Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar/Workshop

I was trying to convey a concept in the Yellow badging section of my evidence, but I am not sure how successful I was, so I would like to discuss it here a little more. As Fred mentioned on the project page, we do have "real" anti-semites (and homophobes) to deal with on WP. These cases are pretty obvious, and most if not all reasonable editors would be in agreement that this type of behavior is not acceptable. But there is also a subtler form that some editors allow themselves to unwittingly fall into. I have observed it on and off wiki, and in my experience, it often comes from people who consider themselves progressively enlightened, and are well-intentioned. They may be anti neocon, or anti Republican, or pro Palestinian, or (insert your own label here), and they are trying to expose hypocrisy or expose an agenda perceived to be held by a political opponent group or person. I won't openly point fingers at any editors, because I do not want this to turn into an attack fest. But to cite just a couple of article examples, we have seen it in the Libby article. I have also seen repeated attempts to insert allegations of being gay into Matt Drudge and Larry Craig. I'm sure that the intention in the last two examples is to illustrate hypocrisy in people who are perceived to be "anti-gay". There is a left-leaning editor here who has turned out to be a pretty good net-friend of mine. He was participating off-wiki at a progressive website in one of these "outing gay Republicans" threads, and was banned from the site for making "homophobic remarks". He was shocked and insulted that anyone would consider him to be homophobic. I would say that he is most certainly NOT homophobic. But in my view, and in the view of the moderator who banned him, the remarks WERE homophobic. This guy is very intelligent, and is as tolerant and accepting as they come regarding sexual orientation, but I still don't believe that he sees why his remarks were taken as homophobic. He rationalized it in some way that basically comes down to the end justifying the means. But the effect was that in an attempt to expose hypocrisy, his own hypocrisy was exposed. Now I'm not trying to claim that this type of behavior only comes from the progressive side. I'm sure just as many examples can be cited from the conservative side, I'm just reporting what I have observed, and what has struck me about it. And it isn't just gays and Jews who are targets, they just seem to be the most popular and easiest targets. I'm sure that every religious belief system and LGBT "genre" has seen its share of abuse. That is why religion and sexual orientation are singled out for special sensitivity in WP:BLP (in categories), and why I am asking for clarification and widening of scope of the category criteria. So, no matter who it comes from, what their motivation is, or who the target is, it's wrong. Perhaps it can be distilled down to: The end does not justify the means.? I would like to hear thoughts on this from others, and maybe suggestions on how to convey this concept in a nutshell. - Crockspot 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

:We know very little about Libby's personal life. A family temple membership says little. He's Jewish in the sense Nixon was a Quaker. That fact is briefly mentioned in Nixon's article. Likewise I see no problem with brief mention of Libby's ethnicity and religious affiliation. There is a great deal of paranoia about the "neo-cons". Down that road lies some pitfalls. Part of the problem lies in the very lack of religious fervor typical of the ethnically Jewish neo-cons. There is no discernible nexus between their political and religious activities. Which leaves an ethnic nexus for people's imaginations to work on. Part of our biographies of living persons' policy is that such articles be conservative and sober. That means that speculation of such a nature has no proper role in our article. Fred Bauder 11:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::First off, Nixon is dead, so Biography of living persons does not apply. Second, although you have no problem with it, those that do see it as a violation of WP:BLP. Libby has to publicly self-identify, and it has to be relevant to his notable activities or public life. "Inquiring minds want to know" doesn't meet this threshold. This holds true of all biographies of living persons of any faith or sexual orientation. Notmyrealname 18:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, Nixon is dead. I think BLP, as it relates to this case, may have been misinterpreted, but I have not made up my mind on that point yet. His Jewish affiliation is generally considered relevant due to his former status as adviser to Cheney and his neo-con affiliations. Fred Bauder 19:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

::It is the last part of your statement there that is very troubling. I do not think that Libby's religion is "generally considered" relevant by fair-minded people because of his work with Cheney or his being labeled a "neo-con." It is considered relevant by many who hold prejudicial views against Jews. That is what part of the whole fuss of this thing is about. There are no sources that demonstrate that his Jewish faith affected his policy actions in any way. Notmyrealname 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)