User talk:Mantanmoreland/Archive4

Step back from the keyboard[edit]

Step back from the keyboard, both of you. This block button is loaded. I want to see both of you walk away and if either of you looks back he gets it in the neck. Just zis Guy you know? 23:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuit alum?[edit]

Did you go to a jesuit high school, or a jesuit university? --NEMT 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the heads-up[edit]

At the moment, I have no firm position on the use of the anti-semite tags. Farrakhan almost certainly is one, but I'm not sure it helps WP to have this category. I'm still thinking about it, though. IronDuke 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ford article and Anti-Semitism category[edit]

Your claim: (category is amply supported by historical record cited in article; do not use inaccurate edit summaries WP:NPA) is not correct. Here are some excerpts from the article regarding "The International Jew" and other writings supposedly attributed to or approved by Ford. These strongly refute your claim that Ford should be categorized as an Anti-Semitic:

None of this work was actually written by Ford--who wrote almost nothing. Other people told him about the contents, although Ford probably never read them (He claimed he only read headlines.)

(The) articles nevertheless explicitly condemned pogroms (sic) and violence against Jews

News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature.

Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline.

Ford publicly retracted the International Jew and the Protocols. In January 1942, he wrote a public letter to the ADL denouncing hatred against the Jews and expressing his hope that anti-Jewish hatred would cease for all time.

I think this proves that Mr. Ford should not be included in the category with Anti-Semitics, and your statement that the article supports such categorization is simply false. As to "inaccurate edit summaries", your original categorization post did not even have an edit summary - and since the category is both inappropriate and inaccurate for application to Henry Ford, and had all the appearance of an agenda-driven drive-by vandalism done by an internet troll, done in spite of and in clear disregard of the discussions on the discussion page, and the approved material posted in the article. Thank you in advance for your re-consideration --T-dot 14:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the word "vandalism" within Wikipedia has a specific meaning. See WP:VANDAL. Ditto for "trolling." Please don't use words like that inappropriately or to describe a content dispute. See WP:NPA.

Secondly, your uncited and unsubstantiated original research does not "prove" anything. What are your sources? Where are the citations in the article? Your one-sided and selective discussion represents a minority view among historians, who are quite unanimous that Ford was anti-Semitic. His claim that he was "too busy" to notice the seven years of anti-Semitism at the Dearborn Independent was derided at the time, and he later repudiated his apology.

However, you have highlighted a serious problem with this article, which is that it totally whitewashes Ford's anti-Semitism and provides a minority POV rejected by historians.

Additionally, and just as important, the article does not cite within the body of this lengthy article any of its sources, not the least of which are sources for its one-sided discussion of Ford's anti-Semtiistm. There is an omnibus list of sources at the bottom but none are linked to specific passages within the article. I have put the appropriate tag on the top of the section, since we are focusing on that that, but as a matter of fact the entire article contains no citations and the tag really belongs at the top of the article itself. --Mantanmoreland 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just find it highly irregular that you would first use the Henry Ford article to defend your POV claim that Ford was Anti-Semitic, and then when challenged on that point by another User, who points out that the article does not say that (and you eventually read it and discover that it does not in fact defend your POV) you immediately dismiss the article as being uncited, and contrary to neutral POV. Very odd indeed. Nevertheless, I am not going to argue the issue further. --T-dot 15:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed irregular to have a long article, one that whitewashes a major historical figure, to have not a single citation for any of its dubious "facts." In any event, hopefuly that can now be rectified. --Mantanmoreland 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rjensen[edit]

Don't worry about it. 3RR is one thing. But you also have additional complaints, I believe, which you have put on AN/I ? Tyrenius 00:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look near the top of AN. You'll see there are links to different sub pages, including one for 3RR. Tyrenius 00:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try this[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Zionist+Regime%22&btnG=Search

Re: Louis Farrakhan[edit]

I think those edits are problematic, and they seem to be being handled correctly so far. I'll keep an eye on the page too. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ain't by any chance a member of the Mystic Knights of the Pangatta, is you?[edit]

Are you really related to Mantan Moreland? that's amazing. Twalls 15:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]