I need your help. Zero0000 is insisting upon a verison of events that is based upon a single report in AFP. The BBC, NYT, HaAretz, INN all disagree with Zero0000's version. This is detailed in a table on [[Talk:Current Events]]. Zero0000 is also insisting, that a different article in HaAretz is a retraction of an earlier one...there is no indication of such in the article itself. While that article details other deaths in this horrible conflict, nowhere does it discuss the incident of Hassan Zaanin.
Zero0000's version: * An 18-year-old [[Palestinian]], Hassan Zaanin, is shot dead in Beit Hanoun in the [[Gaza Strip]] when heand his familiy attempt to stop Palestinian gunmen from planting an anti-tank explosive outside their house.[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/455715.html (Haaretz)] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)]
My version: * [[Palestinian terrorism|Palestinian terrorist]]s of the [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades]] an armed branch of [[Yasser Arafat]]'s [[Fatah]] organization, [[murder]] 16-year-old [[Palestinian]] Hassan Al-Za'nin and shoot several members of his family, when the family refuses to allow the terrorists to use the Al-Za'nin property as a [[Qassam rocket]] launch site. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?h... (NYT)] [http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 (INN)] [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html (HaAretz)]
To prevent me from insisting that the more common version be used, he is blocking IP addresses that I use. Please help in preventing Zero0000 from doing this.
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Hi, I'm new to this list and I'm new to the NPOV policy but it seems very obvious to me Harry that your version is not NPOV. The term "terrorist" is hardly neutral. It's about as loaded as "freedom-fighter."
"Gunmen," it seems to me, is a relatively neutral term that cannot be disputed.
Christiaan
On 27 Jul 2004, at 1:46 pm, Harry Smith wrote:
I need your help. Zero0000 is insisting upon a verison of events that is based upon a single report in AFP. The BBC, NYT, HaAretz, INN all disagree with Zero0000's version. This is detailed in a table on [[Talk:Current Events]]. Zero0000 is also insisting, that a different article in HaAretz is a retraction of an earlier one...there is no indication of such in the article itself. While that article details other deaths in this horrible conflict, nowhere does it discuss the incident of Hassan Zaanin.
Zero0000's version:
- An 18-year-old [[Palestinian]], Hassan Zaanin, is
shot dead in Beit Hanoun in the [[Gaza Strip]] when heand his familiy attempt to stop Palestinian gunmen from planting an anti-tank explosive outside their house.[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/455715.html (Haaretz)] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)]
My version:
- [[Palestinian terrorism|Palestinian terrorist]]s
of the [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades]] an armed branch of [[Yasser Arafat]]'s [[Fatah]] organization, [[murder]] 16-year-old [[Palestinian]] Hassan Al-Za'nin and shoot several members of his family, when the family refuses to allow the terrorists to use the Al-Za'nin property as a [[Qassam rocket]] launch site. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND- MIDE.html?hp (NYT)] [http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 (INN)] [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html (HaAretz)]
To prevent me from insisting that the more common version be used, he is blocking IP addresses that I use. Please help in preventing Zero0000 from doing this.
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
I agree with Christian - its got the flare of a Hearst newspaper in the 1890's, but You seem reasonable enough to warrant not being blocked outright. Can you consider moderating your tone a bit - read the News style article.. for articles that depend on the original and new reporting of pro outfits, quoting the sources (until matters settle) is fine. To do otherwise is conjecture, regardless of how its put. See below *
Zero, I understand your frustration but IMHO would like you to report more facts and less characterization. Links to the relevant articles you mention would be nice too. So far Harry has provided several, and these would seem to support his version of events, albeit not his characterization of it...
*"The bbc reports the event as a series of differing reports:Some witnesses said the young man was killed by militants whom he saw burying an anti-tank mine near his house on a track used by Israeli patrols. Other reports suggest he was shot by Israeli troops. Our correspondent reports there was an exchange of fire between the residents and the militants. Several people were injured. In the past, ordinary people in the town, which lies close to Gaza's border, have said they support efforts to confront Israel. But our correspondent says they have also made clear that they feel their town is being made to bear too heavy a burden - that militant action is causing them to suffer too much at the hands of the Israeli army.
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S. Vertigo,
I would be glad to provide quotations direct from the links that I cited. I hope that you will excuse the resulting length of this email. I will preceed each quotation with the URL so that it may be verified by each of you. Please note that the New York Times article may require a free registration, which if memory serves, may request an email address. Yahoo! might serve you well there.
I hope that Zero0000 will do the same, and provide his quotes as well.
I also hope that Zero0000 point out specifically where the article state that it is a correction or revision of the previous article, as Zero0000 claims, or that the article Zero0000 cites even refers to the same incident.
It is my sincere hope that the larger issue of the abuse of admin privs by Zero0000 will be addressed as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm A Palestinian teenager has been shot dead in the Gaza Strip in what appeared to be a clash between Palestinian militants and local residents.
He died in the northern town of Beit Hanoun, where militants have often launched missile attacks on Israel.
A BBC correspondent says militants may have been planning a rocket attack, which the residents opposed for fear of Israeli retaliation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?h... In recent days, the members of the Al-Za'nin clan have seen members of the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, an armed branch of Yasir Arafat's Fatah organization, using their olive and orange groves and the roads nearby for launching sites. This morning, when the four brigade militants returned to try to set down a launcher along the road running in front of the Al-Za'nin house, the family members spoke up in anger.
The family members were worried that Israeli troops would eventually retaliate against them, possibly even destroying their two-story stucco house. Throughout the West Bank and Gaza, Israeli forces, as a deterrent strategy, have often destroyed the houses of families and local people who cooperate with the militants.
According to Amna Al-Za'nin, the 35-year-old aunt of the boy who was killed, members of the family including three of her nephews argued with four militants, but the militants ignored their appeals. As the argument grew more heated, she said, three of the militants started firing in the air. One though fired off several shots directly at the family.
Miss Al-Za'nin herself was struck in the back, an 18-year-old nephew was struck in the ear, and a 20-year-old nephew was struck in the hand. But one nephew, Hassan Al- Za'nin, 15 years old, was hit in the back and taken to Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, where he died. Doctors at the hospital said the bullet penetrated the boy's heart.
"Even if we ask them not to fire from our land, that doesn't give them permission to shoot at us," Miss Al Za'nin said in a telephone interview from her bed at Alawdah Hospital in Jabalia in the northern Gaza strip. "It's very painful that a Palestinian bullet was directed toward a Palestinian chest." She described Hassan as the best student in his grade and said he was supposed to attend a party tomorrow where he was going to receive an award for academic excellence.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html (somewhat down the page)
PA teen killed by Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades An Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades cell killed a 16-year-old Palestinian boy in Beit Hanun on Friday after a row in which his family opposed the cell's attempt to launch Qassam rockets from their yard, Israeli security sources said.
According to a report obtained from Palestinian sources, the cell, comprised of six men, arrived in a van at the Za'anun family's Beit Hanun home on Friday morning. The militants then placed a Qassam rocket launcher adjacent to the family home, and one of the cell members opened fire on an armored Israel Defense Forces vehicle nearby.
Members of the Za'anun family came out of their house holding sticks and rocks, and tried to drive the Al-Aqsa militants from their yard, most likely fearing that their house would be demolished if Qassam rockets were launched from it.
During the clash, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades members opened fire, killing Hassan Za'anun and wounding three other family members.
The cell left the area following the incident, without firing the Qassam rockets.
http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 Sources in the PA report six PA residents, five armed, arrived this morning in the Beit Hanoun area of northern Gaza. The IDF is operating in that area, working to prevent Kassam rocket attacks into southern Green Line Israel. Two of the six got out of a vehicle and deployed a Kassam launcher. Persons in a nearby home came out and began pelting the terrorists with rocks, seeking to prevent a Kassam launch from their area, fearing IDF retaliation.
An altercation ensured, including the use of gunfire. A 15-year-old was killed and five other persons injured.
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
--- "S. Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
I agree with Christian - its got the flare of a Hearst newspaper in the 1890's, but You seem reasonable enough to warrant not being blocked outright. Can you consider moderating your tone a bit - read the News style article.. for articles that depend on the original and new reporting of pro outfits, quoting the sources (until matters settle) is fine. To do otherwise is conjecture, regardless of how its put. See below *
Zero, I understand your frustration but IMHO would like you to report more facts and less characterization. Links to the relevant articles you mention would be nice too. So far Harry has provided several, and these would seem to support his version of events, albeit not his characterization of it...
*"The bbc reports the event as a series of differing reports:Some witnesses said the young man was killed by militants whom he saw burying an anti-tank mine near his house on a track used by Israeli patrols. Other reports suggest he was shot by Israeli troops. Our correspondent reports there was an exchange of fire between the residents and the militants. Several people were injured. In the past, ordinary people in the town, which lies close to Gaza's border, have said they support efforts to confront Israel. But our correspondent says they have also made clear that they feel their town is being made to bear too heavy a burden - that militant action is causing them to suffer too much at the hands of the Israeli army.
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The blocked IP list in wikipedia is inaccurate. The dates listed for blocks to expire are incorrect. Meaning that they are not tied to the block mechanism.
An admin can block an IP address for a period of time beyond the expiry date listed on the blocked IP page.
I am not familiar with the mechanism. Does the block page allow one to enter periods of time beyond a single day (seems to be the default)?
Can one block for a period of time different then the comment indicates?
Can one extend blocks without updating the comment.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
From the arbitration policy page:
Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
I am surprised....I have been told that folks are not supposed to have more than one account on Wikipedia. Yet this seems to indicate that having more than one account is not unexpected.
Help.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Multiple accounts, also known as "sockpuppets" are permitted but discouraged. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppets]].
-Snowspinner
On Jul 30, 2004, at 12:57 PM, Harry Smith wrote:
From the arbitration policy page:
Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
I am surprised....I have been told that folks are not supposed to have more than one account on Wikipedia. Yet this seems to indicate that having more than one account is not unexpected.
Help.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Having several user accounts is acceptable for any user. Having a plethora of accounts or using multiple accounts to vote more than once or otherwise pile on to some issue is not.
Fred
From: Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:57:11 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Multiple Accounts
From the arbitration policy page:
Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
I am surprised....I have been told that folks are not supposed to have more than one account on Wikipedia. Yet this seems to indicate that having more than one account is not unexpected.
Help.
Lance6Wins
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:00:24 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Having several user accounts is acceptable for any user. Having a plethora of accounts or using multiple accounts to vote more than once or otherwise pile on to some issue is not.
Along these lines, multiple accounts are far more acceptable if you admit to having them (the actual accounts, not the number).
I am surprised....I have been told that folks are not supposed to have more than one account on Wikipedia. Yet this seems to indicate that having more than one account is not unexpected.
Help.
Lance6Wins
ahma, there is no such policy forbidding to have several accounts.
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:28:46 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
ahma, there is no such policy forbidding to have several accounts.
As Ant said. There may be a misconception - multiple accounts does not equal "sock puppetry." Sock puppetry is trying to use multiple accounts without full disclosure for an advantage - in consensus building or in voting.
Most people do not use their extra accounts to be disruptive, and therefore a justifiable value judgement is made among arbitrators, as to the disruptiveness of a user's editing patterns. "Sock puppetry" as Andrew said, is limited in definition to the use of extra accounts to engage in misrepresentation and disruption.
S
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
From the arbitration policy page:
Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly.
I am surprised....I have been told that folks are not supposed to have more than one account on Wikipedia.
Yet this seems to indicate that having more than one account is not unexpected.
Help.
Lance6Wins
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I'm not sure what is meant by "incorrect," can you elaborate?
Multiple blocks can be made for a given IP, and the time can be changed to whatever period desired. But all blocks for that IP will be cleared upon the earliest expiration of the block. At least that was the latest behaviour described by Tim Starling on IRC.
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:47:13 -0700 (PDT), Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
The blocked IP list in wikipedia is inaccurate. The dates listed for blocks to expire are incorrect. Meaning that they are not tied to the block mechanism.
An admin can block an IP address for a period of time beyond the expiry date listed on the blocked IP page.
I am not familiar with the mechanism. Does the block page allow one to enter periods of time beyond a single day (seems to be the default)?
Can one block for a period of time different then the comment indicates?
Can one extend blocks without updating the comment.
Lance6Wins
Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Harry Smith wrote:
The blocked IP list in wikipedia is inaccurate. The dates listed for blocks to expire are incorrect. Meaning that they are not tied to the block mechanism.
An admin can block an IP address for a period of time beyond the expiry date listed on the blocked IP page.
I am not familiar with the mechanism. Does the block page allow one to enter periods of time beyond a single day (seems to be the default)?
Yes.
Can one block for a period of time different then the comment indicates?
If a block is entered into the block log, then it will expire when it says it does.
Can one extend blocks without updating the comment.
Blocks can be extended by unblocking and then reblocking with a different expiry time. This operation is logged. Autoblock entries are automatically extended whenever the associated user accesses the site. Autoblock entries are the ones claiming to block "#2345" or something similar, they correspond to blocks of the IP addresses used by blocked users. They are not entered into the block log.
-- Tim Starling
We are not in a position to determine which press source is more reliable. That being said, the safe way is to restrict ourselves to those facts on which the sources agree. Calling this squad terrorists, calling their act murder, presuming that the squad was from Al-Aqsa, gratuitously making the link with Fateh and Arafat, making the technical determination the the missiles were specifically Qassam rockets all seem to be strategies to inflame the issue with unverified facts.
Ec
Harry Smith wrote:
I need your help. Zero0000 is insisting upon a verison of events that is based upon a single report in AFP. The BBC, NYT, HaAretz, INN all disagree with Zero0000's version. This is detailed in a table on [[Talk:Current Events]]. Zero0000 is also insisting, that a different article in HaAretz is a retraction of an earlier one...there is no indication of such in the article itself. While that article details other deaths in this horrible conflict, nowhere does it discuss the incident of Hassan Zaanin.
Zero0000's version:
- An 18-year-old [[Palestinian]], Hassan Zaanin, is
shot dead in Beit Hanoun in the [[Gaza Strip]] when heand his familiy attempt to stop Palestinian gunmen from planting an anti-tank explosive outside their house.[http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/455715.html (Haaretz)] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)]
My version:
- [[Palestinian terrorism|Palestinian terrorist]]s
of the [[Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades]] an armed branch of [[Yasser Arafat]]'s [[Fatah]] organization, [[murder]] 16-year-old [[Palestinian]] Hassan Al-Za'nin and shoot several members of his family, when the family refuses to allow the terrorists to use the Al-Za'nin property as a [[Qassam rocket]] launch site. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3920181.stm (BBC)] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/international/middleeast/23CND-MIDE.html?h... (NYT)] [http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=66197 (INN)] [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/455377.html (HaAretz)]
To prevent me from insisting that the more common version be used, he is blocking IP addresses that I use. Please help in preventing Zero0000 from doing this.
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Calling this squad terrorists, calling their act murder, presuming that the squad was from Al-Aqsa... all seem to be strategies to inflame the issue with unverified facts.
...Hence 'disruption,' which appears aimed toward sabotaging progress. I dont think thats entirely the case here; the term 'terrorist' is inapropriate as a primary descriptor; but much of American political rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist with militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I receive some support? This is a general editorial-type decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.
To my knowlege, an 'editorial decision process' about anything (other than the general concept of NPOV) let alone what terms to avoid has yet to be tried here. It should be; we should have an editorial board that sets some journalistic NPOV standards. Heck, even the Reuters article that Lance6 was quoting was just mostly an up to the minute hack job.
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S. Vertigo wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Calling this squad terrorists, calling their act murder, presuming that the squad was from Al-Aqsa... all seem to be strategies to inflame the issue with unverified facts.
...Hence 'disruption,' which appears aimed toward sabotaging progress. I dont think thats entirely the case here; the term 'terrorist' is inapropriate as a primary descriptor; but much of American political rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist with militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I receive some support? This is a general editorial-type decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.
To my knowlege, an 'editorial decision process' about anything (other than the general concept of NPOV) let alone what terms to avoid has yet to be tried here. It should be; we should have an editorial board that sets some journalistic NPOV standards. Heck, even the Reuters article that Lance6 was quoting was just mostly an up to the minute hack job.
S
Setting up some kind of weaponry seems "militant" (or "military") enough for me. In a Quebec French context it has come to be applied to any active supporter of a political party. I tend to object when that use is transferred into English. In the context of the current dispute it's at least worth trying. "Militant" can probably be more easily circumscribed than "terrorist". Zero's term was "gunmen", and that too is relatively neutral. The concept of a good militant is as easily envisioned as that of a bad militant, and perhaps that is what makes it more acceptable. On the other hand the idea of a good terrorist would be a pretty hard sell.
The level of support a person gets on anything here is unpredictable. Speaking for myself, I would not have commented but for the fact that the matter appeared in the mailing list. I just don't hang out at the Israel/Palestine articles. Most of us don't.
I like the idea of a list of tabooed words. People tend not to understand words very well, and it gets worse when a controversial subject is involved. Understanding that a word has connotations in addition to its denotaions can be hard to get across. This episode led me to dig up my copy of Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words", originally published in 1938. He relates the story of asking about 200 people what they thought the word "fascism" meant, and how dramatically different the answers were, though most had negative connotations. It includes "Government in the interest of the majority for the purpose of accomplishingthings democracy cannot do" or "A govenmentwhere you can live comfortably if you never disagree with it" or "A form of government where socialism is used to perpetuate capitalism".
Ec
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
If its does not constitute lawful excuse, the act is murder per the first line of the wikipedia entry on murder.
My question is do we use the term murder for this shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on murder?
seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own definitions for words at wikipedia.
is this type of internal consistency valuable?
if it is not should we make that known?
is using the term murder according to the wikipedia definition POV?
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
ps. perhaps the shooter meant to wound rather than kill. please repeat the above substituting manslaugter for murder.
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
S. Vertigo wrote:
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Calling this squad terrorists, calling their act murder, presuming that the squad was from Al-Aqsa... all seem to be strategies to inflame the issue with unverified facts.
...Hence 'disruption,' which appears aimed toward sabotaging progress. I dont think thats entirely
the
case here; the term 'terrorist' is inapropriate as
a
primary descriptor; but much of American political rhetoric uses it. If I replace the term terrorist
with
militant, am I farting in the wind, or will I
receive
some support? This is a general editorial-type decision with regard to what terms are NPOV.
To my knowlege, an 'editorial decision process'
about
anything (other than the general concept of NPOV)
let
alone what terms to avoid has yet to be tried here.
It
should be; we should have an editorial board that
sets
some journalistic NPOV standards. Heck, even the Reuters article that Lance6 was quoting was just mostly an up to the minute hack job.
S
Setting up some kind of weaponry seems "militant" (or "military") enough for me. In a Quebec French context it has come to be applied to any active supporter of a political party. I tend to object when that use is transferred into English. In the context of the current dispute it's at least worth trying. "Militant" can probably be more easily circumscribed than "terrorist". Zero's term was "gunmen", and that too is relatively neutral. The concept of a good militant is as easily envisioned as that of a bad militant, and perhaps that is what makes it more acceptable. On the other hand the idea of a good terrorist would be a pretty hard sell.
The level of support a person gets on anything here is unpredictable. Speaking for myself, I would not have commented but for the fact that the matter appeared in the mailing list. I just don't hang out at the Israel/Palestine articles. Most of us don't.
I like the idea of a list of tabooed words. People tend not to understand words very well, and it gets worse when a controversial subject is involved. Understanding that a word has connotations in addition to its denotaions can be hard to get across. This episode led me to dig up my copy of Stuart Chase's "The Tyranny of Words", originally published in 1938. He relates the story of asking about 200 people what they thought the word "fascism" meant, and how dramatically different the answers were, though most had negative connotations. It includes "Government in the interest of the majority for the purpose of accomplishingthings democracy cannot do" or "A govenmentwhere you can live comfortably if you never disagree with it" or "A form of government where socialism is used to perpetuate capitalism".
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of
intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
Exactly - though the word excuse doesnt work well. Better to say 'without lawful reason,' or cause. Excuse already implies a defiance of an existing law. Keep in mind now that "law" is also a tricky word; human law requires context, or juristiction. So, according to a local variety of "law," it's "murder" to do that here, but if youre over there, 'go right ahead.' Is this act called "murder" in Palestine? I dont know. But even if it was, its a very close call. I would say that its not our place to pass judgement; that if "murder" is the judgment of a local "law" for an event, then we can report that.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
There is no lawful excuse for murder. "Murder" is a term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness, while other terms are used for killings which are "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term generally used for cases of "collateral damage" or "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc. While I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,' having any pretense of a consistent general policy would require a preference for the use terms that do not carry such a judgement.
The reason is that these terms just dont work in an international discussion context, because 'just cause' is always an issue of POV, unless the "law" we are all talking about is in place, active, global, and applicable equally. Currently neutrality is the only such law, othet than the law of force; sometimes called 'tyranny,' juristiction by 'right of might' is very weak, IMHO, if there are mechanisms and means by which people are free to communicate clearly.
'Cerely S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S Vertigo,
If I read your message correctly, and I might not language being the poor method of communication that we have.
You appear to be saying that words are difficult, "tricky".
That murder is locally defined, which might be the case. Though I dont see why the local definition criterion should be limited to murder. Please lets stay on an even keel about this...there have been governments that have legalized actions that later have been widely characterized as murder. Indeed 20 century Europe offers examples of this. Is Wikipedia to adopt the local definition in these examples? We might argue that the local definition has changed since then, but then could we describe the acts as murder if they were not locally defined such at the time?
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
--- "S. Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that
appears
in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of
intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
Exactly - though the word excuse doesnt work well. Better to say 'without lawful reason,' or cause. Excuse already implies a defiance of an existing law. Keep in mind now that "law" is also a tricky word; human law requires context, or juristiction. So, according to a local variety of "law," it's "murder" to do that here, but if youre over there, 'go right ahead.' Is this act called "murder" in Palestine? I dont know. But even if it was, its a very close call. I would say that its not our place to pass judgement; that if "murder" is the judgment of a local "law" for an event, then we can report that.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask
if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
excuse.
There is no lawful excuse for murder. "Murder" is a term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness, while other terms are used for killings which are "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term generally used for cases of "collateral damage" or "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc. While I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,' having any pretense of a consistent general policy would require a preference for the use terms that do not carry such a judgement.
The reason is that these terms just dont work in an international discussion context, because 'just cause' is always an issue of POV, unless the "law" we are all talking about is in place, active, global, and applicable equally. Currently neutrality is the only such law, othet than the law of force; sometimes called 'tyranny,' juristiction by 'right of might' is very weak, IMHO, if there are mechanisms and means by which people are free to communicate clearly.
'Cerely S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com
Its a very good question; how does NPOV in historical perspective, relate to NPOV about current events. Its been discussed and debated page by page, case by case; I would like to see some common ground too, but am entirely unclear on how that would be done.
S
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
S Vertigo,
If I read your message correctly, and I might not language being the poor method of communication that we have.
You appear to be saying that words are difficult, "tricky".
That murder is locally defined, which might be the case. Though I dont see why the local definition criterion should be limited to murder. Please lets stay on an even keel about this...there have been governments that have legalized actions that later have been widely characterized as murder. Indeed 20 century Europe offers examples of this. Is Wikipedia to adopt the local definition in these examples? We might argue that the local definition has changed since then, but then could we describe the acts as murder if they were not locally defined such at the time?
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
--- "S. Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The
common
definition of murder and the definition that
appears
in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of
intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
Exactly - though the word excuse doesnt work well. Better to say 'without lawful reason,' or cause. Excuse already implies a defiance of an existing law. Keep in mind now that "law" is also a tricky word; human law requires context, or juristiction. So, according to a local variety of "law," it's
"murder"
to do that here, but if youre over there, 'go
right
ahead.' Is this act called "murder" in Palestine?
I
dont know. But even if it was, its a very close call. I would say that its not our place to pass judgement; that if "murder" is the judgment of a local "law" for an event, then we can report that.
If we accept this definition, then we need to
ask
if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
excuse.
There is no lawful excuse for murder. "Murder" is
a
term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness,
while
other terms are used for killings which are "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term generally used for cases of "collateral damage" or "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc. While I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,' having any pretense of a consistent general policy would require a preference for the use terms that
do
not carry such a judgement.
The reason is that these terms just dont work in
an
international discussion context, because 'just cause' is always an issue of POV, unless the "law" we are all talking about is in place, active, global, and applicable equally. Currently neutrality is the
only
such law, othet than the law of force; sometimes called 'tyranny,' juristiction by 'right of might' is very weak, IMHO, if there are mechanisms and means by which people are free to communicate clearly.
'Cerely S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Messenger - Communicate in real time. Download now. http://messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
S. Vertigo wrote:
--- Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com wrote:
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
There is no lawful excuse for murder.
In some countries being the president's nephew would be a lawful "excuse"
"Murder" is a term which carries a meaning of wrongfulness, while other terms are used for killings which are "justified," or "lawful." Is murder the term generally used for cases of "collateral damage" or "assassination" or "targeted bombing?" etc. etc. While I agree that its valid to 'call a spade a spade,' having any pretense of a consistent general policy would require a preference for the use terms that do not carry such a judgement.
Many people here in Canada believe that Harry Schmidt got away with murder when he recklessly killed the four soldiers on April 17, 2002.
Ec
Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
If its does not constitute lawful excuse, the act is murder per the first line of the wikipedia entry on murder.
My question is do we use the term murder for this shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on murder?
Perhaps we need to change the definition to add something like, "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." The facts outlined above could very well result in a determination that there was a murder, but neither we nor our contributors are in a position to make the needed interrogations that will lead to the truth. It's not for us to decide.
seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own definitions for words at wikipedia.
is this type of internal consistency valuable?
Certainly, and I thank you for pointing out this inconsistency so that the definition can be repaired.
if it is not should we make that known?
is using the term murder according to the wikipedia definition POV?
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
ps. perhaps the shooter meant to wound rather than kill. please repeat the above substituting manslaugter for murder.
The only difference between murder and attempted murder is the ability to shoot straight. :-)
Ec
Ray,
You suggest that we add "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." to the wikipedia definition of murder.
in the case at hand, July 23 slaying (NPOV?) of Hassan Al-Zanin (sp?) either the group of individuals siting the weapon on his family's property/land where at "duly constituted tribunal" or were not.
Are we suggesting that this status arose during the disagreement with the family or are we saying that the group of individuals siting the weapon had the status of "duly constituted tribunal" before they arrived?
Seems hard to make either claim for this group of individuals, dont you think?
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
ps. Where is Zero0000 in all this? Clearly he has an opinion on the matter, else this thread would not exist!
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that
appears
in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the
death
of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask
if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is
that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use
the
family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
If its does not constitute lawful excuse, the act
is
murder per the first line of the wikipedia entry on murder.
My question is do we use the term murder for this shooting or do we change the wikipedia article on murder?
Perhaps we need to change the definition to add something like, "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." The facts outlined above could very well result in a determination that there was a murder, but neither we nor our contributors are in a position to make the needed interrogations that will lead to the truth. It's not for us to decide.
seems to be a question of wikipedia using its own definitions for words at wikipedia.
is this type of internal consistency valuable?
Certainly, and I thank you for pointing out this inconsistency so that the definition can be repaired.
if it is not should we make that known?
is using the term murder according to the wikipedia definition POV?
Sincerely,
Lance6Wins
ps. perhaps the shooter meant to wound rather than kill. please repeat the above substituting manslaugter for murder.
The only difference between murder and attempted murder is the ability to shoot straight. :-)
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Harry Smith wrote:
Ray,
You suggest that we add "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." to the wikipedia definition of murder.
in the case at hand, July 23 slaying (NPOV?) of Hassan Al-Zanin (sp?) either the group of individuals siting the weapon on his family's property/land where at "duly constituted tribunal" or were not.
Are we suggesting that this status arose during the disagreement with the family or are we saying that the group of individuals siting the weapon had the status of "duly constituted tribunal" before they arrived?
Seems hard to make either claim for this group of individuals, dont you think?
Without presuming to know anything about the judicial structure of Palestine, a "duly constituted tribunal" would likely be a court established under the laws of the Palestinian Republic. I would certainly not vest that authority in a lynch mob established by either party to the dispute.
Ec
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is:
Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse.
If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
[snip]
Perhaps we need to change the definition to add something like, "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." The facts outlined above could very well result in a determination that there was a murder, but neither we nor our contributors are in a position to make the needed interrogations that will lead to the truth. It's not for us to decide.
Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism classes in college. One of the few things I remember is that when writing about unlawful activities, one must carefully use specific words to qualify the charge, such as "accused", "alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
Note carefully that what is being asserted is not whether or not any of the people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes, merely the opinions of a large number of people, or the official verdicts of the American legal system. And it has been documented that individuals are occasionally arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are later shown not to have committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction for a crime means that it was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that specific crime.
Also note that these phrases are based on Anglo-American law, where people are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found innocent or guilty by a court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent terminology in Civil Law would be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a crime, would it be correct to say that the person charged is indicted?
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.
Geoff
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Perhaps we need to change the definition to add something like, "as determined by a duly constituted tribunal." The facts outlined above could very well result in a determination that there was a murder, but neither we nor our contributors are in a position to make the needed interrogations that will lead to the truth. It's not for us to decide.
Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism classes in college. One of the few things I remember is that when writing about unlawful activities, one must carefully use specific words to qualify the charge, such as "accused", "alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
People could have fun with, "acquitted murderer, O. J. Simpson."??? :-$
Note carefully that what is being asserted is not whether or not any of the people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes, merely the opinions of a large number of people, or the official verdicts of the American legal system. And it has been documented that individuals are occasionally arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are later shown not to have committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction for a crime means that it was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that specific crime.
For now I would be happy to see resolution on the mainstream of these issues. There will also be cases of exoneration, as with the boxer Hurricane Carter, but these are the exceptions that merit special attention.
Also note that these phrases are based on Anglo-American law, where people are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found innocent or guilty by a court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent terminology in Civil Law would be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a crime, would it be correct to say that the person charged is indicted?
The terms need to be kept simple and generic. "Accused" and "alleged" can probably be merged. "Indicted" may be a term that depends on the nature of the legal system, but where applicable lends itself well to precise definition. "Convicted" is easily understood.
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.
Ec
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a 'less biased way' to put these might be:
* President Bush, true patriot and a national treasure.
* The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists, sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special covert operations against the communist threat.
See, now isnt that so much better?
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps you could find better places to post your sarcastically anti-American vitriol. -Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: S. Vertigomailto:sewev@yahoo.com To: English Wikipediamailto:wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a 'less biased way' to put these might be:
* President Bush, true patriot and a national treasure.
* The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists, sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special covert operations against the communist threat.
See, now isnt that so much better?
S
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mailhttp://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.orgmailto:WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttp://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Christopher Larberg the_pokemon_master@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps you could find better places to post your sarcastically anti-American vitriol.
While Ill agree to refrain from making political comments, (dont talk about the elephant in the room, please) but I dont recall writing anything "anti-American." I made a comment about how allegations made toward GW Bush and the CIA could be "cleaned up" to reflect a more "neutral" point of view. If you are confusing Bush and the CIA with the people and culture called "America," well, then that would be a good example of what not to confuse.
S "The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships...That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt."
- President Bush, true patriot and a national
treasure.
- The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy
theorists, sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special covert operations against the communist threat.
See, now isnt that so much better?
S
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mailhttp://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.orgmailto:WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-lhttp://mail.wikipediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Christopher, what insight do you have that Vertigo was having a go at Americans? Why, for instance, did you not ask him to refrain from posting anti-power-elite vitriol?
Christiaan
On Jul 29, 2004, at 4:36 am, Christopher Larberg wrote:
I'm not attempting to railroad this discussion off-track, but perhaps you could find better places to post your sarcastically anti-American vitriol. -Slowking Man ----- Original Message ----- From: S. Vertigo To: English Wikipedia Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
Hmm. It would seem to me that some would consider even the rather bland term "alleged" as biased. Maybe a 'less biased way' to put these might be:
- President Bush, true patriot and a national
treasure.
- The CIA, according to nutcase conspiracy theorists,
sold some contraband in Guatemala to help fund special covert operations against the communist threat.
See, now isnt that so much better?
S
Christiaan Briggs -- Yurky Cross Chartered Architects 167a York Way, London, N7 9LN 020 7267 0481 christiaan@yurkycross.co.uk
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
[Examples]
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua *Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.
I thought that too. Interestingly though UK broadcasting rules are more relaxed about this.
For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold Shipman, convicted of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass murderer Harold Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X, that person doesn't appear to have recourse if someone calls them an Xer.
Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher standard than supposedly neutral TV news programmes?
Pete
Well, there comes a point where a fact is no longer disputed by any significant number of people. I don't know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but, if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still denies' seems fair. Mark
--- Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
[Examples]
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with
the rules of NPOV.
I thought that too. Interestingly though UK broadcasting rules are more relaxed about this.
For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold Shipman, convicted of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass murderer Harold Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X, that person doesn't appear to have recourse if someone calls them an Xer.
Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher standard than supposedly neutral TV news programmes?
Pete
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
It's rather pedantic and irrelevant to the discussion, but Shipman isn't denying anything any more - he's dead.
--sannse
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Richards" marich712000@yahoo.com To: wpmail@pcbartlett.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Viajero/Zero and Lance6 - POV terms
Well, there comes a point where a fact is no longer disputed by any significant number of people. I don't know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but, if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still denies' seems fair. Mark
--- Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
[Examples]
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with
the rules of NPOV.
I thought that too. Interestingly though UK broadcasting rules are more relaxed about this.
For instance, programmes do not have to say "Harold Shipman, convicted of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass murderer Harold Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of X, that person doesn't appear to have recourse if someone calls them an Xer.
Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher standard than supposedly neutral TV news programmes?
Pete
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mark wrote: "I don't know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but, if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still denies' seems fair."
Sannse replied: "It's rather pedantic and irrelevant to the discussion, but Shipman isn't denying anything any more - he's dead."
I think Mark is right about a great many things, but leaving it to a murderer to decide how their history is written is not one of them. These days even a guy who goes postal on an office full of people is still just an "alleged murderer." If we just agreed that murder has a real definition, in religious, (old government), social (culture trancending governments) and legal (recent law) contexts, then to let someone denial of their extremely low social status of "murderer" by simple matter of opinion is... POV. We dont consider POV unless its attributed, and in that case, I disagree that a denial should be so closely attached to the facts, as if they were in the least related.
Yes, I know; this energy should be going toward articles. ;) -~~~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Fair point, and in the case of the postal worker I think you're totally right - I guess I was thinking more of the O.J.s of the world. Mark
--- "S. Vertigo" sewev@yahoo.com wrote:
Mark wrote: "I don't know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder, but, if he admits it, then surely calling him a murderer is justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then calling him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still denies' seems fair."
Sannse replied: "It's rather pedantic and irrelevant to the discussion, but Shipman isn't denying anything any more - he's dead."
I think Mark is right about a great many things, but leaving it to a murderer to decide how their history is written is not one of them. These days even a guy who goes postal on an office full of people is still just an "alleged murderer." If we just agreed that murder has a real definition, in religious, (old government), social (culture trancending governments) and legal (recent law) contexts, then to let someone denial of their extremely low social status of "murderer" by simple matter of opinion is... POV. We dont consider POV unless its attributed, and in that case, I disagree that a denial should be so closely attached to the facts, as if they were in the least related.
Yes, I know; this energy should be going toward articles. ;) -~~~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
The call him anything you like!
--- sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
It's rather pedantic and irrelevant to the discussion, but Shipman isn't denying anything any more - he's dead.
--sannse
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Richards" marich712000@yahoo.com To: wpmail@pcbartlett.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2004 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Viajero/Zero and Lance6
- POV terms
Well, there comes a point where a fact is no
longer
disputed by any significant number of people. I
don't
know whether Harold Shipman still denies murder,
but,
if he admits it, then surely calling him a
murderer is
justified and NPOV. If he disputes it, then
calling
him a 'convicted murderer, a charge that he still denies' seems fair. Mark
--- Pete/Pcb21 pete_pcb21_wpmail@pcbartlett.com wrote:
Geoffrey Burling wrote:
[Examples]
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser *The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles
to
fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud *Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
I think is a solution that would nicely fit
with
the rules of NPOV.
I thought that too. Interestingly though UK broadcasting rules are more relaxed about this.
For instance, programmes do not have to say
"Harold
Shipman, convicted of mass murder,...". They can, and do, say "Mass murderer Harold Shipman...". Once someone has been convicted of
X,
that person doesn't appear to have recourse if someone calls them an Xer.
Is this a case where WP NPOV exacts a higher standard than supposedly neutral TV news programmes?
Pete
Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
sannse wrote:
It's rather pedantic and irrelevant to the discussion, but Shipman isn't denying anything any more - he's dead.
Yeah that's why I picked him, but maybe I shouldn't have - The point I was trying to make was that the description would be allowed for ''anyone'' so convicted, whether they admitted it or not.
Thus the Birmingham Six were "killers" in the langugage of the media, even though they strongly denied it.
After they were freed they were (definitely) "wrongly convicted", even though there is a very remote chance they were rightly convicted.
Pete
Geoffrey has hit the nail on the head here. x killed y. That much we agree on. x is accused of murder by the family of y, but the court found him innocent. The family of y think this is a travesty of justice. Mark
--- Geoffrey Burling llywrch@agora.rdrop.com wrote:
Many years ago, I took a couple of journalism classes in college. One of the few things I remember is that when writing about unlawful activities, one must carefully use specific words to qualify the charge, such as "accused", "alleged", "indicted", & "convicted". For example:
*President Bush, alleged cocaine abuser
*The CIA allegedly sold drugs in Los Angeles to fund the Contras in Nicaraugua
*Kenneth Lay, indicted for corporate fraud
*Martha Stewart, convicted of insider trading
Note carefully that what is being asserted is not whether or not any of the people mentioned _actually_ committed the crimes, merely the opinions of a large number of people, or the official verdicts of the American legal system. And it has been documented that individuals are occasionally arrested, tried & convicted for crimes that they are later shown not to have committed -- thus we cannot assert that conviction for a crime means that it was an NPOV fact that they actualy committed that specific crime.
Also note that these phrases are based on Anglo-American law, where people are arrested, indicted by a grand jury, then found innocent or guilty by a court. I'm not sure just what the equivalent terminology in Civil Law would be. If a prosecuting judge charges someone with a crime, would it be correct to say that the person charged is indicted?
I think is a solution that would nicely fit with the rules of NPOV.
Geoff _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On 07/28/04 18:07, Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that appears in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse. If we accept this definition, then we need to ask if the individuals that shot the boy had lawful excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use the family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
The particular case isn't the issue. What is at issue is your habit of using the linked words [[terrorist]] and [[murder]] when you contribute INN news pieces to [[Current events]]. It's blatant emotive slanting of the story. And the real problem is it isn't informative - how was the "murder" in question performed? [[terrorist]] vs [[freedom fighter]] vs fighter without major military hardware? Etc.
Your usage of terms in a blatantly emotive way that adds nothing to the informational content of the piece is a real problem.
- d.
David the July 23 story at issue was reported in The New York Times (NYT), The British Broadcasting Company (BBC), HaAretz, Israel National News (INN), Agence France Presse (APF) and Al-Hayat Al-Jedidah.
I do not remember if any of them used the word "murder". I used the word "murder" based upon the wikipedia article definition.
I have heard your position regarding INN. Perhaps your re-emphasis of this one point is due to my lack of acknowlegement.
Could you repond to my questions regarding the use of the term "murder" at wikipedia.
Do we honor our own definition?
Please see previous email regarding the question and others.
Sincerely, Lance6Wins
--- David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
On 07/28/04 18:07, Harry Smith wrote:
with regard to calling an act murder. The common definition of murder and the definition that
appears
in wikipedia is: Murder is the crime of intentionally causing the
death
of another human being, without lawful excuse. If we accept this definition, then we need to ask
if
the individuals that shot the boy had lawful
excuse.
From the articles, the reason for the shooting is
that
the boy and his family opposed the attempt to use
the
family's property/land. Does the family's refusal constitute lawful excuse for the shooting?
The particular case isn't the issue. What is at issue is your habit of using the linked words [[terrorist]] and [[murder]] when you contribute INN news pieces to [[Current events]]. It's blatant emotive slanting of the story. And the real problem is it isn't informative - how was the "murder" in question performed? [[terrorist]] vs [[freedom fighter]] vs fighter without major military hardware? Etc.
Your usage of terms in a blatantly emotive way that adds nothing to the informational content of the piece is a real problem.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail