User talk:Tocquevil
This edit war is getting ridiculous. There is room in the article for both sides. I toned your edits down a little and made them fit better with the paragraph.
"However, other -like authors Mearsheimer and Walt- will point out"
If it is from a source, that source should be sited after the statement. I left a spot for you you to add the citation. If you have issues with reverts in the future, please communicate with the user before reverting back. --Roccyraccoon 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no edit war. I think Doonhammer removed my edits by mistake. As for me, I didn't removed anything. I added some perspective to put both sides of the story in an article that is cruelly lacking balance and perspective. Arromdee deleted them twice for 2 different "reasons". If you think my additions are not fair, please explain me why. Particularly what is wrong with the statement that "an isolated incident cannot be evidence of anti-semitism of a whole population" ? Francophobia, like all prejudices, stems from unfair generalizations, and this wiki article does exactly that: justify unfair generalizations. It is crucial that this process be exposed somewhere within the article, for a minimum of perspective. By the way, thanks for your lecture, but the person who removes additions should be the one that communicate in the first place. Tocquevil 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encylcopdia. It lists facts. It is in no way endorcing francophobia. You're balencing this article to the point of absurd redundancy. There is a whole paragraph at the end of the section showing that France no more anti-semitic than the next country. Keep the section short and to the point. That addition, "hardly evidence of anti-semitism of a whole population" is unnecessary and makes the sentence sound very sloppy. I just want to make this more readable. If you ask me, the whole section either needs to be rewritten or axed. --Roccyraccoon 18:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- You state "Wikipedia is an encylcopdia. It lists facts. It is in no way endorcing francophobia." If you read the Talk page, you'll see that many people completely disagree. They point out that listing francophobe statements, or listing incidents that "explain" why people make francophobe statements, and presenting them as "facts" without perspective is a perverse way of actually legitimating those francophobe statements. If you fail to see this point, so be it. As for me, I fail to see any "absurd redundancy".
- Also, your vision that an encyclopedia just lists facts, is very naive. There is no such thing as pure facts. Articles that -explicitly or implicitly- pretend to be only based on facts can be -and frequently are- very biased. Tocquevil 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)