidates (so it was just an ordinary election) and one Conservative candidate (so there was no election at all) for the three Deputy Speakerships. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The mainstream thinking in both the large UK parties is that any form of proportional representation is the work of the devil, and there's thus a vested interest in making it appear as unworkable as possible. I'm certain that most members, on both sides of the house, would sincerely agree with the statement "I would rather my party be out of power for a generation than switch to a system which would potentially open the door to the BNP, Greens and UKIP". What happened last time a nationwide UK election was held using a proportional process is seared on the memory of every political party, even if the rapid-fire succession of subsequent crises has somewhat eclipsed it in popular consciousness. ‑ Iridescent 11:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)