Jimbo said:
>We've discussed this in the past, but I don't remember the result.
I remember, because I looked at the mailing list archives yesterday. Nothing
was decided, everyone just got bored and moved on to more interesting
things, like the great ''' vs <b> debate.
>This has been discussed before, at length, and the most passionate and
>devoted contributor on the topic has been maveric. I will go along with any
>naming convention he devises (i.e., he has my "proxy vote").
Mav has already commented on the issue on [[User talk:Karen Johnson]]. He
said:
>There was a push to have Australian cities preemptively disambiguated a
>while ago (just as American and Canadian cities are), but that movement
>seemed to loose steam. I'm not sure what the Aussies want now.
Well, I can tell you what three of the Aussies want: Tannin and I are in
favour of simple names and Karen's happy to go along (although she argued
for preemptive disambiguation originally). As far I as can see Robert Merkel
has not expressed an opinion. That only leaves the less regular contributors
such as Arno and Peter Eckersley (Pde).
Ed Poor also said:
>The point of the naming convention has always been to
>make the article title:
>
>* unambiguous, and
>* as short as possible
Names such as Canberra are entirely unambiguous. There is only one. Brisbane
can be block disambiguated in line with existing policy, because of the
dominance of Brisbane, Australia over other uses. The real question is
consistency: versus length, surprise factor and need for pipes. I'm in
favour of lack of consistency, because I would like to see less pipes and
easier contribution for newbies unaware of disambiguation standards. This
argument is about *preemptive* disambiguation, not ordinary disambiguation.
-- Tim Starling.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Instant Messenger now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_messenger.asp
= > How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq has
= > chemical weapons"?
=
= With liberal use of the word "alleged" and by indicating who is doing the
= alleging and under what circumstances, same as any NPOV issue.
=
= -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Thanks, Brion. I hope I'm not taking up valuable mailing list space with my question about Iraq.
Certain people -- not to name Cunctator, he he -- think this discussion should be on a talk page instead...
Ed Poor
Oh, dry up. You always say this or that doesn't belong on the mailing list, and then you turn around and say that we *didn't discuss* things enough, like the slogan naming policy.
I don't mind your being curmudgeon -- we need at least one! -- but would you please do it in a consistent way?
-----Original Message-----
From: The Cunctator [mailto:cunctator@kband.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:36 PM
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Iraq and chemical weapons
<US, Iraq, France discussion snipped>
This discussion does not belong on the mailing list.
From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor(a)abc.com>
To: <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Iraq and chemical weapons
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Ordinarily I would just bring this up on a talk page,
but this issue cuts across several articles, and I
might need a ruling from Jimbo.
How do we discuss the issue of "whether or not Iraq
has chemical weapons"?
Officially, of course, they deny having any. And it's
a crucial yes-no matter because their alleged
possession is the chief rationale behind the US-led
war in Iraq.
If Iraq doesn't chemical weapons, it looks like the US
military campaign is:
* not morally justified
* a violation of international law
...which may have ramifications about whether Iraq is
bound to treat POWs according to the Geneva
Convention or can "legally" torture, execute or rape
them.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign
seems:
* at least partially justified
* probably NOT a violation of international law
...although the last 2 points are in themselves
controversial.
The question is, how do we handle this when writing
articles about the war?
Ed Poor
--------
Hi Ed,
I believe your questions are very important.
But, allow me to react to one of your comment, that
might bring some light to you about how to handle the
articles.
If Iraq does have chemical weapons, the US campaign
seems:
* at least partially justified
* probably NOT a violation of international law
...
You are right when you say these last 2 points are in
themselves controversial.
It seems to me that you say it could be considered a
justification to war to find chemical weapons in Irak.
Let me first report what many french people said today
(just for information) :
US soldiers finding chemical weapons is necessarily a
joke, a forged "proof" to justify their invasion, just
as american representative tried to forge "proofs" for
the UN to make the war acceptable. It is very unlikely
that US soldiers tumble on chemical weapons just as
easily, when so many inspectors found nothing in
months. Saddam will not use illegal weapons - even if
he has some - for it would give some justifications to
american people for the invasion. But american people
will find any way, to justify the war, if they don't
find the proofs, they will make them, or will accuse
other nations to have given weapons to Irak.
What most french people think is that giving proofs of
Irak having illegal weapons - whether these proofs are
believable or not - will not be a good justification.
The general belief here is that this war is *illegal*,
because it didnot have the UN aggreement, as it had
for the Gulf War.
Most consider international laws here should apply
*above* national laws, hence the illegality. Finding
proofs AFTER the invasion, will not succeed to
transform an illegal war in a legal...for the
illegality was about "beginning" the war with
international agreement in the first place. Not about
finding proofs AFTER.
If american soldiers find chemical weapons, I think
some people would consider fair to state "the US
campaign was at least partially justified".
Other will not find this a justification at all - in
particular all those who believe the situation could
have been handled another way.
Stating "finding chemical weapons made the US campaign
probably NOT a violation of international law", though
this point is controversial to some" would not really
be NPOV.
That "probably" is misplaced. "Probably" is an
oriented view point. It might give all view points,
but it might not give a proper representation of
worldwide views. It make appear the ones thinking it
was not a violation are the majority, when those who
think the opposite are the minority. And, this, I
fear, is not necessarily true and fair.
Many people will go on believing it was illegal, even
if they end up believing it was "maybe the best
choice".
And please, do avoid making the assumption that this
"probably" is justified by what you read in english on
the internet. I don't think that what one can read on
average in english on the internet is a full
representation of worldwide opinions. We might be
missing all reports in arabic.
Unfortunately.
Yours
Athypique
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Please don't be a "pain in the neck" because then I'll have to choose between a chiropractor, an osteopath, or a regular doctor, for relief ^_^
Ed Poor
<<It's a good thing you didn't name me, he he, because I didn't say that I
think your question was inappropriate. I was referring to the argument that
ensued, e.g. >>
Thanks for clarifying that. You are still my most favourite and consistent curmudgeon. --Ed
Tannin's claims against me bear no resemblance to reality.
He simply is not correct. In fact, I have worked with
others to make sure that this article is NPOV, and I have
not removed the recent additions and changes.
Believe me, if I was writing this article by myself, it
would look different than it does!
I don't even have a problem with Tannin. My only problem
has been with Fred, because his particular changes were
grossly misleading, which I have explained in the Talk
section of this article. With the help of Steven Carlson
and others, we are making great progress.
RK
=====
"I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who knows he is righteous".
The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
Eclecticology wrote:
> Although I very much support the inclusion of the
> [[Rachel Corrie]] page as properly encyclopedic, I
> see no value in continuing the images page,
> which adds nothing to the subject. The biographical
> page does include a few statements (like her love of
> gardening) that have nothing to do with her claim to
> fame, and therefore go beyond encyclopedia material,
> I would be content to let those details stay for the
> next few months.
Actually, Stephen King's rock band (with Amy Tan, Dave
Barry, and Anne Rice) has nothing to do with his claim
to fame, but I wouldn't mind reading about it.
Similarly, that Kubrick was a photographer as well as
a director is not so pressing (though one could argue
that photography affected his directing--ok, one
could, and I will). Less so with King's guitar
playing. The only reason I haven't put in what Moby
does with his spare time is because I personally
consider it boring, but I wouldn't mind if anyone else
added it. (when he's not waiting tables at his
restaurant or composing music, he's attending
concerts, taking photos, or playing Scrabble with his
friends).
If the claim is unduly praising, or unverifiable, then
that's something else entirely. But that it's
irrelevant to her fame shouldn't be the deciding
factor (but let me be clear that I think explaining
why a subject is controversial, well-known, or
generally discussed *should* be our goal as writers).
IMO,
kq
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
This has been discussed before, at length, and the most
passionate and devoted contributor on the topic has
been maveric. I will go along with any naming convention
he devises (i.e., he has my "proxy vote").
The point of the naming convention has always been to
make the article title:
* unambiguous, and
* as short as possible
These two values compete somewhat, and there are always
thorny special cases. Is [[Paris]] enough to indicate
that big city in France? Does [[New York]] mean New York
State or New York City? -- not to mention (although I
just did; hi, cunctator!) that WITHIN New York City
"New York" generally means Manhattan!
The biggest bone of contention is probably whether to
use commas or parentheses when we need to disambiguate.
Some prefer [[Paris, France]] as familiar to most readers.
Others prefer the convenience of [[Paris (France)]]
because of the "pipe trick".
I have no desire to take a side on this issue, except
(as mentioned above) I will side with whatever Mav wants.
Ed Poor