Fred, are you accusing me of strategizing to "downplay the atrocities of
leftist totalitarianism?" If that's the case, then you are a liar. I do not
do this, intentionally or unintentionally. Unless you're deliberately
modeling yourself after Joe McCarthy, try to find a way to spew your
political rants on the mailing list without hurting people and tearing them
down in the process.
BTW, please read Slrubenstein's posting (and try to comprehend). At the
moment, Im to pissed to be capable of expressing whats he getting across
clearly and politely.
_________________________________________________________________
Watch the online reality show Mixed Messages with a friend and enter to win
a trip to NY
http://www.msnmessenger-download.click-url.com/go/onm00200497ave/direct/01/
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
>I'm sorry I opened this can of worms.
>
Now, now, Ed, even with the personal attacks thick upon the air here,
you really should know better than to start comparing respectable
contributors to worms.
--Michael Snow (practicing the selective quotation and interpretation
that seems to be so popular on this list)
I feel strongly that nothing be done that will result in the loss of either of these valuable contributers. I do think what they did was wrong, and that there should be enforcement of guidelines against it, particularly regarding the general unfriendliness/lack of civility. Perhaps too much emphasis is placed on the number of reverts (almost all reversion is bad, IMO) and not enough on the unfriendly, anti-intellectual nature of the discourse. I sided with VV in the particular partially because he has consistantly been polite to me, and 172 distinctly negative and nasty, and partially because I had not seen any convincing evidence of the claim against the U.S. govt. It has been said by reliable persons (I don't feel 172 is reliable in regards to contentious issues, altho he does produce reliable content generally) here on the mailing list that there is good evidence showing that there was indeed US backing. If so there should be a citation in the article, and the matter done with. In short, citations should trump majority, and incivility is a bigger crime than reversion, but both need clear guidelines and inforcement. Cheers, Jack
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: "Please. Have you EVER made an edit that didn't attack the US and
defend all of these dictators? If so, please point it out."
Responding to this should be beneath my dignity, but anyway here's one
example. Another user who is a critic of "anti-Americanism," like yourself,
wrote the following about my article on Franco-U.S. relations: "172, thank
you for this article. ''That'' is the way an encyclopedia article,
especially about a subject many think sensitive, should be written." (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:172&diff=3774174&oldid…)
_________________________________________________________________
Looking to buy a house? Get informed with the Home Buying Guide from MSN
House & Home. http://coldwellbanker.msn.com/
I'm sorry I opened this can of worms. I'm going to go out into my garden
and eat worms now... :-(
I did not intend to get Abe and Fred and Stan fighting about whose
writing is more objective. But I would like us all to try harder to find
ways to write good articles about bad historical happenings.
I don't really know how to do this. I don't know how to write articles
about famine and mass murder, without becoming either too sad to type
straight or to mad to think straight! And someone who doesn't really
care about the plight of the unfortunarte and downtrodden wouldn't be
able to do the job either.
So we need to help each other with editing. Some way other than
repeatedly reverting, please...
Thanks.
Sad ol' Uncle Ed Poor
Sigh.
Below taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/172#Outside_view
==Outside view==
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.''
I completely disagree. 172 has shown considerable restraint, given his professional expertise in this field. Meanwhile, I see little evidence that the other parties to the dispute really understand the content as well as him. I can only wonder if they are really interested in the quality of the encyclopedia or just having their own voices heard.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
# [[User:Danny|Danny]] 00:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|§]] 00:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Mirv|—No-One]][[User talk:Mirv| ''Jones'']] 02:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 17:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 01:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 03:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 07:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 07:08, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 11:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.''
Below taken from See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=3762…
==Another poll==
Is the assertion of U.S. backing for the coup misleading or controversial in [[Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version)]], even in the presence of the footnote?
:This is loaded phrasing. I do not consider it misleading, but the simple fact that this discussion is taking place is proof that it is controversial. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC)
::Ec, this is asking whether or not the assertion is controversial, as opposed to an undisputable fact, not whether U.S. actions were 'controversial'. [[User:172|172]]
[IMO "even in the presence of a footnote" should not be in the question, because some of us do not want a footnote even if we think it goes some way towards clearing up the NPOV issue. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] ]
:::AFAIC, this shouldnt be considered "controversial." -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:34, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
'''Yes:'''
# By 172's own definition (see the discussion in section 10) the possible meanings of "backed" include "aided", so the word is misleading. 172 should also note that readers of this article are unlikley to look up every word they read in a dictionary, and should take the context of the word into account (as VV points out in his previous comment). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
#:My own definition to "back" (v) is ''American Heritage's'', which is to provide support, assistance, '''''or''''' encouragement for (a contending force). It does not necessarily entail the provision of "aid." Cadr is putting words in my mouth; I said "or" as opposed to "and" when I has written the word "aid" once (very hastily). [[User:172|172]] 11:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#::The fact that you said "and" instead of "or" is of no significance, as I've pointed out already. If one possible meaning of "US-backed" is "US-supported" or "US-assisted" ''or'' "US-aided" (going on 172's earlier, different definition), the word is misleading. (There is no conclusive evidence that the US assisted/aided the actual 1973 coup). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
# The US didn't back the coup. Am I missing something here? Why would we say they backed it if they didn't? POV perhaps? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&… '''Spade''']] 12:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
## Actually the US did back the coup. Nixon even said so [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/#docs on tape]. Welcome to 'Real US Foreign Policy, le�on 1.' -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
'''No:'''
#I recommend that respondents look up the dictionary definition for backing (n) or to back (v). [[User:172|172]] 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) "Backing" does not mean "instigated," "initiated," "orchestrated," "engineered," etc. [[User:172|172]] 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#This entire debate is utter nonsense. The historical record is clear: Nixon and Kissinger wanted Allende out and the CIA went about engineering it by funding the opposition, spreading FUD, and the like. The day of the coup, the American reporter Charles Horman was in Vi�a del Mar, near the port of Valpara�so, which was a key base for both the Chilean coup plotters and US military and intelligence personnel who were supporting them. He spoke with several US operatives and took notes documenting the role of the United States in overthrowing the Allende government. Several days later he was arrested and executed by the Chilean armed forces. His family believes this was because he (accidently) bore witnesss the US role in the affair. 'Backing'? Yep, I'd call it backing, although perhaps we could debate how active a role the CIA et al played in the coup, but nobody is claiming that the CIA itself bombed La Moneda -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 16:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#:OK, so where is all the evidence for this? (I expect it's all correct, but so far no-one has linked to any hard evidence.) [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
#::Cadr, this is a poll, not a debate. Please allow other users to chime in. [[User:172|172]] 18:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#:::Erm yes...and this is not an argument ;) Other users are free to chime in, anyway. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
#::::cf: ''Missing'' by Thomas Hauser (1982) ISBN 01400.64532 (Sorry, not everything in the world is online) -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 19:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#:::::OK, so is there any evidence in it more concrete than the beliefs of a reporter's family? (Again, I would not be at all surprised if it does contain such evidence, ''but no-one has yet explained what it is'', even vaguely.) [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
#I thought that the U.S. (unofficial but institutional) support for the coup in Chile was widely known and uncontroversial. Are people disputing the facts or the choice of words? Certainly this issue must be in the article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 15:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#*See the discussion if you want to know what the controversy is. (That is, you should have already.) [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#*It deals with [[Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version)|the wording in this version of the intro]], which VeryVerily and Cadr deem "controversial" and "misleading," regardless of the footnote and the definition of 'backing'. [[User:172|172]] 15:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#*:I don't find it particularly misleading with the footnote, but I don't like the footnote for independent reasons (i.e. that it would be far better to replace it with a proper explanation of US involvement, rather than trying to clarify single vague adjective). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]]
#[[User:Wik|Wik]] 15:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|§]] 15:35, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 15:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#Like Slrubenstein, I'd never thought this was controversial until I saw the argument here. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 16:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC) No, it's the other way around. It's an issue of Wikipedia's credibility outside of the US. (Inside the US I recognize that not so few citizens, ignorant of US foreign politics, could deem this issue controversial – I know such people myself.)
#*Yes, yes, more about us dumb ignorant Puritan Americans and how we lack the sophistication and wisdom of you European intellectuals. Now, any ''substantive'' counterarguments, perchance? (P.s. You acknowledge "not so few"; see how that connects to NPOV policy?) [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#**Puritan yes – dumb no, not except for in your rhetoric above. Since I was 17 and started full-time apprenticeship, I admit to have studied the foreign language of the country where I live in any way resembling school. "Intellectual" - just the right accusation to throw at me! Common Americans being more ignorant of their country's foreign politics than the electorates of other democracies, that's a fact. The arguments are very well presented by plenty of others. There is no need to repeat those. I added what I hold for the most important, i.e. that of Wikipedia's credibility (outside of the US). [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#***Supposed credibility over neutrality? Once again, I think you confuse your own personal opinions with those of the "rest of the world" (i.e., not the US). Which electorates of other democracies do you refer to, anyway? India? Nigeria? Oh no, wait, I know which you mean. P.s. I can't make head or tail of the "I admit..." sentence. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 07:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 16:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Even conservative analysts admit the US was involved in the coup. The only reason for claiming this question hasn't been settled is POV.
#[[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC) Not misleading. Under protest against using polls as a way to establish facts.
#[[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#[[User:Hajor|–''Hajor'']] 20:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Not misleading; certainly not controversial in my neck of the woods. But not particularly happy about voting to establish facts, or about call-outs to footnotes in articles. Uncle Ed's suggestion below would be useful, if only we could get the right quotes (doubtful).
#[[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] - I had no idea people still disputed this.
#*Welcome to the outside of the box. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
#I wasn't going to vote on this, because I thought the poll question missed the mark. The issue isn't whether a particular wording is misleading, etc., but rather what's the best way to present the subject. I don't like the footnote. I thought the best approach was an in-text summary in the introduction, avoiding the word "backed," even though living with some nuance made for a longer intro. To that end I essayed a revision of the first-created sandbox. I tried to meet Cadr's objection to my initial version. Now, however, I find that VeryVerily has edited it so as to eviscerate any discussion of this issue in the intro. <br>It seems, then, that each side has its own sandbox and the two sides continue to talk past each other. With regard to the intro, 172 wants a flat statement of "backed," somewhat qualified in a footnote, while VV wants a mere allusion to what "many believe," with no indication in the intro that they have any factual basis for their beliefs. ''As between those two
extremes'' (CIA role stated as fact versus CIA role stated as mere unsupported opinion, albeit opinion of "many"), I prefer the former, although the specific wording of the footnote would need some work. <br>I still think the footnote is, by its nature, an inelegant solution. It would be better for the text of the intro to state a few key evidentiary points, including the CIA's denial, rather than present the conclusion as an established fact. If other people agree with me, and say so and/or restore key data to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet/intro original intro sandbox], then perhaps we have a chance of reaching consensus on that approach. Until then, I'm going to turn my attention to editing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet/intro_(succinct_version) "succinct version"] of the intro.<br>Finally, on the issue of recruitment: 172 did urge me to vote in this poll. I ignored his urging for the reasons stated above. I have now been "recruited" to
vote by VV's edit, not by 172's electioneering. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#*It's your vote, but puzzling reasoning: you're not voting on the question asked in the poll. Anyway, the whole point of the sandbox is to experiment. I gave my reasons (several times) for my edits, which (perhaps ironically) largely come to succintness: the ''intro'' does not need to lay out the evidence, that's what the ''article'' for. The intro serves to summarize. Fercrissakes, look at the [[Augusto Pinochet|article]], nearly ''half'' of which is now about the CIA. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
#**My vote is that the wording being polled is not misleading (the question asked in the poll) but that the wording also isn't good. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that the intro should summarize, not present the whole discussion, but it involves striking a balance between, on the one hand, going into too much detail about the facts, and, on the other hand, simply saying "many believe" with no allusion whatsoever to the facts until later on. I don't think your edit version makes any attempt to strike that balance. Your version isn't a summary, it's a reference. My idea was that something taking up nearly half the article, as you put it, deserves a bit more space in the intro. I tried to put in a few critical points that would, for example, in response to SamSpade's inquiry, show that there are indeed references available, while also noting the CIA's denial and leaving the full elaboration for later in the article. My hope was that we could work out a consensus summary. Perhaps I
was unduly optimistic. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
# I like the internet, and how people can talk on it and stuff. -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
# [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 17:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
This is my first ever posting to the mailing list. Hi everybody! I
wish the circumstances surrounding my introduction were more pleasant,
but alas I'm here because of this conflict, as I feel the need to
respond to a few of Eloquence's points.
> 172 has long proposed a compromise, namely a footnote behind the "United
> States backed" to clarify what it means, but VV has ignored that
> compromise.
Eloquence, I'm disappointed by this summary.
To say that I ignored this faux "compromise" is wholly untrue. Both
Cadr and I have expended thousands of words explaining our objection.
172 has responded with evasiveness, word games, and personal attacks.
Just watch one of the long threads between him and Cadr to see how he
dances around the issues.
You've witnessed 172's behavior, have you not? This does not come
through in your posting.
As for the "new" evidence, I not long ago laid out a detailed,
500-word case summarizing responses point by point. No one has
refuted it. 172 is just resting on the protection. Furthermore, I, Cadr, AstroNomer, and perhaps JamesMLane have all objected to this
wording. Text which this many regular contributors strongly object to
is prima facie controversial (the bogus poll notwithstanding).
I know how people feel about revert wars, and I have likely hurt my
reputation by partaking in them. But understand that I am tired of
allowing 172's bully tactics to carry the day. And the quickpoll
experience, accurately relayed by Eloquence, demonstrates how
seriously the 3-revert "rule" is taken, even when it was supposedly
being enforced.
Of late I have been perusing the archives both here and on the 'pedia
and see *many* occasions of 172 exhibiting the same behavior in other
cases, with sometimes even talk of banning (e.g., a thread "It's time
for 172 to be banned"). It is bad enough he claims "ownership" of
certain articles and reverts others' edits, but in this case he came
to an article others were working on, erased our work, reverted
attempts to restore it even in part, and began dictating terms to the
editors (e.g., "If [the edit] makes you uncomfortable, you'll probably
have to bear it", "I offered you a footnote... take it or leave it").
Perhaps the question comes down to whether a user who does make
valuable contributions but grossly flouts standards of neutrality,
civility, and conduct is desirable. You can guess my answer.
Best,
VeryVerily
_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
First of all, let's keep in mind what we are trying to find here. We are not
trying to show that I made mistakes or you made mistakes, what we are trying
to do is to show that whether I have vandalized wikipedia or not. So, please
keep your claims in check and don't go over the board and depict me as
hostile, since disagreeing is normal, what is not normal is claiming that
the other person is a vandalizer. I hope you keep that in mind.
"Blanking an article is an extreme act, & is bound to offend many people
even if done by a seasoned contributor who has much experience & has earned
much trust. You did that with no explanation, & after having your edits
twice
rejected; sorry, but anyone will read that as pushing your own POV without
concern for the views or feelings of other people who contribute to
Wikipedia."
I think, you didn't read my earlier emails. Please, please, please
understand that with the earlier version of wikipedia I couldn't figure out
how to leave a comment for my changes. In fact I thought only privileged
users could do that.
"I think you read too much into the point of the article. Someone was
abusing Usenet in a very clumsy fashion to push his political agenda: that
was the entire point of the Serdar Argic episode. But instead of asking
questions about the intent of the article on the Talk page, or explain
how it came over to you, you decided to blank it without a justification
for your act to anyone."
Again and again, I couldn't figure out the talk page until the design change
in wikipedia. Before replying, if you dared to read the blocking policy of
wikipedia you would realize that, such mistakes are not considered to be
vandalizing.
"If you could figure out how to make changes to an article, why couldn't you
figure out how to discuss making changes to it? Help me understand this:
when I came to Wikipedia, I understood how to both make changes & add
comments to articles; you claim that you couldn't figure this out, which
means that our interface as somehow broken."
You may believe it or not, if I was lying, I wouldn't come here and complain
about this. My ban is lifted already. The point is that, if you do not want
to understand people having problem with the wikipedia's interface (the old
one), you can never improve wikipedia. If everybody was like you, maybe the
interface wouldn't change at all. Now, in every page I can clearly see all
the actions and it makes perfect sense to me, previously I didn't realize
that there was a discussion page at all, though I read references to such
pages. As I said, I thought only certain users can access to such pages. Oh,
editing the article is easy, because there was a link that says edit this
page. From my earlier experience with wikis, I have never seen such
discussion pages, I think that past experience is the real reason why I
couldn't figure out discussion pages.
"I've read the Wikipedia article: Genocide is the intentional mass murder
of people based on their ethnic heritage. A large number of Armenians were
killed on the basis of their ethnic background -- you admit that this
happened. However, you then talk about people dying in a war, which does
not logically follow."
So are you saying that during the wars, there were genocides. Say, American
bombers bombing Japan cities were actually part of a Japanese genocide?
Please, put everything in perspective, and try to get to the bottom of this,
instead of simply saying this is a genocide. There are so many aspects of
this issue, and yet the article currently is not credible enough.
"I would hazard a guess here about what you are trying to say, but I find
it hard to be sympathetic after you've called me "arrogant". If you want
to start an argument over this topic, I'm sure you can find a better
combatant elsewhere: I'm just trying to explain how your behavior is hurting
your participation here on Wikipedia."
So far, my only mistake is not being able to understand how to edit,
discuss, leave reasons and so on. With the new design all these problems are
solved for me.
"1. On 13 May 2004, the number of victims of the was given as between
500,000
and 2,000,000 dead, but 1,500,000 is the most commonly accepted number.
2. You subsequently changed the numbers to "between 300,000 and 2,000,000
dead" and to 500,000 as the most commonly accepted number; these numbers
were reverted to the first set of numbers on 18 May.
3. Once again you changed the numbers, this time to "between 300,000 and
1,000,000" and to 400,000 as the most commonly accepted total; & once again
these numbers were reverted, on 22 May.
4. Again you changed the numbers, this time the range was "between 200,000
and 1,000,000", & while you left the most commonly accepted total unchanged,
you changed the figure Toynbee is said to have estimated. These numbers
were once again restored to the original figures on 24 May.
5. Then you changed the figures once last time, giving a range of "between
100,000 and 1,500,000 died" & the most commonly accepted number to
300,000, as well as deleting McCarthy's estimate. These were restored on
30 May."
I have read so many documents on this issue, since I don't know how to
revert a change (get back an older one) I edited that part multiple times.
In some instances I remembered the numbers wrong and in some case misread
one number. I don't memorize all the numbers, and during my edits I make
mistakes. You can find other mistakes too, not just numbers. Now, I am
editing in my local computer first and then posting it. Also I save the
document locally so that I can later on read what I wrote exactly, trying to
do that through browser is somewhat complicated and long.
"The only consistent pattern I can see to these changes are that you kept
trying to reduce the numbers"
I am not trying to reduce the numbers, that is quite childish, however those
numbers should be reduced based on the resources I have read (including
credible Armenian and Turkish resources). The article is quite ridicilous
here, for example it says 1'500'000 is the normally accepted number. There
is no such historic acceptance. As I said, this article looks more like a
propaganda article, rather than an objective one which provides all sides of
the equation.
"You deleted or altered verifiable facts (e.g., what Toynbee & McCarthy
wrote)."
That was a mistake while I was editing it. Though McCarthy seem to be
disputed.
"As a couple of veteran Wikipedians have said in another thread,
if you don't agree with what is stated, why don't you instead provide better
facts instead of changing them? Can't you take the time to find authorities
who attest to the lower numbers you offered, & thereby improve quality of
the article's content? I don't know where the original figures for the
casualties came form, but the fact 3 or 4 different editors agreed on one
set of numbers is far more convincing than the 4 different numbers you
supplied without attribution."
First of all, which editors are you talking about? Are there specific
editors for articles, or are you talking about in general users who modify
the articles? Second, I already mentioned that I will do a better job in
providing more resources, however that doesn't change the fact that the
current article as it stands is not objective enough and needs editing. You
don't put few numbers there and declare them to be the accepted norm by
yourself, you need to do some serious research. From the research I have
done (involves both sides) I couldn't see such an accepted number and I
should also mention that the accepted number happen to be the higher end of
the range in the article! Also, from the population numbers given in the
article, the detah numbers seem to be quite unreliable and somewhat
conflicting.
"First, I didn't call you a vandal: the point of my original email was to
explain how your contributions were not taken seriously."
But blocking due to vandalism is the reason why I send the initial email. I
see that to be a serious contributor I need to do more, but how can I learn
if you simply block me. The blocking policy clearly shows when to block, how
to block. You can't block because you disagree with me, you have to block
when I am in fact vandalizing.
"I still hope this is the case: Wikipedia is in constant need of
contributors who want to
improve its content."
I also realized that and I am trying to contribute as much as possible, not
just in these controversial issues, but others too. Recently I started to
use Wikipedia heavily and realized that it is quite good in certain number
of subjects.
"Yet if you consider my attempt at constructive criticism is nothing more
than calling you a "vandal", then I feel that I'm at a loss to convince you
otherwise."
I do take your constructive criticism seriously, and I do hope that in my
replies I reflect that. But again, this email was sent because the blocking
page said me to send it if the blocking violates the blocking policy, and as
I tried to express, it does. I didn't vandalize anything and I didn't
attempt to do that. Blocking policy page is quite clear about my actions.
"When I first read your second sentence, I was puzzled over how what
relevance
this had to my statement: I had expressed an opinion about a weakness in the
article; you somehow understood this as a statement about you."
Sorry, if I misunderstand you.
"Then I remembered in my original email I wrote that "everyone except
Turkish
nationals" believe this. Absolute statements are always hazardous: I should
have written "almost everyone except Turkish nationals"."
I disagree here. I don't know too much Turkish guys, but I do know some, and
they all know what happened. Turkish historians know what happened. The
problem here is how you describe those events and what do you call them.
That's the main problem and this issue turned into a political game (France
signed a law about this historic debate!). I have also seen people accusing
Turkey of being an oil rich country (which it is not and quite funny) and
that because of this reason Turkish point of view is accepted in US
government. Let's be more accurate on these issues.
"And that statement is a fair one: I Googled on the phrase "Armenian
Genocide",
& got 105,000 hits. The first few pages were all on pages that believed
that it was a historical fact: one (http://www.cilicia.com/armo10c.html)
was a collection of contemporary articles from the New York Times detailing
the events; another
(http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/gen_bibl.html)
is a list of publications about this event, which includes a number of
reports published by the League of Nations investigating the event."
I am quite puzzled the way you are trying to show me that I am wrong.
Everybody uses the term "Armenian Genocide" including the Turkish resources,
because that's the issue you are talking about. Obviously you will find that
many links on the net. Another point is that, putting more and more number
of pages do not make this a truth, remember google bombing? Finally, your
second link "http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/gen_bibl.html"
gave me "no longer available" page. I hoped you put more effort to check out
your references and a better way of doing that. As an example search for
"Web Standards" in google and see the first page, it is not W3C. By the way,
again, nobody says nothing have happened, and that's maybe part of the
problem, since you quickly jump into the conclusion that "so, you see it is
a genocide". Unfortunately that's not that easy.
"My point of mentioning all of this evidence is not to prove that it
happened,
but to show you that you have a lot of work ahead of you to present the
Turkish POV in convincing way. And making deletions from an IP address, &
offering only the most brief explanations is not going to do it."
I don't know exactly what Turkish POV, and I don't think there is one. What
I am trying to do is to make the article more credible, more objective and
more appealing to the reader. Right now, you read something like a
propaganda. The person who blocked me claimed that I am Serdar Argic, for
example. If the idea is to make Wikipedia credible and serious, these hotly
debated articles should be as objective as possible. Right now, the whole
article is just saying that Turkish government is evil and that they deny
what had happened. It doesn't go the distance and present the whole issue
clearly to the reader. It is like a movie plot now, good guy, bad guy etc...
"Well, this is the first I have read about these claims. You would be better
off taking the time explaining these things & not deleting or altering what
you find objectionable. This article is not going anywhere; Wikipedia is not
going anywhere. The world won't end because any given article needs fixing:
I can think of dozens of articles that need work, but I won't be working
on soon because they need some research. Take the time to explain & document
these points, & they will better survive future edits."
As I said, once that I learnt how to edit and discuss I can be more helpful
on these issues. I wasn't trying to rush or anything. And once again, my
original poit was that this blocking was not right, since I didn't vandalize
anything. Though I am glad to learn more about wikipedia this way.
"It is not the fact you made changes. You made changes without concern
that other people disagreed with you, & continued to repeat them without
venturing into any form of dialogue until your IP address was blocked.
Instead
of responding to comments on your Talk page, you deleted them; instead of
providing better figures for casualties in [[Armenian Genocide]], you
changed them to lower numbers, seemingly picked at random."
I deleted the comments in my Talk page because it was accusing me of being
Serdar Argic! Also the person who left me that note says that he is going to
delete any other anonymous users's comments from his page. So where is the
justice here? Someone who deletes my comments is happy to leave a comment to
my page. That's why I deleted my talk page comment from RickK.
I hope I clearly explained why I couldn't discuss my changes or leave a
reason. In the old interface, I couldn't find how to leave a reason for
example. I also couldn't find the discussion page, actually I didn't know
that there is one, until I saw in a user page that mentions the discussion
pages. Anyway, this was not vandalizing. Vandalizing is quite clearly
explained in the blocking policy page.
"If I came to your house & put a new roof on for free, you would think that
was
an act of kindness; if I came to your house & threw a brick through one of
your windows, you would consider it an act of hostility. We want people to
come to Wikipedia & make our house better, not worse. Can you put yourself
in our place & see how we might consider your actions hostile?"
Wikipedia is everybody's house, including mine. ;)
Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
"Having taken a look at the Serdar Argic article,
I note that you twice insisted on qualifying "Armenian Genocide" as
"alleged",
& when both of those changes were reverted, you blanked the article."
I am making variou changes, and the reason I blanked the article is that I
didn't see any credibility to the story. There is virtually none whatsoever.
The point of the article is that, there is one bad Turkish who tried to
disturb people over the Usenet and that he was trying to rewrite the
history. The only link I have seen is from Armenian Genocide page. If I add
some obscure page that points out a discussion between two people and claim
that he was the first one who actually spammed, what would you think? Where
is the credibility of the articles? I also didn't understand what's wrong in
changing your opinions for a given article, at one time you may think
something is ok, at another time you may conclude that it is unnecessary.
"The reasons you gave for this change was that without the word "alleged"
the
article was POV -- only this assertion, with no proof or evidence either
at the Talk page for this article, nor at [[Talk:Armenian Genocide]].
(Incidentally you made 10 edits to the main Armenian Genocide page, which
were removed every time, & you never discussed the reaons for your
changes.)"
I couldn't discuss it because with the old interface I couldn't figure out
how to discuss it. With this new interface everything is much clearer to me,
and thus I started to leave comments. This is not vandalizing, you can check
out the policy again. Also the admin who blocked me accused me of being
Serdar Argic, but never left a note how to discuss it.
"Uh, everybody except Turkish nationals (& perhaps even some of them) agree
that it happened"
You are quite arrogant on this topic, nobody denies what had happened, what
people couldn't disagree on is whether it was an intentional genocide.
Genocide has a specific meaning, during wartime people die all the time,
nobody call those "genocide".
"From a quick glance at the history logs, your contributions was to
misrepresent
cited sources to reduce the number of victims."
Could you please give me the proof for the Hitler's quote. A specific page
so that I can go to the library and find it? It is in the article though.
"If you have access to a source that provides different numbers, you are
welcome to add those figures;"
Many sources have different numbers, one person reading the article can
easily see that this is pure propaganda as it stands now. Link to Serdar
Argic is one example, just to discredit anybody who opposes this idea,
another one is accusing me of vandalizing even though according to
wikipedia's own rules I didn't vandalize. Vandalizers do not join mailing
lists and complain!
"you are welcome to change verifiable numbers -- unless you can clearly
show that they are misquoted, which you did not bother to do."
I will, but as I said none of these are proving that I was vandalizing it.
If these were proofs then you should better check out the authors of that
article, since they also put so many number of "facts" which are not facts.
"I will concede one point about [[Armenian Genocide]]: I did not see an
explanation for the Turkish POV."
If you accuse them of vandalizing I don't you will ever see. By the way I am
not Turkish.
"The article would be better if it were provided -- although it would need
to be clearly identified as such."
The article should contain only facts and clearly explain why it is
disputed. Right now, what happened is provided as intentional and
systematic. It doesn't tell how many number of Turks have died to the same
events. Also, currently the article is highly political, it puts Turkish
government as the adversary, rather than historians with opposing views. It
doesn't tell the motivations behind lobbying governments like France to
accept this allegation as a law. The claims over the soil of the Turkey and
so on.
"The acts I detail above clearly show why you were blocked."
NO! What you showed me is NOT vandalism. Go and read the blocking policy. It
clearly states that vandalism is not different point of view, is not being a
newbie (leaving a reason or discussing the article). If you block everybody
making modification without leavnig a reason or discussing then we will have
a problem.
"But had you created an account, it would have added to your credibility."
I was planning to create an account, but looks like it is useless if someone
accuse me of vandalising everytime I try to correct an article for being
objective.
"New editors often make mistakes out of ignorance, & creating an account on
Wikipedia
tells the rest of us that you are interested in doing more than making
only a few, specific edits; by that simple act, you are showing that you
want to contribute for a while, & it worth someone's time to work with you."
Yes, it seems to me that quite a few article are not as good as it should
be, giving one sided views, sometimes totally wrong and highly political. I
would like to make them more objective, as well as add tons of information
that is not there yet.
"If I were to edit an article on the fictional J. Random Publicperson, to
add "Publicperson is a jerk", & offer nothing more, I'd expect it be
speedily
reverted: I have made a claim, with no collaborating evidence or arguments
for why I wrote this."
Yes, but there are so many edits I have seen in wikipedia that is simply
wrong and without evidence. Someone just put there and nobody either didn't
object it or that didn't have time to play this revert game.
"However, if I wrote the same sentence, then added
details such as he is known to have appeared drunk in public, made
inappropriate sexual comments to his colleague's children, & squandered
public funds to buy bauble-head dolls for his personal collection, some if
not all of that text should remain in some form. And even better would be
if I cited the journalist Busybody's book "The Embarassing Politician",
which made all of these claims, or mentioned that Publicperson was indicted
or arrested on these charges."
You are right that I should spend some more time on this aspect of editing.
"ometimes a non-anonymous editor can get away with making a contribution
of the first example -- e.g., "Publicperson is a jerk", especially if the
article is not on a controversial topic. But with any controversial topic,
one has to make one's point as convincingly as possible."
One serious problem here is that though, right now some of the articles are
so much distorted that, you can't be convincing enough no matter what. For
example, you flat out reject the idea that this may not be a genocide,
claiming that only Turkish nationals (I am not one) reject this. You seem to
take the word genocide lightly, as if you can put it anywhere when lots of
people die. If you look at the article, all the point of views are to prove
that Turkish government is bad, Turkish people are bad, they already killed
lots of people and so on. Serdar Argic (which seem to be a discussion
between two sides, there is another party which does the same but his name
is not mentioned there), Varlik Tax (Vergisi) which has nothing to do with
the disputed massacres are also mentioned there. You also have to do a
better job in explaining exactly why you reject these or similar points,
rather than simply saying that only Turkish nationals reject this idea.
"And from the record, speaking as someone who is entirely disinterested
in the matter (I didn't even know that there was an article on Serdar Argic
until now), I find you have failed to be convincing."
I will fail on this as long as I am being accused of vandalizing and
considered to be a Turkish National by default.
Jim
_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/