Talk:A.N.S.W.E.R./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Protected

I've protected A.N.S.W.E.R. for the time being for edit warring. Please work out your differences on the talk page... SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, insert the interwiki to italian page [[it:A.N.S.W.E.R.]]. Thanks,--Gacio tell me 15:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Request fulfilled. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected for two weeks

I have protected this page for two weeks due to edit warring. Please work out your differences so that (hopefully) we can unprotect in less than the two weeks I have protected for. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use talk

In The Stacks, your recent edits are so wildly contrary to policy and common sense, I'm guessing you knew they would be reverted. The edits are nakedly partisan, without even a pretense at objectivity. Please take a moment to consider Wikipedia policies, and plain good judgment -- I'll point you to the relevant policies, if you like. IronDuke 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again...

Once again, this page is protected, this time indefinitely. This page will stay protected until IronDuke and In the Stacks work out a solution. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. As In the Stacks refuses to come to talk, I expect we'll have it all sorted out in a jiffy. IronDuke 22:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Schumin, if you could encourage dialogue, that'd be great. IronDuke 21:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and open the page again, and hopefully things won't become bad again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tempting as it is, I'm not going to revert to the sensible version at this time. As a gesture of good faith, I'm going to wait a bit for ITS to come back and start talking. IronDuke 22:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, what I have put up is what ANSWER's position is. And once again Iron Duke has posted Zionist attacks on an organization that includes many Jews among its own members and leaders. Opposing Nazism isn't Anti-German. Though Nazis always think so, there's no reason to let them dictate the history of World War Two. By the same token, if the ADL or whoever's position and accusations against ANSWER are so important to those who make them, perhaps they should be included on the appropriate pages for those groups. Short of that, I fail to even see what the dispute is.In the Stacks (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don’t see you putting up ANSWER’s position in your latest edit as you aver, but rather I only see you removing criticism. That is not appropriate, or helpful, and is contrary to wiki policy and common sense. Your point about “Zionist attacks” is puzzling – are you sure you’re using that word correctly? You might want to be a bit careful with your tone here, as things can get misinterpreted. For example, your comparison of the ADL is with Nazis is grossly inappropriate and would, to some, loudly suggest antisemitism. I’m hopeful that was not your intent, but I would take a bit more care. Your point about criticism of Group B by Group A belonging on the page of Group A was already answered by me. Your actions, and your tone, are growing disruptive. I hope you’ll reconsider, and say more clearly why it is you believe your edits are correct. IronDuke 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer's actual position is put up. Efforts by Israeli partisans to literally distort Answer's positions 180 degrees, in order to equate criticism of racial government with hatred of a people. The point is that Answer supports non-racial, democratic and secular states is not being debated. Instead, fabricated events which 1) aren't Answer's responsiblity, 2) equates allegations of signs in crowds of thousands of people with their position and 3) a pattern of putting up Zionist positions (see ADL) as if they were "reports". Nazis don't speak for Germans, opposing Nazism isn't opposing Germans. Not a complicated concept, except to racists. If there are documented, verifiable positions or activities by Answer – then post them. That is not what is in dispute here. Unfounded allegations are. Period. In the Stacks (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, opposing Nazis during WWII was opposing Germans, in a very robust sense of that word. Hitler was elected, and very popular. But that, of course, is totally beside the point. What we have here are sources which meet WP:RS that take issue with ANSWER. You are free to disagree with their conclusions (silently, to yourself), but you are not free to erase them. That's not what this website is about, and you're not going to last very much longer here if you don't absorb that lesson. IronDuke 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many Germans opposed Hitler, though Zionists of course found common cause with the Nazi/Zionist program to remove Jews from Europe. But that's not what htis is about. Equating the nationalist fever dreams of fascists with the essence of the people's name in whom they speak is despicable, and intellectually ridiculous. Insofar as this goes: if Israeli partisans have strong feelings against secular democracy, that is of course their right. They should include THEIR beliefs as part of the description of THEIR organizations. But equating an existing organization's anti-racist principles with "hatred" or "terrorism" are legally dubious and constitute slander. ANSWER as an organization includes people of many ethnic groups, including prominent Jewish members and supporters. The insistence of putting such claims (as "Nazi-arm salutes" which are nothing but slander should not be tolerated and is an attempt to impose Zionist (ethno-nationalist exclusivism) onto the beliefs and documentable activities of an actually existing organization.In the Stacks (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the relevant portions of my post. In a nutshell: WP:RS (and you are still quite wrong about Nazi Germany -- it was a hugely popular, democratically elected government). IronDuke 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A.N.S.W.E.R. Also Stands for another organization

The acronym ANSWER also stands for American-Nepali Students' and Women's Educational Relief and and has been around since 2001.

More Info

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelder2259 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Can this page be protected again? I have a feeling I'll get really sick soon of reverting controversial edits that have no consensus. --Kevin W. 03:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not this time and let the process run its course. I've already warned In the Stacks (diff) that his edits are starting to very much look like disruptive editing. Bear with me on this, but I'm inclined to let him hang himself this time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep reverting them if I see them. --Kevin W. 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing fabrications and slander is not "disruption" and I resent the implication. ANSWER has never hurt or caused harm to any person and is by its name and activities opposed to all forms of racism and ethno-centrism. The implication that opposing racial government and decades of military occupation is "anti-Semitic" is a vicious attack on Jewish people that should not be tolerated. There is nothing "Jewish" about occupation and war. Anti-Zionism is equivalent to anti-Nazism. I am not a member or supporter of ANSWER, but their positions are what they are. If there are verifiable incidents of ANSWER as ANSWER (not some guy on the street with no connection to ANSWER) holding positions or engaging in activities... then by all means they should be included. But that is not what is at issue here.In the Stacks (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are becoming frankly antisemitic. Equating "Zionists" with Nazis is a hallmark of modern antisemtic rhetoric, as is comparing Jews to Nazis generally. I was willing to overlook this at first, but am less willing to now. I don't believe that you are necessarily an antisemite; ignorance could well be the salient factor here. But you'll need to stop making those sorts of remarks unelss it's your hope to be forcibly objected from here. IronDuke 16:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

ITS, I fail to see how a quote from an ANSWER state official saying that there is a problem with antisemitism within the organization's ranks, which is what I originally added, is a fabrication made up by "Zionist partisans." You are rapidly becoming ridiculous. --Kevin W. 02:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am frankly Jewish so again, you can state what you like but it is irrelevant. Any document, statements from ANSWER or examples of any incident that has ever been directed as Jewish people should be included. Since there are no such examples, but a litany of apologists for Israeli blood laws which equate opposition to a racial state with hatred of Jews. This is classic disinformation, and undoubtedly there are partisans who will continue to equate democratic sensibility with hostility towards whatever nationalist grouping fears "one person, one vote." In the case of ANSWER, they have been a major organization opposing Israeli occupation, and noting the role of the United States in arming and shielding the Zionist state from the legal and historical consequences of expelling 800,000 people from their land. Recognizing the rights of all peoples is not hating any one people. Any philosophy which holds that only one people have legal rights is a racist philosophy, and as such is opposed by ANSWER. That is the dispute. For those who can't see the difference between opposing rabid nationalism and hating a people, I pity you. Jews are not "Israeli". I am not. I am an American and Jew, not a Zionist. Therein lies the distinction. Stacking this entry without facts or incidents, but mere allegation is an NPOV violation – and in good faith I will remove such bald allegations that fundamentally distory the aims, nature and activities of this group. I fail to see what is so complicated. Where the ADL has strong opinions, they should be added to the ADL's entry, since it is a highly partisan organization and not a neutral source. I support protection on this entry to remove highly contested allegations with no basis in fact.In the Stacks (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know how to make this any simpler. Your opinions about the ADL are irrelevant. Your opinions about ANSWER are irrelevant, and whether they do or do not engage in behavior that could be construed as antisemitic is irrelevant (as are mine). All we have is WP:RS to guide us here. Are the points about ANSWER notable? Yes? Made by notable organizations? Yes. Made, as Kevin points out, by ANSWER itself? Yes. It is not an NPOV violation to report on criticism, and your idea that ADL’s criticism should go only in the ADL has already been refuted.

As for your being Jewish, assuming that were true, it would most certainly not inoculate you against charges of antisemitism. Indeed, it is shocking that you would imply that, and further suggestive that your talents would be best used on less sensitive articles (see, for example self-hating Jew). The rhetoric you have been using is strongly reminiscent of that used by antisemites. You would be doing yourself a huge favor to drop it.

You might also check out WP:TIGER. We report on the strong opinions of others. We do not continually try to cram our own opinions into articles, as you are. Finally, you are clearly editing against consensus here. Even an administrator has asked you to stop editing disruptively, and warned you that a block is coming. IronDuke 15:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

common name

It is Wikipedia form to use the most commonly known name. Few people know of "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism" but many know of "A.N.S.W.E.R." Therefore, I am changing the name of this article back to A.N.S.W.E.R. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

hint

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7683877/give_peace_a_chance/?rnd=1141443516255&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1059

Removed this material from the anti-semitism section as it was off the topic of the piece.

The story received mainstream media coverage, but when Lerner later indicated he had not asked to speak at the rally, the L.A. Weekly concluded, "the Lerner brouhaha was less hot-buttoned than advertised."

LLorton (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)