Fred Bauder wrote:
>I believe RK's material could and should probably be
>presented in several paragraphs. What he has done
>is a piece of original historical research, which by
>citing particular statements made by Palestinians
>builds a strong case that at least some Palestinian
>leaders are insincere.
Well the allegation that Palestinian leaders often say one thing in English to
westerners and say another thing in Arabic to the Islamic world is not what I
would call new work.
But the long passage would definitely be improved by a great deal of
condensation at the very least. My first impression upon reading it was that
for the length of text it actually said very little. But I'm not prepared to
get into an edit war with RK over it - he seems to find it difficult to take
critical comments about his work.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who avoids editing these kind of articles
because of RK. Wrong or not on this particular issue, Danny was one of the
few people who would not back down to RK's bullying (yes, IMO, what RK does
when he does not get his way is bullying).
Sadly it now seems that Jimbo's declarative and unmitigated comments have
resulted in Danny leaving the project. Jimbo should realize the great weight
his comments have and mix criticism with some sort of mitigating/less sharp
comments.
I don't think that Danny's absence serves the big picture goal of having NPOV
over many Middle-east subjects.
I am very sad to see him leave.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Viajero,
List me as "abstaining" from the VfD vote: so it wasn't
unanimous, there was at least one abstention. If I thought
VfD was a helpful process, I'd have voted "keep".
I agree that the article wasn't well written, but I don't
think /voting to eliminate it/ is the answer. Perhaps
BLANKING the content and starting fresh, with a stub would
be better.
Part of the problem in politics is that advocates (like
Arafat) espouse various positions. Sometimes the change is
gradual over time, or sudden at a particular point. There
have even been claims that a politician will say different
things to different audiences on the same day!
The hardest political position to describe is one which the
advocate doesn't want to be "caught" advocating; he tells
his supporters one thing and his critics another. The so-
called "secret agenda". In American politics, some people
think Bush and Cheney have a secret agenda in Iraq, e.g.,
of self-enrichment via Haliburton. In Middle Eastern
politics, some people think Arafat seeks the full
elimination of Israel and talks peace only as means to that
end.
It's exceedingly difficult to figure out what a politician
is /really/ saying, in such a case. Is he telling the
truth, and his opponents are TWISTING his words? Or is he
speaking with forked tongue, and his opponents are
REVEALING the deception?
I don't think Wikipedia is called upon to make the ultimate
judgment. Rather, we should say things like:
* Former Israeli prime minister X believes that Arafat says
one thing and does another
* Islamic leader Y believes that Arafat has always
sincerely sought to live side by side in peace with Jews
If it's a question of statements being taken out of
context, we can help by quoting lengthier passages. But
it's up to the /reader/ to decide whether the man /really/
means what he says.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
Rick wrote:
> Fine. I give up. I will no longer list anything to be deleted, and
>I will stop deleting any garbage that any vandals want to add to
>Wikipedia.
When I see obvious vandalism, I revert. If a newbie creates an experimental
page "fgh" etc. I just delete. No need to go through VfD for that sort of
thing. Everything else should be cleaned up, not deleted.
When I was a newbie, I had some of my stuff listed on VfD because I didn't
understand the way things are done around here - It's not nice to have you
work criticized in this manner. It is off-putting, fortunately I'm thick
skinned but others are not so. I've seen lots of things put on VfD because
they are deemed "trivial". This is insulting to the people who put their
time and effort into writing the "not important" article. Obviously the
article was important to at least one person.
I've seen a large number of How-to type articles listed on VfD because they
are "not encyclopaedic". Although I agree that this type of article is not
what you find in a paper encyclopaedia it is often useful knowledge that
potential users of Wikipedia may very well want to know, recently some
people have been moving the how-to pages over to Wikibooks, which is a much
more suitable place for this type of article IMO but if the deletionists got
their way , much of the material may have been lost in the meantime.
Most worryingly of all. I've seen some syops delete pages based on as
majority rather than a consensus. The page is broke and can't be fixed :-(
Let's have [[newbie tests]] so that non sysops can bring "hello! Paul is
gay!" type pages to a sysop attention.
And [[Pages that need to be moved to other wikis]] for wikionary quotes etc
And [[Vanity pages]] for suspected vanity pages
And have everything else go to [[cleanup]]
If it doesn't work out after a while, we can always bring back VfD
Theresa
Proposal copied to talk:VfD please answer there.
Theresa
Fred writes:
> I believe RK's material could and should probably be
> presented in several paragraphs. What he has done is a
> piece of original historical research,
Nonsense. I have done no original research at all. My only
"sin" is that I made available very well known quotes that
Danny and Zero want to hide. Thus the censorship.
These quotes were widely quoted on TV, radio, the web and
in Arab newspapers. Ironically, on this issue there is more
free speech in the Arab world than on Wikipedia.
> which by citing particular statements made by
> Palestinians builds a strong case that at least some
> Palestinian leaders are insincere.
Please re-read my contributions; Unlike others, I have
tried very hard to include _all_ points of view. I also
have shown statements from Palestinian leaders who think
that the peace process should be permanent and sincere.
Both views exist. I cannot imagine why it is controversial
to note this.
In an NPOV encyclopedia, we do not take sides with one
group or another. Rather, we show the range of positions
that exist, we document these positions with quotes and
sources, and allow readers to make up their own minds.
This text may need to be edited, sure. But no one can edit
it if it does not exist!
> However due to my experiences with him I would hesitate
> to rely on what he has done as he has often composed
> this sort of lengthy detailed article which by framing
> the debate in his terms and sytematically misrepresenting
> opposing positions distorts the situation.
Fred is clearly insinuating that they really don't have the
beliefs that they clearly say that they do, and that the
only way we can come to such conclusions is through my
"systematic misrepresentation". Fred is wrong. His
position is only tenable if we assume that all Palestinians
constantly lie about all of their beliefs. Some do lie, on
occasion, but as these quotes show, the truth always shows
through.
In any case, Fred also totally misses the point...that
Palestinians have a number of points of view, not just one.
That is why I included multiple POVs. His claims to the
contrary are wrong. It is Fred and Danny who systematically
represent the Arab views by hiding all quotes they disagree
with, or denying their veracity.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
I was browsing through OHHLA.com (Online Hip-Hop Lyrics Archive) and
realized that a lyrics archive would be an excellent application of Wiki
technology. Although OHHLA is the most comprehensive website in its
genre, there are still many less popular artists that are not covered,
and most of the pages I've seen contain at least a mistake or two.
So I think a great new WikiMedia project would be a "WikiLyrics" that
would cover music lyrics for all genres.
Hip-hop lyrics are particularly in need for a wiki because they are full
of slang words and in-references that can be Wikified to articles
explaining them. Hip-hop albums also rarely come with lyrics sheets
though ironically, are probably most in need of them.
I've already Googled for "lyrics wiki" and found no significant hits.
I'm very enthusiastic about this idea but a major problem that will need
to be resolved is that almost all lyrics are not open content and the
GFDL will most certainly be incompatible. Though the RIAA is definitely
tort-happy, I don't believe there have been any attempts to shut down
online lyrics websites, especially since they should not undermine
record sales.
I eagerly await your comments on this idea.
Kent Wang
I am requesting arbitration at [[DNA]]. I have
attempted to submit that DNA is a form of [[nucleic
acid]]. [[User:Peak]] (working in conjunction with an
anon IP) has made it clear to me that he thinks I am a
vandal (thus, mediation is not appropriate; since,
discussion is impossible).
I request that the arbitration committee determine
whether, or not, DNA is a nucleic acid.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
I am the first to admit that it's difficult to put forward
points of view /neutrally/ when one is a partisan.
That is why I am usually V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W to edit anything
relating to the [[Unification Church]]; I'm a member of it
and a passionate advocate of its theological and philosophical
views.
I'm also slow and careful (when I can be) on environmental
issues, but several times a year I seem to lose my temper, edit
too hastily, and have to apologize.
Some other respected contributors, recognizing the difficulty
they have writing neutrally on subjects they feel passionately
about, avoid those topics altogether. Daniel Mayer (Maveric)
sets the best example I'm aware of, in this respect.
The two best things I've found to help me avoid partisan
fighting at Wikipedia are:
1. Summarize the POV of my "opponent" /TO HIS SATISFACTION/ !!!
2. If one of my contributions is reverted (even once), take
this as a signal that I'm NOT DOING AN ADEQUATE JOB of
reflecting POVs other than my own.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
The current edit war is over whether it is really
technically accurate to refer to neural "information"
as being "true" information. The article on
[[information]] clearly indicates that it might be
inaccurate to refer to this as information.
However, my edits are reverted by people who make far
more personal attacks than statements of fact or
discussion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
I believe the name "Brilliant prose" is problematic for several reasons:
- It emphasizes writing, while a good article needs to be written well,
factually accurate, neutral, reasonably complete, nicely illustrated and
well organized. It has to cite its sources, link to related pages and
present all data in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion. I believe
these criteria are not properly encompassed by the word "prose".
- The word "brilliant" is very vague and difficult to define. Accordingly,
many Wikipedians have different ideas as to what is "brilliant prose".
Some interpret the term pragmatically, feeling that every article that
satisfies certain criteria should end up on BP eventually, even if it's
short and to the point. Others understand BP to be always just a
selection, that is, if the average Wikipedia article was on par with most
traditional encyclopedias, BP should only list the very best.
- Last but not least, it conveys a sense of arrogance, and makes us look
foolish if we list an article that is only slightly "non-brilliant". The
likelihood that this happens seems very high. That also makes the title
sound slightly unprofessional (reminiscent of the fun and games days of
the early Wikipedia)
I would therefore like to ask you to brainstorm for a better title. My own
understanding of BP is the pragmatic one, that is, I see BP as our
certification mechanism, and every article should eventually pass through
it. As a matter of fact, I would like to see discussions on every talk
page at a certain point to the effect of "When can we get this listed on
BP, what needs to be done, let's do it".
As with all brainstorming, we should begin by just collecting possible
titles without criticizing them. If one of them clearly stands out, we'll
pick it. Otherwise we can vote on it.
Here are my ideas:
Certified articles
Certified content
Trusted pages
Trusted area
Safe zone
Approved articles
Golden..
Verfied..
My favorite so far is "Trusted pages".
Regards,
Erik