Someone other than me will have to decide if Lance Murdoch is poisoning the Wikipedia with his pro-communist POV. I think my own fervent anti-communism keeps me from being neutral enough to make an unbiased judgment.
His edits to [[Red Scare]], as well as his comments to me about it, make it seem like:
A. Communists did nothing wrong. B. Anti-communism of the 1950s was "hysterical".
Since this cannot be the official view of Wikipedia, I need someone impartial (or at least 'neutral') to intervene. I can't "mediate" between myself and someone else.
Ed Poor
Ed,
That is the Stalinist position. It just needs to be labeled as such. He's not a big reverter that I've noticed.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:41:22 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch
Someone other than me will have to decide if Lance Murdoch is poisoning the Wikipedia with his pro-communist POV. I think my own fervent anti-communism keeps me from being neutral enough to make an unbiased judgment.
His edits to [[Red Scare]], as well as his comments to me about it, make it seem like:
A. Communists did nothing wrong. B. Anti-communism of the 1950s was "hysterical".
Since this cannot be the official view of Wikipedia, I need someone impartial (or at least 'neutral') to intervene. I can't "mediate" between myself and someone else.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Let's wait til the watchlist comes back before we make any judgement about his effect. Most of this stuff would have come to others attention if the watchlist was not disabled. Poor Uncle Ed, the Little Dutch Boy...
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:41:22 -0500 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch
Someone other than me will have to decide if Lance Murdoch is poisoning the Wikipedia with his pro-communist POV. I think my own fervent anti-communism keeps me from being neutral enough to make an unbiased judgment.
His edits to [[Red Scare]], as well as his comments to me about it, make it seem like:
A. Communists did nothing wrong. B. Anti-communism of the 1950s was "hysterical".
Since this cannot be the official view of Wikipedia, I need someone impartial (or at least 'neutral') to intervene. I can't "mediate" between myself and someone else.
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 01/14/04 at 02:41 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
Someone other than me will have to decide if Lance Murdoch is poisoning the Wikipedia with his pro-communist POV.
"Poisoning" seems as yet too strong a term -- most of his edits seem reasonable and he doesn't get into silly edit wars -- but I have noticed that he has the habit of turning his edit summaries into rants on how American-centric corporate press dominates Wikipedia and the like. He definitely needs to lighten up.
V.
On 01/14/04 at 09:05 PM, Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl said:
most of his edits seem reasonable and he doesn't get into silly edit wars
Having written this yesterday now I am not so sure. LM just edited [[Shining Path]] and I found myself in disagreement with ALL his edits. Here are just two:
For one, he insists that the group be called the Peruvian Communist Party, claiming that Shining Path is a perjorative label used by the US media (!!!). For his rationale and my counterargument, please see to the Talk page.
He also deleted this text
During this era, Shining Path used tactics that included conscription of children, forced labor, executions by stoning and throat-slitting (ostensibly to save bullets), destruction of the electricity infrastructure, indiscrimate bombings, and targeted assassinations of political opponents.
yet left the text following it intact:
However, in fighting Shining Path, the Peruvian armed forces also committed many atrocities. It destroyed villages and massacred campesinos it suspected of being supporters of Shining Path.
The problem is that during this period, unlike in Soviet Russia, Peru did have a relatively free media and the atrocities of Shining Path /have/ been well documented.
LM seems to have a serious problem acknowledging atrocities on the part of his ideological bedmates.
Jiang and I have both asked him on his Talk page to devote more effort to justifiying his edits on Talk pages; I suggest others do as well.
V.
On 01/14/04 at 02:41 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
His edits to [[Red Scare]], as well as his comments to me about it, make it seem like:
A. Communists did nothing wrong.
Under the section "Reactions to the Red Scare" in the paragraph:
Though many of the more outrĂ© accusations of the McCarthy period—such as the claim that President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] was a communist—now seem laughable, the opening of Soviet historical archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union has provided evidence for less grandiose accusations, such as the claim by [[Whittaker Chambers]] that [[Alger Hiss]] worked for Soviet intelligence. Similarly, reports of mass murders committed by communist states including the Soviet Union under [[Josef Stalin]], China under [[Mao Zedong]], and Cambodia under the [[Khmer Rouge]]—once dismissed as anti-communist [[propaganda]]—are now well-documented in the historical record.
Lance removed the last sentence (Similarly --> historical record), which I am assuming is an edit Ed finds controversial. I think after due consideration that Lance /may be/ right: that this doesn't belong here because it is a bit of subtle editorializing suggesting that perhaps the anti-communists /weren't/ "paranoid" after all; moreover, Khmer Rouge were much later the Red Scares. I am guessing that what LM thinks is that central issues of the Red Scare were "infilitration" of the government and the labor movement and so forth and not atrocities in distant lands and to use these matters after the fact to justify the Red Scares may be a subtle bit of POV. I think he has a point.
B. Anti-communism of the 1950s was "hysterical".
The phrase is in question "Red Scare hysteria". I did a Google search ("red scare" + "hysteria") and found more than 2,600 hits for this phrase, including a reference to a book entitled "Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920" which looks reasonably serious. I think there is a good case for stating it in the article as a "hysteria" whether or not we personally agree; it is clearly an established usage. On the Talk page, Mirv agreed, and mentioned other titles which refer to the "hysteria" of the time.
In conclusion, I think his edits are ok but I think he needs to justify them on the Talk page. I'll leave a note on his Talk page.
Ed, satisfied?
V.
His edits are not OK, they express an unidentified point of view. He says "some" think and some disagree. Who are those folks. Surely he knows.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 22:44:03 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch
On 01/14/04 at 02:41 PM, "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com said:
His edits to [[Red Scare]], as well as his comments to me about it, make it seem like:
A. Communists did nothing wrong.
Under the section "Reactions to the Red Scare" in the paragraph:
Though many of the more outrĂ© accusations of the McCarthy period—such as the claim that President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] was a communist—now seem laughable, the opening of Soviet historical archives following the collapse of the Soviet Union has provided evidence for less grandiose accusations, such as the claim by [[Whittaker Chambers]] that [[Alger Hiss]] worked for Soviet intelligence. Similarly, reports of mass murders committed by communist states including the Soviet Union under [[Josef Stalin]], China under [[Mao Zedong]], and Cambodia under the [[Khmer Rouge]]—once dismissed as anti-communist [[propaganda]]—are now well-documented in the historical record.
Lance removed the last sentence (Similarly --> historical record), which I am assuming is an edit Ed finds controversial. I think after due consideration that Lance /may be/ right: that this doesn't belong here because it is a bit of subtle editorializing suggesting that perhaps the anti-communists /weren't/ "paranoid" after all; moreover, Khmer Rouge were much later the Red Scares. I am guessing that what LM thinks is that central issues of the Red Scare were "infilitration" of the government and the labor movement and so forth and not atrocities in distant lands and to use these matters after the fact to justify the Red Scares may be a subtle bit of POV. I think he has a point.
B. Anti-communism of the 1950s was "hysterical".
The phrase is in question "Red Scare hysteria". I did a Google search ("red scare" + "hysteria") and found more than 2,600 hits for this phrase, including a reference to a book entitled "Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920" which looks reasonably serious. I think there is a good case for stating it in the article as a "hysteria" whether or not we personally agree; it is clearly an established usage. On the Talk page, Mirv agreed, and mentioned other titles which refer to the "hysteria" of the time.
In conclusion, I think his edits are ok but I think he needs to justify them on the Talk page. I'll leave a note on his Talk page.
Ed, satisfied?
V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am guessing that what LM thinks is that central issues of the Red Scare were "infilitration" of the government and the labor movement and so forth and not atrocities in distant lands and to use these matters after the fact to justify the Red Scares may be a subtle bit of POV. I think he has a point.
After sending the my last message, I noticed that he summarized this edit with:
The Red Scare was a US domestic issue, some of the issues are still disputed
so my analysis was correct.
V.
The US domestic reaction to Communist organizing is partially based on events in other countries, partially on fear, partially on experience with domestic communists and partially on the desire to continue to dominate society. To the extent it is overblown it can fairly be described as hysteria. I have (on another website) included it as an example of social mania.
Fred
From: Viajero viajero@quilombo.nl Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 23:23:07 +0100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] User:LanceMurdoch
I am guessing that what LM thinks is that central issues of the Red Scare were "infilitration" of the government and the labor movement and so forth and not atrocities in distant lands and to use these matters after the fact to justify the Red Scares may be a subtle bit of POV. I think he has a point.
After sending the my last message, I noticed that he summarized this edit with:
The Red Scare was a US domestic issue, some of the issues are still disputed
so my analysis was correct.
V. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l