Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK

Notice

I have moved this dispute to the list of disputes not yet certified.

When this began I informed the original complainant User:HistoryBuffEr that he did not have standing to certify the action
unless he made some attempt to come to terms with User:IZAK, and I even suggested approaches,
but he indicated he could not, or would not, deal with him, So he is not in a position to certify
and User:Ed Poor has not given evidence of his own attempts to reach IZAK.
The only users in a position to certify right now are User:pir, User:JFW and User:Jayjg.
The 48-hour clock has started again. If complainants really want to put this forward, surely you can find two people

who have engaged IZAK, been rebuffed, and are willing to certify. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

How interesting, Cecropia.

• Uncle_Ed had in fact warned IZAK in Talk before this RfC.
• Many users below have mentioned confronting IZAK before.
• IZAK has repeated his smears and added new ones ("Nazi") to this RfC. The RfC itself constitutes a warning, which was supported by most, and which IZAK ignored.

Also, how de we explain your sudden interest in strictly enforcing rules in light of your arguments on two VfDs ("Occupation of Palestine" and "Violence against Israelis") that rules should not be strictly enforced? HistoryBuffEr 18:56, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

There is not an issue of non-enforcement of rules where a user is interpreting rules and practice to his own POV. I have not taken a position on IZAK's RfC, and I'm not taking one now. I noticed that this was still going on when it showed up on my watchlist and I saw that you had still refused to take my accurate advice on how to mount an RfC. Do not remove the notice I have placed. Those interested need to know that this will fail in 48 hours with two valid certifications. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:29, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia, I have already asked you to apologize for the false claim that I removed something from here and now you are repeating that false accusation. HistoryBuffEr 19:50, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I had difficulty figuring out from the history who removed it, and I couldn't respond to your comment until now because, believe it or not, I am not on the Internet 24/7 (more like 22/7). I see that Netoholic most recently removed it, and I've cautioned him. If I wrongly accused, I apologize. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You couldn't respond but you found time to repeat your accusation after I asked you for apology? The lame politician-style apology starting with "If I was wrong" is not accepted. You know you were wrong so try again without ifs and buts. HistoryBuffEr 23:00, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I may have misidentified the original remover of the notice. I say "may have" not because I deny it, but because I have not gone back to sort it out, since it is not a matter of importance considering your attacks on me for which I don't bother to solicit apologies. I'm not in the mood to kiss your ring for my supposed transgessions, or any other part of you, for that matter. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:08, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for another non-apology, I was hoping for more than another round of bickering. Now that you are in the RfC Rules Police mood, could you also check RfC/Alberuni, many certs there don't seem to qualify. HistoryBuffEr 23:27, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

I made a couple of attempts to "reach" IZAK, but being in a mild-mannered Clark Kent mood, I have not bothered to make any determined attempt. I only "certified" that Buff had a good point and then suggested quietly that IZAK avoid personal remarks.

After that, Buff started becoming remarkably cooperative on the talk pages of the Arab-Israeli conflict series -- especially articles dealing with Palestine, its history and plans for future disposition. I thought that was good enough. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, that mild-mannered behaviour did not last long, as there has been a return to the ad hominems and attacks, and specific statements that he cannot work with the editors there. Jayjg 20:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Who? Buff or IZAK? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:40, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Buff; review his most recent edits on that Talk: page. Jayjg 21:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Buffer launches new ad hominem attacks on "Holocaust denial examined"

Pathetically, HistyoryBuffer is now antagonizing more people at Holocaust denial examined, see the "history" of that page and the "revert wars" and other stuff at Talk:Holocaust denial examined:

"This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers. The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion. HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Outside of Israel itself (where "Zionism" is apparently a genuine political movement on the order of "libertarianism"), the term "Zionist" is used most frequently in anti-Semitic statements by people who want to insult their opponents, engage in anti-Israel rhetoric, spout conspiracy theorists about "the Jews" and their supposed secret plan to rule the world, or outright paranoid hate by white supremacists and other losers -- especially Holocaust deniers. Hence the note in this article that Holocaust deniers frequently use the term "Zionist" to describe their opponents, or anyone they don't like.

I also see by your Wikipedia contribution that you've added "Totally Disputed" headers to several other articles having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. This suggests that you are less interested in adding NPOV to this article (or the others) than declaring everyone else on Wikipedia to be wrong because they don't agree with you. Please go over this on your Talk page, so that we can come to a resolution. --Modemac 09:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are just repeating your article assertion without supplying any references. Merely repeating something does not make it more true. The complete lack of substantiation for your tendentious generalization is my only contention here, so provide some evidence or remove the statement. HistoryBuffEr 17:45, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, you are clearly makin anti-Semitic and ad homenim attacks towards Jay, and you are pushing a Nazi agenda. Your edits will be reverted. RK 17:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

To Modemac and RK: Removing the Disputed notice, and Protecting the page you are involved in are clear violations of Wikipedia policy. By denying even that a dispute over this articles exists, Modemac and RK have reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your propaganda cause. HistoryBuffEr 20:14, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni page for a look at the current dispute, of which this article is but a drop in the bucket. --Modemac 21:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

User:GeneralPatton suggests that HistoryBuffer be taken to Arbitration

From User:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK

:Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Users are asked to please help set this in motion.

Sorry to interrupt - please see the section on tags below, and stop it, for God's sake! - irismeister 23:23, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

Attempt to find out whether HistoryBuffer is anti-Semitic or not

(from User talk:HistoryBuffEr/Archived-Sermons)

Historybuff... I'm just curious. What do you think of Jewish people in general? Rickyrab 19:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I think nothing of any people in general. P.S: In light of your apparent bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/IZAK&curid=1041236&diff=0&oldid=0), this is my last reply to you on this topic. HistoryBuffEr 19:31, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

• • I see - you're apparently neutral, but you could try NPOVing your commentary on other pages a bit more. Whatever. Rickyrab 19:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • I am not calling you a bigot - I am trying to point out that Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased, is all. Rickyrab 19:37, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Posted by Rickyrab 19:42, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Against Tags on People. Tags are nothing, People are Everything !

Dear All,
Please refrain from putting tags on people and remain logical, civilized and without passions taking over. Bile and jugulars have no precedence over the white and gray matter :O). Tags are neither nice, nor arguments. Instead of using so much time, energy and bandwidth to wait for people and stick it on their forhead, why don't you rest, smell flowers, walk in public gardens and admire automn in this beautiful northern hemisphere :O) As an experienced editor, medical doctor, victim of Securitate, libelled/arbitrated/rfc/banned/tagged/smeared colleague, please stop ! - irismeister 23:22, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)

• Irismeister: You know, you do have a valid point. Your concern is appreciated - I really mean it. IZAK 08:13, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you dearly :O) - I know you know I know. We all are a knowledgeable family. :O) - irismeister 23:28, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

My role in all this

I'm not sure why people keep asking me to take sides. All I want is peace.

Ed Poor, being a Conservative, appeases some of the reactionaries, is usually present where they are, appears to bring a balanced approach, raps a few knuckles, and effectively allows the trash to continue heaping.

I'd also like to see some accuracy, especially because I know very little history of the Middle East.

If you guys all want me to, I could see that this matter got brought before the arbitration committee, but I'd rather not do that. Jimbo asked me to be a Mediator - not a sheriff.

Now if you all want me to settle this my way, I have an idea. Hint: it's inspired by in incident in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, a science fiction novel about a revolution among anarchic inmates of a lunar penal colony -- or is that anarchic lunatics? --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems basically resolved between Sam Spade and IZAK

Ed, thanks for the input, allow me to bring you up to speed: A while ago User:Sam Spade contacted me at my talk page, please see User talk:IZAK#Hi IZAK We conducted a lengthy correspondence. Sam conveyed his concerns and I described and explained where I was coming from, please see User talk:IZAK#Response After some discussion I basically told Sam that "... I am sorry for any discomfort and hurt you may have experienced and I hope that we can continue a positive dialogue in the future. Thanks again for your sincere words and patience. IZAK 00:52, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)" and Sam accepted and said "OK, I can accept that, but please do not to use slurs like "anti-semite" "bigot" or "nazi" on the wikipedia in the future.... Sam Spade 13:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)." Since then all has been quiet. As for dealing with User:HistoryBuffer I have not really had much to do with him this past month. He nevertheless does continue to use such epithets as "Zionistas" and similar sounding insults towards the editors involved with Israel-related articles. I was in fact contacted by User:GeneralPatton, see User talk:IZAK#Opposing Anti-Semitism on Wikipedia, to commence a RfC of my own against HistoryBuffer ("Izak, from my own experience, I suggest you now take HistoryBuffEr straight to Arbitration, and demand he be banned from all articles concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You have a great and compelling body of evidence against him. GeneralPatton 19:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)") User:GeneralPatton in fact has warned HistoryBuffer directly that "HistoryBuffEr, its about time you start playing nice with everyone else or pay the consequences (arbitration). GeneralPatton 02:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)," see this at Talk:Holocaust denial examined#This article is totally disputed, but I have delayed this, not wanting to roil the waters even more than they have been. If necessary I will join User:GeneralPatton in starting a RfC against HistoryBuffer's uncivil and demeaning language and behavior and no doubt we will have support. At any rate things have been quiet. So I would say that whatever the issues were and are, they have been aired, responded to, discussed and probably even resolved to some extent (which is my take on things right now). So this RfC is in any case long past many deadlines of "48 hours" and should be closed. Thank you for all your help. IZAK 21:16, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Speaking purely as a mediator, I will be happy to see harmony between you and Sam. I always prefer for matters to be resolved between parties rather than "going to court". Whether or not there's a formal Request for Mediation, it's the result that counts.

Agree to disagree on facts or values, and yet cooperate to make accurate, unbiased articles. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 12:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't say I'm convinced, but IZAK was amiable enough on his talk page, and has not made any slanderous statements or campaigns against me since then. Frankly it will take time, and consistantly positive interactions for me to feel resolved, but esp. since we are not currently editing any articles in common (to my knowledge) things seem to be in a state of calm. Perhaps I will have to wait until my next RfA before I can know if IZAK will engage in similar tactics, since I have recieved no assurance from him that he feels such techniques are other than acceptable. Sam [Spade] 15:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Sam, BTW, would you support a RfA by ME (I am not "running" by the way, just curious)? I did not know that one runs perpetual campaigns on Wikipdia for Admin positions? Hopefully, there will not be any need to object to your views. Although today I did receive a troubling message on my talk page from User:Viriditas: "Sam Spade is engaging in historical revisionism on Nazi Germany and Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. --Viriditas 22:38, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)" (see User talk:IZAK#Sam Spade, aka "Thomas Jefferson") which makes me very worried about the direction and positions you take on Wikipedia. At this time I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I hope you will not pursue the alleged positions that concern User:Viriditas and many others NOT interested in allowing Wikipedia to become a POV platform for "historical revisionism on Nazi Germany and Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" and similar abominable stuff. Only time will tell I guess. IZAK 06:08, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, as well as the identical comment he left @ User_talk:Jayjg#Sam_Spade.2C_aka_.22Thomas_Jefferson.22. If you think he has a leg to stand on, I suggest you weigh in at the appropriate talk page, as he requested. Clearly he is having some trouble making his case, or he wouldn't be requesting backup.

What is truly abominable is that the ethnic cleansing and state sponsored race-based persecution of ethnic Germans after WWII could be described as "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" by anyone claiming neutrality. Women being systematically raped and nailed to barn doors by their ears, children shot in the street, men beaten and driven into freight cars headed to gulags in Siberia... is this the sort of "victors justice" that fills you with pride?

Call me what you like, I will not back down while disgraceful articles such as this are paraded before our unfortunate readers, shaming both the wikipedia and neutral editors alike. I should hope that regardless of your POV, that you can see the proper response to such abominations. If I were to see you behave in a neutral, polite manner in response to issues such as this (as well as generally) for a period of time, I would of course support you for an adminship position. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 15:35, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

File:Molotov-Ribbentrop.JPG

(Question: Have they found the "perfect" "NPOV"?) In Moscow:Communist chief Joseph Stalin, right, standing side by side with Hitler's personal friend Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop (later condemned by Nuremberg Trials and executed 10/16/46 for his role in the Holocaust), as Russia's Molotov signs the notorious Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (8/23/39) alliance between the Nazis and the Reds whereby they split Poland (Sept. 1939). Hitler however betrayed Stalin, chose Blitzkrieg to attack Russia during Operation Barbarossa (6/22/44), but Stalin had the last laugh when with Russian Katyusha rockets flattening Berlin, Hitler, his German Shepherd Dog, and his mistress-cum-sudden bride Eva Braun commited suicide in their Führerbunker as Germany was DEFEATED. Submitted by: IZAK 08:49, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

File:Red army soldiers raising the soviet flag on the roof of the reichstag berlin germany.jpg

Will Germany and its latter day fans learn their lesson??? As Germany pays the price April 1945: A picture of the rising of the hammer and sickle flag (symbol of Communism) over the Reichstag in desolate Berlin by Red Army troops, after Russia's final defeat of Nazism. Submitted by IZAK 09:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam the Nazis should have thought of this: ("...Women being systematically raped and nailed to barn doors by their ears, children shot in the street, men beaten and driven into freight cars headed to gulags in Siberia...") happening BEFORE they attacked Russia in Operation Barbarossa (22nd June 1941), breaking their (signed and sealed) word of honor of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939), and killing millions of Russian civilians via Einsatzgruppen and similar abominable acts during the war. To enrage the proverbial Russian bear and then complain that it is acting "bear-like" is like expecting British bombers not to flatten Dresden in 1945 after the Germans had attacked Britain's cities with its own bombers in The Blitz of 1940-1. The moral of the story is, and somehow German's are HISTORICALLY VERY "learning disabled" about this, is that: Don't declare war (especially the Holocaust of the Jews) against the world and then expect everyone to treat you nicely (or fairly...as human emotions are loosed) just because you raise a white flag, after they spent years fighting to defeat you. Nobody told Germany to go into Russia in the first place (it was all part of Hitler's megalomania and the Germans followed him). Anyhow, this is all tangential stuff. The main concern I have is that you do seem to want the condemned history of the Nazi era to be treated with kindness, yet you don't seem to have similar instinctive feelings about the poor Jewish victims. Which then gets one thinking that maybe....what the heck, I won't say, I just hope that the pathetic and well-deserved defeat of Nazi Germany should serve as an example for those who fantasize about defending the indefensible. IZAK 08:41, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In your racism you forget how many of those ethnic Germans lived in Russia, Ukraine, etc... prior to WWII. This "their ethnic clensing was deserved, all Germans were Nazi's" mentality disgusts me. Sam [Spade] 12:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, why are you accusing me of "racism" now? I did NOT say "their ethnic cleansing was deserved, all Germans were Nazi's" as those are YOUR words that you IMAGINE or project someone you don't know is saying. Please retract! In any case, I don't follow your reasoning. If the Nazis cared so much for their fellow ethnic Germans in Russia, then why did they endanger their (i.e. the ethnic Volks Deutchen) lives by attacking the host nation? Wouldn't diplomacy and trade be a far better approach? The former USSR consisted of hundreds of nationalities, ethnicities, and religions, from ethnic Germans in the west (tens of thousands of whom joined the Russian army to fight the Hitlerian Fascists, so they were most definitely NOT all Nazis, on the contrary), Eskimos in the north, and millions of Muslims in the south and Tartars and Mongols in the east. It should be obvious, that neighboring nations that attack Russia in the name of "protecting" their kindred kith and kin, and are then soundly thrashed on the battlefield by Russian soldiers, have no right to then "cry" "look what they are doing my ethnic cousins" since they are themselves in large measure responsible for bringing about a worsening of relations with the ruling Russians by having chosen war over peace. As I said, why would one want to provoke the Russian bear, and then complain that it is mauling one's cousins within its domain? "He who sows the wind, reaps the whirlwind", who said that? Think about it. IZAK 18:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not Hitler, nor a Nazi complaining. I am an american who wants to see atrocities presenting in a balanced light. Ethnic cleanisng and victors justice are always ugly and wrong. Sam [Spade] 22:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, Hitler is long dead, this is only a discussion about history. It is good to care about people, but it is also imporatnt when analyzing history to understand the factors behind events as well. The Nazis were masters of "ethnic cleansing and victors justice" so if one were to analyze why there was a similar back-lash against them and any of their cohorts, it makes sense to see the Nazis as conributing to the problem and not to accept their "cry" as phony "innocent victims" when they only have themselves to blame since they initiated the war. IZAK 08:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would seem you are unable to see thru your "all Germans are Nazi's" racist POV. Sam [Spade] 14:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, again I request that you retract your accusation, as I have never said, nor do I think, that "all Germans are Nazis" at any time, and I cannot fathom how you see me as "racist" if I am definitely anti-Nazi which was the "king" of all racist doctrines. I am most definietly not anti-German nor anti- any people (except for Anti-Semites whom any decent human being would despise) as I myself am a Germanic Ashkenazi Jew. So your insult is really a joke, and has no grounding in reality at all. Please apologize. IZAK 04:26, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scroll up, and review your unfortunate opinions. Sam [Spade] 12:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, there must be serious cognitive differences between us. Could you please point to the exact words or sentences that leads you to assume things about my view of Germans and the Nazis, thanks. IZAK 01:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam the Nazis should have thought of this: ("...Women being systematically raped and nailed to barn doors by their ears, children shot in the street, men beaten and driven into freight cars headed to gulags in Siberia...") happening BEFORE they attacked Russia in Operation Barbarossa (22nd June 1941), breaking their (signed and sealed) word of honor of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (1939), and killing millions of Russian civilians via Einsatzgruppen and similar abominable acts during the war. To enrage the proverbial Russian bear and then complain that it is acting "bear-like" is like expecting British bombers not to flatten Dresden in 1945 after the Germans had attacked Britain's cities with its own bombers in The Blitz of 1940-1.

This makes it clear that you think Germans who suffered atrocities such as the Prussian Holocaust were Nazi's who should have thought ahead, and were foolish to complain. It wasn't nazi's who complained, it was women who were raped and crucified, children who were shot, and their husbands who morned them while riding in frieght cars to Siberia. Sam [Spade] 01:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam: No, you seem to have confused things. I am saying that the Nazis should have realized that they would be endangering the lives of ethnic Germans BEFORE they (the Nazis) attacked Russia. The prime fault is with the instigators, in this case the Nazis, for starting the war. At NO point do I say that the unfortunate civilian victims were to blame for anything, and at NO point do I say that "all Germans are Nazis". IZAK 03:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, then why the accusations of historical revisionism for my documenting these atrocities? Sam [Spade] 15:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would say that if there is the appearance created that the Russians were mistreating the ethnic Germans because they were "acting on a whim" or only because of their Communist ideology, then it is like saying to kid that the "mosquito bites" (i.e. the Russians) that are hurting just "landed out of nowhere" on their "innocent skin" (i.e. of the ethnic Germans) without mentioning the fact that the mosquitos (i.e. the Nazis) caused the "bites" in the first place when they attacked Russia without warning. You have to convey the total picture of the evil the Nazis unleashed, not just that there were "casualties" some time after the war. IZAK 03:49, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find these mosquito analogies about as polite as the "parisitic race" ideology of Nazism itself. No misdeed deserves another, and ethnic clensing is ethnic clensing, no excuses make it prettier. Do you think the article on the holocaust should more fullytake into account the claims of the Nazi party that Jews had engineered the German failure in WWI by war profiteering and other acts of betrayal, and that many Nazi's felt that the work camps were a reasonable reperation to exact from untermensch they felt had been exploiting them for so many generations? Of course not, there is never any justification for genocide, despite every genocide having been justified by the oppressors, and now, unfortunately, here by you as well. Sam [Spade] 16:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, ONLY the followers of the crazy dog Adolf Hitler "claimed" "that Jews had engineered the German failure in WWI by war profiteering and other acts of betrayal". No respectable historian would make this statement unless they were Anti-Semites! Furthermore, there was no such thing as "work camps"! There were either Nazi concentration camps or extermination camps, and they were NOT meant for "reperation to exact from untermensch they felt had been exploiting them for so many generations" but only for enslavement and then the genocide of the Jews which produced the Holocaust. The Jews of Germany served Germany loyally. Over a half million Jewish soldiers served in the German and Austrian armies during World War I. So your comparison is not only wrong, but it reveals a dangerous acceptance of a revisionist pro-Nazi history perspective. IZAK 23:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Typical, I accuse you of justifying crimes against Germans, and you accuse me of revisionism. Turnabout is fair play eh? Sam [Spade] 00:01, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, please do not put words in my proverbial mouth. I am NOT justifying "crimes against Germans" or against anyone else. I do NOT approve of crime. Period! When looking at historical events one looks at the causes and effects. To just look at the result only, i.e. that Russians abused ethnic Germans after World war II, without looking at the causes, i.e. that Nazi Germany provoked the Russions in the first place by breaking their alliance with Red Russia and attacking it in June of 1941, they (the Nazis) thereby also weakened the precarious position of the ethnic Germans who mostly allied themselves with Nazi Germany. I am not justifying it. You are confusing my use of description and explanation as tools of study with personal "bias" and "justifications". The comparison to the Jews of Germany is not only wrong but also unjust and illogical, because the German Jews were as German as any other group in Germany, having lived there since Roman times 2,000 years ago (maybe even longer), and the Nazis confused matters (they were masters of distortionist propaganda to electrify and mislead the German volk) to justify their own genocidal agenda, because of Hitler's demonic obsession with the Jews which only brought about the defeat of Germany and its the destruction of the 12-year "One thousand year Third Reich". IZAK 00:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You calously disregard the Socio-economic anti-Semitism (rooted in the disproportionate success and/or influence, relative to their numbers within the general population, that individual Jews have achieved in a variety of occupations) that feuled the vitrol of the holocaust. You then use Nazi territorial expansion as a justification for later war crimes by the soviets. Nothing justifies war crimes, ethnic clensing, or genocide, but there are always excuses, explanation, attempts at justification, etc... Sam [Spade] 18:24, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you review what I have repeated to you a few times already, you will see that I am trying to talk like a responsible historian and that all you seem to want to do is to tug at emotional heart strings that has nothing to do with the facts of history, just to run around looking for ways to portray groups you favor for whatever reason as "victims" without any regard for the context and facts of history. On the one hand you want to justify Nazi Anti-Semitism and somehow justify the Holocaust and at the same time you want to complain about the injustice of Russian behavior to ethnic Russians all the while ignoring the history behind that and how the Nazis provoked it in the first place. It is time for us to end the circular dancing around this topic as I have stated what I have to say a few times over, and you keep harping away and resorting to out of context emotionalism. IZAK 18:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A general observation

The Wikipedia is much younger than the e-mail newsgroups which many people are familiar with. No one has really been able to prevent flame wars on Usenet or Dejanews. And even a subscribers-only mailing list can be hard to moderate. God knows I tried here at the English Wikipedia.

But we are not just posting e-mail messages. We are using a wiki to craft encyclopedia articles. This requires a mental and emotional shifting of gears. --user:Ed Poor (dope rouser) 14:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am personally completely unfamiar with e-mail newsgroups. I am however familiar with message board forums, and these in my experience have immaculate civility, since rude comments are removed, and the user making them warned. If incivility continues, the offenders are banned. Its very simple. Eventually wikipedia will have such enlightened policies, until them some of us will suffer thru, others will leave. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 16:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I should devote a greater percentage of my Wikipedia time to promoting civility. Let me sleep on this.... --user:Ed Poor (pre-US rodeo) 22:34, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hoorah! [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 23:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)