This is really gone out of control.
What seems to have very much happened that the wikien-l has become a tool for pushing a false view about Australia and in persecuting a long-time contributor who lost his temper at a person who persistantly pursued that view in defiance of all objective evidence to the contrary (eg quotes from the Australian Constitution). Other tactics seem to include the vexatious use of the no personal attacks rule, and general donning and brandishing of a martyr's cloak that its user was certainly not entitled to wear.
This is meant to be an encyclopedia, one that is frequently copied across to other sites. Its facts need to be reliable and objective at all times.
This principle has become dormant in this whole affair. What he went through was disgraceful, and if Dr Carr leaves this site in protest, I can hardly blame him.
If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.
I stand reminded of a certain user named Plautus Satire who would not stop arguing that everything was made of plasma or that the space shuttle was shot down by a laser, regardless of a lack of evidence to back these views. A similar insanity occurred here.
Its time it came to an end. Its certainly wasted enough space on wikien-l.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Haws" hawstom@sprintmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:34:04 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however. -Snowspinner
Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
-- Silverback
In other words, baiting is most definitely not worse than abusing. True that both are bad, but pointing fingers merely is a tactic for deflecting blame. Thou shalt not escalate.
- Tom Haws
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:20:44 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.
Hear, hear! I have presented bucketloads of reputable, verifiable sources, and yet Adam Carr relies almost entirely on his own opinion.
On 14 Feb 2005 I stated in [[Talk:Government of Australi]] "I intend to remove all references to head of state until someone can come up with a definitive source, that isn't clearly opinion."
Since then, Adam has provided a total of two sources apart from himself:
One newspaper article written by Allison Henry who is the National Director of the Australian Republican Movement, a partisan organisation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
One link to a paper issed by the Parliamentary Research Office. This paper was described by another editor and Adam found the link. The paper gives opinions for the Queen as head of state and the Governor-General as head of state. It does not favour one or the other. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Adam's argument is not based on checkable sources. It is based on abuse, threats and personal opinion, as anybody may see for themselves by following the chain of edits on the discussion page for the article, beginning at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Along the way, the number and quality of my own sources may be noted: Link to ACM website, disproving Adam's statement of their definition of republic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Link to Australian National Opinion Poll site showing poor level of community awareness on constitutional matters. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...
Quote from Federation-era constitutional scholars Quick and Garran showing their opinion that the brand new Constitution places sovereignty in the hands of the Australian people.
Quote from Macquarie Dictionary showing that definition of republic includes Australia. Both at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Link to ARM article quoting Professor Brian Galligan stating that Australia is a republic. Link to Australian Politics site quoting Prime Minister John Howard describing the Governor-General as "effectively Australia's head of state". Link to Melbourne University site quoting former Governor Sir Richard McGarvie stating that the Governor-General performs the functions of the head of state. Link to ARM article quoting Professor George Winterton stating that Australia has two heads of state. I point out that the ARM material comprises quotes from Galligan's book and a copy of Winterton's article published in Quadrant, a scholarly magazine. All at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Link to ACM site rebutting TBSDY's allegation that ACM and ARM have the same opinion on who is the head of state. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Links to constitutions of Japan and Sweden. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Four links to statements by constitutional authorities using the term "crowned republic" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
Link to John Howard as Prime Minister using the term "crowned republic". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d...]
I don't mind criticism, bu when it is so far off the mark, I really must protest!
The problem is that you are arguing over a generalization, not over particulars, one can cite authority for a number of propositions and that is good but insisting on an overarching generalization is a violation of Wikipedia policy. There is also a problem of obsession involved here.
With respect to generalizations: it is inappropriate to try to insert into the George W. Bush article that he is a "fool" or that he is "courageous". One can cite a number of things he did or said which might support one conclusion or another but the overarching generalization that gathers all the threads of a complex life up and sums up his character are inappropriate in an encyclopedia.
Likewise, characterizing Australia as a republic when its title is Commonwealth or the Soviet Union as a dictatorship when its title is republic is problematic. Both characterizations seek to cut through the verbiage and express the essence of the matter, the truth. However they cannot take the place of the proper sort of NPOV information which explores the different ways the situation is looked at and described.
As to obsession, we recently had a case of obsession with Ashley Simpson; other editors have fallen into the same sort of pattern. Like Ashley Simpson whether Australia is fairly characterized as a republic and the debate over the matter in Australia are significant, but not properly a matter of great concern. Constant churning over of the matter eventually becomes a disruption of Wikipedia and a violation of policy.
Fred
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com Reply-To: Skyring skyring@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:46:45 +1100 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] This republic nonsense has got to stop.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:20:44 +0600, Arno M redgum46@lycos.com wrote:
If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.
Hear, hear! I have presented bucketloads of reputable, verifiable sources, and yet Adam Carr relies almost entirely on his own opinion.
On 14 Feb 2005 I stated in [[Talk:Government of Australi]] "I intend to remove all references to head of state until someone can come up with a definitive source, that isn't clearly opinion."
Since then, Adam has provided a total of two sources apart from himself:
One newspaper article written by Allison Henry who is the National Director of the Australian Republican Movement, a partisan organisation. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... rev&oldid=10713451]
One link to a paper issed by the Parliamentary Research Office. This paper was described by another editor and Adam found the link. The paper gives opinions for the Queen as head of state and the Governor-General as head of state. It does not favour one or the other. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... rev&oldid=10665087]
Adam's argument is not based on checkable sources. It is based on abuse, threats and personal opinion, as anybody may see for themselves by following the chain of edits on the discussion page for the article, beginning at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10232643]
Along the way, the number and quality of my own sources may be noted: Link to ACM website, disproving Adam's statement of their definition of republic. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10611555]
Link to Australian National Opinion Poll site showing poor level of community awareness on constitutional matters. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... xt&oldid=10614518
Quote from Federation-era constitutional scholars Quick and Garran showing their opinion that the brand new Constitution places sovereignty in the hands of the Australian people.
Quote from Macquarie Dictionary showing that definition of republic includes Australia. Both at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10629502]
Link to ARM article quoting Professor Brian Galligan stating that Australia is a republic. Link to Australian Politics site quoting Prime Minister John Howard describing the Governor-General as "effectively Australia's head of state". Link to Melbourne University site quoting former Governor Sir Richard McGarvie stating that the Governor-General performs the functions of the head of state. Link to ARM article quoting Professor George Winterton stating that Australia has two heads of state. I point out that the ARM material comprises quotes from Galligan's book and a copy of Winterton's article published in Quadrant, a scholarly magazine. All at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10749531]
Link to ACM site rebutting TBSDY's allegation that ACM and ARM have the same opinion on who is the head of state. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10908870]
Links to constitutions of Japan and Sweden. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10933565]
Four links to statements by constitutional authorities using the term "crowned republic" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... rev&oldid=10938280]
Link to John Howard as Prime Minister using the term "crowned republic". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Government_of_Australia&d... ext&oldid=10942836]
I don't mind criticism, bu when it is so far off the mark, I really must protest! -- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 06:50:09 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Likewise, characterizing Australia as a republic when its title is Commonwealth or the Soviet Union as a dictatorship when its title is republic is problematic. Both characterizations seek to cut through the verbiage and express the essence of the matter, the truth. However they cannot take the place of the proper sort of NPOV information which explores the different ways the situation is looked at and described.
I'm not sure what's wrong with describing a commonwealth as a republic, but we've reached an acceptable solution, complete with good sources. The Prime Minister describes Australia as a "crowned republic".
I take your point about blandly describing Australia as a republic, and in hindsight it caused more heat than light.
On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:37 pm, Skyring wrote:
we've reached an acceptable solution, complete with good sources. The Prime Minister describes Australia as a "crowned republic".
Well well well. It appears Pete (Skyring) is entitled to an apology of sorts from some people on this list. I hope you stay on Pete and I hope this hasn't left a bad taste in your mouth. Good on you for sticking with it through all the personal attacks, etc. It's a shame you had to go to such lengths to create a better article.
Christiaan
Sir, I trust that was deliberately not a fatuous response. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and heads of government are generally not the people who interpret a constitution. When John Howard spoke in that connection, he was merely noting that the monarch had little if any real influence on politics.
However, that no more makes Australia a republic than calling a sheep's tail a leg make it a leg. Skyring's POV is that Australia is a republic and not a constitutional monarchy, which flies in the face of logic, fact, common sense, and Australia's own constitution.
Moreover, I see no evidence from the relevant talk pages that such a compromise has been reached, certainly if one has been reached, it doesn't involve him.
Charles Fulton
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:29:26 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:37 pm, Skyring wrote:
we've reached an acceptable solution, complete with good sources. The Prime Minister describes Australia as a "crowned republic".
Well well well. It appears Pete (Skyring) is entitled to an apology of sorts from some people on this list. I hope you stay on Pete and I hope this hasn't left a bad taste in your mouth. Good on you for sticking with it through all the personal attacks, etc. It's a shame you had to go to such lengths to create a better article.
Christiaan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Right, and I meant for the negation to precede the adverb ("not a deliberately"). Although, on reflection, the phrase ("that response was not fatuous on purpose") would have been far superior.
Sigh...
Charles
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:22:41 +0000, Charles Fulton mackensen@gmail.com wrote:
Sir, I trust that was deliberately not a fatuous response. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and heads of government are generally not the people who interpret a constitution. When John Howard spoke in that connection, he was merely noting that the monarch had little if any real influence on politics.
However, that no more makes Australia a republic than calling a sheep's tail a leg make it a leg. Skyring's POV is that Australia is a republic and not a constitutional monarchy, which flies in the face of logic, fact, common sense, and Australia's own constitution.
Moreover, I see no evidence from the relevant talk pages that such a compromise has been reached, certainly if one has been reached, it doesn't involve him.
Charles Fulton
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:29:26 +0000, Christiaan Briggs christiaan@last-straw.net wrote:
On 10 Mar 2005, at 9:37 pm, Skyring wrote:
we've reached an acceptable solution, complete with good sources. The Prime Minister describes Australia as a "crowned republic".
Well well well. It appears Pete (Skyring) is entitled to an apology of sorts from some people on this list. I hope you stay on Pete and I hope this hasn't left a bad taste in your mouth. Good on you for sticking with it through all the personal attacks, etc. It's a shame you had to go to such lengths to create a better article.
Christiaan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 02:22:41 +0000, Charles Fulton mackensen@gmail.com wrote:
Sir, I trust that was deliberately not a fatuous response. The Prime Minister is the head of government, and heads of government are generally not the people who interpret a constitution. When John Howard spoke in that connection, he was merely noting that the monarch had little if any real influence on politics.
He said: "The essence of a republican form of government is that ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, and that all public office holders derive their authority from the people, either through election by the people, or by appointment by officers themselves elected by the people - precisely the form of government we enjoy in Australia. What this means is that we have always been a crowned republic. " http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/1997/waerydun.htm
This seems to go a long way beyond your claim.
As for constitutional commentators, the first were Quick and Garran with their monumental Annotation published in 1901, in which they said: "'The Constitution is the master of the legislature, and the community itself is the author of the Constitution ... Sovereignty resides in [those] in whom is ultimately vested the power to amend a Constitution of Government'."
However, that no more makes Australia a republic than calling a sheep's tail a leg make it a leg. Skyring's POV is that Australia is a republic and not a constitutional monarchy, which flies in the face of logic, fact, common sense, and Australia's own constitution.
That is not my view. I have never said that Australia is not a constitutional monarchy. In fact I take the opportunity to state it quite firmly. Australia *is* a constitutional monarchy.
The fact is that we are also a republic because we have a republican form of government, sovereignty resides in the people, and power is exercised through elected or appointed officials. The Queen certainly has a role, but as a figurehead.
However, I am persuaded that to state it as a bland generalisation in the lead sentence without some considerable explanation immediately following is stylistically inelegant, to be polite. 8^)
Moreover, I see no evidence from the relevant talk pages that such a compromise has been reached, certainly if one has been reached, it doesn't involve him.
This turns out not to be the case, as can be plainly seen.
Skyring wrote:
[John Howard] said: "The essence of a republican form of government is that ultimate sovereignty resides in the people, and that all public office holders derive their authority from the people, either through election by the people, or by appointment by officers themselves elected by the people - precisely the form of government we enjoy in Australia. What this means is that we have always been a crowned republic."
"All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people".- Article 2 of the Constitution.
:-) Ec
The discussion was hardly a waste of time. We have explored a number of questions and obtained feedback. But not enough to change the policy regarding personal attacks or to back off from the principle that putting one's eccentric views into an article is unacceptable.
We have also explored the possibility that the community wishes to give "good" editors license to abuse "bad editors"; that anyone who disciplines or complains about such a "good" editor will be responsible for "driving them away" and that someone who complains about a "good" editor is probably a "bad" editor.
Fred
From: "Arno M" redgum46@lycos.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:20:44 +0600 To: "Thomas Haws" hawstom@sprintmail.com, "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] This republic nonsense has got to stop.
This is really gone out of control.
What seems to have very much happened that the wikien-l has become a tool for pushing a false view about Australia and in persecuting a long-time contributor who lost his temper at a person who persistantly pursued that view in defiance of all objective evidence to the contrary (eg quotes from the Australian Constitution). Other tactics seem to include the vexatious use of the no personal attacks rule, and general donning and brandishing of a martyr's cloak that its user was certainly not entitled to wear.
This is meant to be an encyclopedia, one that is frequently copied across to other sites. Its facts need to be reliable and objective at all times.
This principle has become dormant in this whole affair. What he went through was disgraceful, and if Dr Carr leaves this site in protest, I can hardly blame him.
If there is a disagreement on this matter , clearly sources have to be quoted and discussed objectively. This has not happened in this matter.
I stand reminded of a certain user named Plautus Satire who would not stop arguing that everything was made of plasma or that the space shuttle was shot down by a laser, regardless of a lack of evidence to back these views. A similar insanity occurred here.
Its time it came to an end. Its certainly wasted enough space on wikien-l.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Haws" hawstom@sprintmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Abusive editors Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:34:04 -0700 (GMT-07:00)
I think it's important to note that baiting users into making personal attacks is even worse than the personal attacks that ensue, however. -Snowspinner
Abusers often blame the victim. Sadly, sometimes the victims believe them.
-- Silverback
In other words, baiting is most definitely not worse than abusing. True that both are bad, but pointing fingers merely is a tactic for deflecting blame. Thou shalt not escalate.
- Tom Haws
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l