http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism...
I have no comment.
From: Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] AfD train wreck of the week Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:03:26 -0700
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism...
I have no comment.
Slowking Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Slowking_Man)
What, [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State terrorism by the United States (sixth nomination)]]?
How about "Delete, because we should not have articles this bad"?
Cheers,
Moreschi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Tell MSN about your most memorable emails! http://www.emailbritain.co.uk/
On 6/25/07, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
How about "Delete, because we should not have articles this bad"?
Cheers,
Moreschi
That isn't a valid deletion criteria for articles about State terrorism
How come it was nominated 6 times. Either someone just didn't like the previous outcomes, or they were invalid due to heavy sockpuppetry. I somehow doubt the second option is true.
Mgm
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:39:35 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How come it was nominated 6 times. Either someone just didn't like the previous outcomes, or they were invalid due to heavy sockpuppetry. I somehow doubt the second option is true.
Or we finally ran out of patience waiting for the second part of "keep and improve".
Guy (JzG)
On 6/26/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:39:35 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
How come it was nominated 6 times. Either someone just didn't like the previous outcomes, or they were invalid due to heavy sockpuppetry. I somehow doubt the second option is true.
Or we finally ran out of patience waiting for the second part of "keep and improve".
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
Gee, can we get a pool going and guess how many unique primary editors and how many socks he has?
I did just a few weeks ago vote to delete an article because it was such an abominable piece of crap. I can't even read this.
KP
On 6/25/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism...
I have no comment.
I have one.
Wow, 108 references.
On 6/26/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/25/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism...
I have no comment.
I have one.
Wow, 108 references.
This "State Terrorism" article had almost 80 references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_ter...
However only a tiny number of them actually referred to "State terrorism". Go figure.
yeah, 108 references, and so what do they do? Says the references to NYTimes, Reuters, CNN, Chomsky, ABC etc. etc. are original research. riiiight.
Honestly though, it is the good and natural instinct of editors/admins (I make admins distinct from editors bc their perspectives are different on deletions) to want to delete articles that aren't written very well or seem to be POV at first glance. And this article certainly fits that bill, and it may need a total rewrite in some sections. But that is no justification for arguing that accusations (carried by book publishers and news organizations no less) of state terror are just some nutty fringe idea that isn't worth having an article on.
On 6/26/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/26/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/25/07, Slowking Man slowkingman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_terrorism...
I have no comment.
I have one.
Wow, 108 references.
This "State Terrorism" article had almost 80 references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_acts_labelled_as_state_ter...
However only a tiny number of them actually referred to "State terrorism". Go figure.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
yeah, 108 references, and so what do they do?
Who cares what they do? When it comes to US-bashing on Wikipedia I've found the only response worth the effort is to sit back and enjoy the show. My comment that wow, there were 108 references, was an expression of surprise that so much effort was put into this article.
Honestly though, it is the good and natural instinct of editors/admins (I make admins distinct from editors bc their perspectives are different on deletions) to want to delete articles that aren't written very well or seem to be POV at first glance. And this article certainly fits that bill, and it may need a total rewrite in some sections. But that is no justification for arguing that accusations (carried by book publishers and news organizations no less) of state terror are just some nutty fringe idea that isn't worth having an article on.
I think the article itself makes the best case for its own deletion: "The definition of terrorism is itself controversial, but the definition of state terrorism is even more so. There is no international consensus on what terrorism or state terrorism is. Nations disagree on what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement". There is no agreement regarding if state terrorism is a valid concept and if so, how to define it."
Anthony
just like those against the article, you are only arguing about how accusations of state terror are false. The issue is that the subject is a notable one, not just in high-profile liberal academic circles, but even in major news and publications. There are all kinds of articles about conservative and religious viewpoints that are not only dubious, but have been proven wrong outright. But it is the job of Wikipedia to give an account of what the published views on the subject are to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic resource. We keep articles on Holocaust denial to inform readers about what those who comment on the subject say in published sources.
On 6/26/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
yeah, 108 references, and so what do they do?
Who cares what they do? When it comes to US-bashing on Wikipedia I've found the only response worth the effort is to sit back and enjoy the show. My comment that wow, there were 108 references, was an expression of surprise that so much effort was put into this article.
Honestly though, it is the good and natural instinct of editors/admins
(I
make admins distinct from editors bc their perspectives are different on deletions) to want to delete articles that aren't written very well or
seem
to be POV at first glance. And this article certainly fits that bill,
and it
may need a total rewrite in some sections. But that is no justification
for
arguing that accusations (carried by book publishers and news
organizations
no less) of state terror are just some nutty fringe idea that isn't
worth
having an article on.
I think the article itself makes the best case for its own deletion: "The definition of terrorism is itself controversial, but the definition of state terrorism is even more so. There is no international consensus on what terrorism or state terrorism is. Nations disagree on what distinguishes a "terrorist organisation" from a "liberation movement". There is no agreement regarding if state terrorism is a valid concept and if so, how to define it."
Anthony
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/26/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
just like those against the article, you are only arguing about how accusations of state terror are false.
I don't think I've done that at all. What I've argued is that the term "state terrorism" is not well defined.
The issue is that the subject is a notable one, not just in high-profile liberal academic circles, but even in major news and publications.
What subject exactly?
There are all kinds of articles about conservative and religious viewpoints that are not only dubious, but have been proven wrong outright.
Can you give an example which you think is analogous to this article?
But it is the job of Wikipedia to give an account of what the published views on the subject are to provide a comprehensive encyclopedic resource.
I'm not sure if I agree or not. Depends on what "the subject" is. I won't try to guess. The title of the article in question is [[State terrorism by the United States]], which is a fine subject *if* you accept the fact that the United States engages in state terrorism. OTOH, if the subject is [[List of incidents in which the actions by United States leaders have been called "state terrorism"]], I think the subject passes a neutrality test but becomes much less interesting.
We keep articles on Holocaust denial to inform readers about what those who comment on the subject say in published sources.
Holocaust denial is a well defined subject, and holocaust denial is a dispute over facts, not semantics.