This page is for discussing the contents of Sam's Mediterranean Cuisine.
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2007-11-29 17:21:25 I think that William Peacock's "Free Palestine" comment (even with its "disclaimer") is irrelevant to the page and should be removed. If he or anyone else wants to publicize a "Free Palestine" group or event on the wiki that is fine, but the comment doesn't belong on Sam's Page, or Crepeville's page, or McDonald's page, or.... —CovertProfessor
2007-11-29 18:05:56 I don't think it's totally out of the blue - I'm assuming it's due to the Sam's Mediterranean/Politics which was a link in a comment further up the page. —EdWins
-
Yes, but: 1) WP put it on the main page, not on the Politics page, and 2) It is (apparently) a statement of his own belief, and not an official statement from Sam's (as the disclaimer admits — but then, if it is not an official statement of the restaurant's, why is it relevant?)
-
I'm guessing he was trying to kill two birds with one stone? Saw the link, maybe read the page, and so left a combined comment - one about the food not getting him sick, and then the 'Free Palestine' part too. Know what I mean? I'm not talking about what to do with the comment itself or if anything should be done, just about why it was left there.
-
I'm sure you're right about how why he made the comment, but still, I'd really like to see it gone. I think it sets a bad precedent. I'm hoping someone else will weigh in here. —CP
2007-11-29 22:27:29 I think it ought to be removed as well. The "Free Palestine" statement is clearly out of place on the main page. Also, he did not make the statement within the context of a conversation, which sometimes occurs between multiple people in comment areas and can plausibly stray from the focus of the main page's contents. Since it doesn't contribute any informational value to anything on that entry, I vote for deleting it since it does set a bad precedent, as CP mentioned also. —PaulAmnuaypayoat
2007-11-29 22:35:48 I believe the term my kids would use is 'random'. It is out of context, among other problems. I think it should go. —DonShor
2007-11-30 00:00:37 I think it is okay, but then I like to see other people's opinions. It might be out of context for some people who weren't around when the Sam's Mediterranean/Politics donnybrook was more active, but that is still around, and as Edwin noted, it is linked on the same page. Overall, I think it is in context. I also think it was trolling, and still could be the poster's sincere opinion. Whether it is or not, it is fine with me. It becomes more of a problem when people become upset or unhappy, which may have happened on the Politics page. Don't take trolling too seriously and its not a big deal. —NickSchmalenberger
2007-11-30 04:02:00 I would say it is off-topic, but maybe Mr. Peacock is trying to draw a verbally disavowed connection? (Doth he protest too much?) I'm not sure, but as it is now, he's either on-subject and obscure or either intentionally or inadvertently tossing in a loaded phrase to derail the entry. I read it yesterday and just shook my head, hoping nobody would notice it. Well intentioned or not, it overshadows the rest of the reviews, kind of like hauling out a bullhorn and playing harmonica at a dinner conversation. "Everybody pay attention to meeeee!!" Quick... somebody post their views on abortion on the Woodstock's Pizza Entry, and then lob a couple gun control/rights catchphrases on the town flora entries (just also add something relevant to the comment, but unrelated to your catchphrases so you can cry censorship when people question the relevance)!
Actually, I'm not tremendously sure that anything should be done here. I think the controversy stirred up will prevent this from becoming a regular occurrence, and if it does become common, it can be dealt with (including this case). Right now (and my opinion could change once he weighs in himself), I think Mr. Peacock is being egocentric and wants a spotlight on his comment above all others, so he's throwing in the phrase for attention. It reflects on him more than Sam's, which (while I'm not convinced it needs to be done) is why I wouldn't be horrified if it were removed. He's using the entry about Sam's for his personal little soapbox. On the other hand, he hasn't weighed in, and it may well have been inadvertent. The Aller Express has already paged him to the conversation, so hopefully he'll speak for himself shortly.
For reference sake, this is not the first time similar things have occurred. Entries have been coopted by vitriolic screeds being constantly expanded upon by a persistant editor that (for a time) overwhelmed all other reviews, and long back and forth debates about a single incident that grew much longer than the entry itself, including all other reviews. A single comment eclipsing all others is a recurring issue; this is just the first quasi-off topic one (and yet not quite so off-topic to be clearly spam) that's popped up. —JabberWokky
2008-01-13 15:37:48 Wow... I got a whole page. The Free Palestine remark was mostly a response to the B.S. controversy talk that was present and the various comments from IrenePark that describe a conspiracy by Sam's to support SJP. Since her comments were on the page, I responded. Truly, I could care less whether you delete it or not. It was a satirical response to other Wiki users' whining on irrelevant topics on Sam's page. However, if you delete my post, you must delete all the whining about the Sams/Politcs crap as well. —William.Peacock
