This page is for discussing the contents of Sam's Mediterranean/Politics.
This page is over three years old. Can it go away now? -Donshor
Should it stay as is? Be deleted? Altered?
See Ed's proposal (in the comment 2008-10-27 15:03:15') about editing it down and integrating it.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2008-10-26 22:10:06 I vote no; even it's a rather old issue (the page may be three years old, but the alleged incident happened six years ago), things that Davis residents think are important are important. —ElleWeber
2008-10-27 01:34:04 I agree, I think controversy is inherently worth keeping. Maybe there are "potentially libelous" comments but I don't think its a big deal. Qualifying with "potentially" pretty much says its BS. —NickSchmalenberger
2008-10-27 02:28:58 The page should go. It has been established that on that day (in 2002 people!) there was a rally & some of the members ate at Sam's. Big deal! One of Sam's own employees said all they did was eat there. If Sam were to refuse service to people because he didn't like the message on their t-shirts, and he got involved in the politics of the customers, in my opinion, he would be doing our "free country" a disservice. The people eating there were NOT escaped prisoners who had been tried & proven guilty of terrorism...they were students & activists, and whether or not they were radical in their beliefs, Sam would have NO business getting involved unless they were harassing or attacking people on his property. He is not in business to argue over the political beliefs of his customers, he sells fast food for the most part, where you order at the counter & seat yourself! I don't believe the comments are "potentially" libelous, I believe they are dangerous. Just because this issue is "controversial" we should keep it around to sensationalize it? NO. It IS a big deal, and people have been harmed or had their businesses vandalized for lesser reasons (esp. due to the heightened political tensions in war time). Let it go. —AprilAries
I think you're the only one sensationalizing it now, calling it dangerous and citing "war time". I think such fearmongering is unnecessary, but maybe Karl Rove would disagree. I think Sam's is a great restaurant too and I don't hold these associations against Sam or the restaurant, I went there last week. If somebody vandalizes Sam's it is just because they are a stupid individual and the wiki can't be responsible. The fact that this was controversial once means it is worth keeping to explain what it was all about. I think the way it is written now it is fairly clear that this is just a lot of BS on the Internet and I don't have a problem with that. If you look at the history of the page you can see that JabberWokky and PxlAted among others have spent a bit of effort introducing the whole issue and I don't think that should be thrown away. I agree with you about the original issue, that it isn't a big deal, but others are entitled to other opinions and I think that is a part of the culture of the wiki here and of Davis in general. —NickSchmalenberger
I don't think I am sensationalizing it, or fearmongering. I was voicing my GENUINE concern about some of the accusations. If I owned a business & people were discussing such a thing as this, I would be concerned. Big difference. I was citing "war time" because people are already so divided on the issue, I hate to see this incident coming up causing more "controversy". I was putting my vote in to see it go away. And, I think Karl Rove would have loved a page like the Sam's page where citizens report on each other for things like serving people who may or may not have disagreeable political agendas.
I can see where you are coming from with keeping some older issues archived for their historical content, but I don't think the Sam's page is one of them. I don't want to address this again, because my doing so is keeping it going. I just wanted to agree with those who thought it should go.
AprilAries
2008-10-27 10:10:17 This page may have historical value, but I don't think anyone believes Sam supports the destruction of Israel. And its your loss if you boycott this place because 6 years ago Sam might have given free food to SJP. I don't think this page has hurt Sam at all so I can't believe keeping it would do any harm either. —JamesSchwab
2008-10-27 12:12:34 It should go. I agreed with keeping it a few years ago, but by now it has run its course, I think. —JoseBleckman
Since when do wiki pages have a "course" to run? Isn't that kind of like deleting the page of a closed business or Whole Earth Festival 2006? And yes, I think flame wars are legitimate, if ridiculous, business. —NickSchmalenberger
2008-10-27 15:03:15 Lost my post due to a browser crash >.< It was rather long, so I suppose it's a good thing. I vote deletion as well. This isn't a big event, and I think it's certainly being a bit blown up for it to be a "Politics" subpage. A closed business or a festival is something entirely different. Heck, I think that big page about a hair in a burrito should go too (though I suppose $5000 Pita should stay due to the novelty and pseudo-fame it has, and other big jumbled debates one might try to compare this to such Covell Village are more relevant to keep as 'history' when compared to this and a hair). It's one person alleging something, that was ultimately later denied by an employee. I don't think there's any historical purpose or usefulness in keeping all of the debate and responses. It was originally a comment, and then moved out. I propose that: Paul Lanzi's original comment be reinstated on the page, and then a short paragraph threaded under it as a reply. The reply can simply link to the history of the former subpage and thus mention how it was debated/contested a lot, and then reply that the alleged incident was also disputed by a current/former employee. Basically, cut out the majority of the junk while keeping the original comment, and a summary of a reply. —EdWins
