Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_...
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects have always been Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and "There are even a few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had something to do with it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J. Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and the author banned for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure whether present policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and I'm pretty sure I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm bringing this to your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
-- Abi
Abigail Brady wrote:
Someone has made this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_... Some choice quotes from this : "The two persons at the top of the list of suspects have always been Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and "There are even a few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had something to do with it." It then gives a big list of names, including J. Edgar Hoover,
Oh boy!
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and the author banned for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure whether present policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and I'm pretty sure I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm bringing this to your attention.
It's probably an encyclopedic *topic*, even if the present article is shite. Mind you, it'd need referencing on the level of the Worst Movies Ever list.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
We come close. Act too batshit for the wiki and watch the summary block come down, and no-one move a finger to lift it. [[Wikipedia is not]] therapy; in particular, Wikipedia is not [[chlorpromazine]].
- d.
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia is not]] therapy; in particular, Wikipedia is not [[chlorpromazine]].
I respectfully disagree.
-- Sam
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia is not]] therapy; in particular, Wikipedia is not [[chlorpromazine]].
I respectfully disagree.
How so? It's pretty well established that editors who think they're here to write an encyclopedia but are clearly far too batshit insane to work with others on the task will be shown the door in short order, e.g. Plautus Satire.
When I say WIN therapy, I mean in the sense that WIN is not an experiment in Internet democracy; it can be, but that's not its purpose and if it conflicts with writing an encyclopedia, then writing an encyclopedia wins every time.
(Or did you mean it is in fact Thorazine?)
- d.
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Sam Korn wrote:
On 12/16/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
[[Wikipedia is not]] therapy; in particular, Wikipedia is not [[chlorpromazine]].
I respectfully disagree.
How so? It's pretty well established that editors who think they're here to write an encyclopedia but are clearly far too batshit insane to work with others on the task will be shown the door in short order, e.g. Plautus Satire.
When I say WIN therapy, I mean in the sense that WIN is not an experiment in Internet democracy; it can be, but that's not its purpose and if it conflicts with writing an encyclopedia, then writing an encyclopedia wins every time.
(Or did you mean it is in fact Thorazine?)
I was more meaning that those with too much time on their hands can find an instant cure.
-- Sam
After reading a couple on this thread, I went to the 'Kennedy assassination theories' article and found that Fred had just AFD it, claiming it was a nest for "vandals and kooks."
Here is my response:
Hardly a good reason to delete a page. Both JFK and his assassination are reasonably encyclopedic topics about one of the more prominent politicians in the last century and how he died. Stemming from that are the various theories about how it came about, and its not original research to point out what the various points of view.
Because the 'official version' does not have very broad support, NPOV requires that the various other theories be explained, albeit in a general and condensed way. Are these theories "conspiratorial" theories? Of course, and this should be explained, albeit in a way which does not rely on a pejorative interpretation of the term "conspiracy."
I do agree however that 'vandals and kooks' would feel more at home on some Wikipedia fork. ;)
-Ste|vertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
stevertigo wrote:
After reading a couple on this thread, I went to the 'Kennedy assassination theories' article and found that Fred had just AFD it, claiming it was a nest for "vandals and kooks." Hardly a good reason to delete a page. Both JFK and his assassination are reasonably encyclopedic topics about one of the more prominent politicians in the last century and how he died. Stemming from that are the various theories about how it came about, and its not original research to point out what the various points of view.
As I said, it's an arguably encyclopedic topic. The question is then whether this version is less bad than an empty edit box, and if anyone can make it so before the AFD is up ...
- d.
On 16/12/05, stevertigo vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
After reading a couple on this thread, I went to the 'Kennedy assassination theories' article and found that Fred had just AFD it, claiming it was a nest for "vandals and kooks."
Here is my response:
Hardly a good reason to delete a page. Both JFK and his assassination are reasonably encyclopedic topics about one of the more prominent politicians in the last century and how he died. Stemming from that are the various theories about how it came about, and its not original research to point out what the various points of view.
Because the 'official version' does not have very broad support, NPOV requires that the various other theories be explained, albeit in a general and condensed way. Are these theories "conspiratorial" theories? Of course, and this should be explained, albeit in a way which does not rely on a pejorative interpretation of the term "conspiracy."
I do agree however that 'vandals and kooks' would feel more at home on some Wikipedia fork. ;)
I was only complaining about the (now-redirected) list.
However, the article its been redirect to is actually pretty awful and should be wiped and started again, but only allowing non-crazy people to edit. I don't know that it should be deleted from history though.
The phenomenon of Kennedy conspiracy theories is interesting, so if we were writing about it we'd want to date the outlandish claims of conspiracy theorists and trace when books were published, when movies were made, and suchforth. But the article there now is junk and doesn't try to do this at all, it just presents point/counterpoints, with very little sourcing.
-- Abi
Abigail Brady wrote:
However, the article its been redirect to is actually pretty awful and should be wiped and started again, but only allowing non-crazy people to edit. I don't know that it should be deleted from history though. The phenomenon of Kennedy conspiracy theories is interesting, so if we were writing about it we'd want to date the outlandish claims of conspiracy theorists and trace when books were published, when movies were made, and suchforth. But the article there now is junk and doesn't try to do this at all, it just presents point/counterpoints, with very little sourcing.
Yep. My non-vote on the AFD:
* Neutral, with a side-order of "ew, this sucks" - it's arguably an encyclopaedic topic, but this version of the article is *batshit* and is arguably not in any way an improvement on a blank edit box. It will need some SERIOUS NPOVing and absolutely hard-arsed referencing to make a good article on this topic at this title. If we know any non-insane JFK assassination experts on the wiki, please get them on the case - if they can at least reasonably commit to making it a good article and keeping the nutters out, that'll make it worth not shooting in disgust - David Gerard 23:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kennedy_assassi...
- d.
Listed.
Fred
On Dec 16, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Abigail Brady wrote:
Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_in_the_Kennedy_Assassin ation
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects have always been Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and "There are even a few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had something to do with it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J. Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and the author banned for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure whether present policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and I'm pretty sure I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm bringing this to your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
-- Abi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Of course not, one of my neighbors believes the US is responsible for 9/11, explosives planted in the building etc. I trust him rather than the media and common sense.
Fred
On Dec 16, 2005, at 4:02 PM, Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Listed.
(In reference to [[Kennedy assassination theories]].)
Are you going to list [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] while you're at it? If not, why should we have a page on that set of conspiracy theories and not on this set?
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Listed.
(In reference to [[Kennedy assassination theories]].) Are you going to list [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] while you're at it? If not, why should we have a page on that set of conspiracy theories and not on this set?
Because this one's presently so bad it's not an improvement on a blank edit box ... which is editorial rather than topic, but ew.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
Because this one's presently so bad it's not an improvement on a blank edit box ... which is editorial rather than topic, but ew.
In those cases, one approach is to bypass AfD and just replace the article with a stub, insisting that any of the removed claims be referenced before being readded.
-Mark
On 16/12/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Because this one's presently so bad it's not an improvement on a blank edit box ... which is editorial rather than topic, but ew.
In those cases, one approach is to bypass AfD and just replace the article with a stub, insisting that any of the removed claims be referenced before being readded.
But then the crazies would just revert. And then it just becomes a content dispute, with 3RR and all.
-- Abi
Abigail Brady wrote:
Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_...
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects have always been Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and "There are even a few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had something to do with it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J. Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and the author banned for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure whether present policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and I'm pretty sure I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm bringing this to your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
If this only named one or two people I would agree, but this lists such an incrdible array of people thast it ends up illustrating how silly conspiracy theories can get.
Ec
Um, I speedy de-AFD the Kennedy assassination theories article (it had no delete votes, 13 keep, and 3 neutrals) and Fred wiped most of the page.
Is Fred pulling an Ed? (or a Steve?). Is frustration getting the best of some of us?
Stevertigo
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Abigail Brady wrote:
Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_...
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects
have always been
Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and
"There are even a
few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had
something to do with
it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J.
Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and
the author banned
for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure
whether present
policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and
I'm pretty sure
I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm
bringing this to
your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
If this only named one or two people I would agree, but this lists such an incrdible array of people thast it ends up illustrating how silly conspiracy theories can get.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Even speculation and conspiracy theories have sources.
Fred
On Dec 17, 2005, at 11:59 AM, stevertigo wrote:
Um, I speedy de-AFD the Kennedy assassination theories article (it had no delete votes, 13 keep, and 3 neutrals) and Fred wiped most of the page.
Is Fred pulling an Ed? (or a Steve?). Is frustration getting the best of some of us?
Stevertigo
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Abigail Brady wrote:
Someone has made this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ List_of_People_suggested_to_have_been_involved_in_the_Kennedy_Assassi nation
Some choice quotes from this :
"The two persons at the top of the list of suspects
have always been
Fidel Castro and President Lyndon B. Johnson. " and
"There are even a
few people who believe that Lee Harvey Oswald had
something to do with
it."
It then gives a big list of names, including J.
Edgar Hoover,
I think the article should be speedily deleted, and
the author banned
for being clearly insane. However, I'm not sure
whether present
policy would allow me to unilaterally do that - and
I'm pretty sure
I'd get a lot of hassle out of doing that. So I'm
bringing this to
your attention.
We need to be able to summarily ban crazies.
If this only named one or two people I would agree, but this lists such an incrdible array of people thast it ends up illustrating how silly conspiracy theories can get.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
Even speculation and conspiracy theories have sources.
Yes. That's what I meant about a good article on this topic needing to be absolutely hard-arsed about references.
I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an article about the book or the author. (Yet he _does_ mention the threat of the Bavarian Illuminati, years before Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson ever thought of putting pen to paper.)
For those of you who don't know why I say this, take a look at the Amazon entry. (Yes, I understand not everyone reading this lives in the U.S., & some were born after it was first published. And yet we are diescussing the Kennedy assassination.)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899666612/qid=1134869843/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1...
Geoff
Geoff Burling wrote:
I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an article about the book or the author.
You know what the canonical answer to that one is ...
- d.
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, David Gerard wrote:
Geoff Burling wrote:
I just checked: we lack articles on either Gary Allen or _None Dare Call It Conspiracy_. Seeing how many articles there are from the off-their-medication-fringe, I'm honestly surprised we don't have an article about the book or the author.
You know what the canonical answer to that one is ...
Well, my non-canonical stement would have been along the lines of "I didn't see an article on this, so I went ahead & wrote a stub. But I'm surprized that it hadn't been written yet."
Feh. I should have remembered that expeirnce has proven that the best way to get an information hole fixed on Wikipedia is to loudly announce that "This topic is indisputably non-noteable & I will SPEEDILY DELETE any articles about it." Within 6 weeks not only will the article exist, but will often be considered as a FAC.
Geoff
stevertigo wrote:
Um, I speedy de-AFD the Kennedy assassination theories article (it had no delete votes, 13 keep, and 3 neutrals) and Fred wiped most of the page.
Is Fred pulling an Ed? (or a Steve?). Is frustration getting the best of some of us?
A lot of the votes in this particular case were of the form "we should have an article on this subject, so don't delete, but the text we currently have there is in pretty dire shape so it'll need a heavy reworking." My own was along those lines too. The stub that Fred reduced it to was a little too small, IMO there's a bit more salvageable material in the current article than that, but not really out of line.
I know it seems drastic, but there was not one source cited. Basically it was just the sort of chatting we used to do in the Navy. We called it scuddlebutt.
Fred
On Dec 17, 2005, at 1:35 PM, Bryan Derksen wrote:
stevertigo wrote:
Um, I speedy de-AFD the Kennedy assassination theories article (it had no delete votes, 13 keep, and 3 neutrals) and Fred wiped most of the page.
Is Fred pulling an Ed? (or a Steve?). Is frustration getting the best of some of us?
A lot of the votes in this particular case were of the form "we should have an article on this subject, so don't delete, but the text we currently have there is in pretty dire shape so it'll need a heavy reworking." My own was along those lines too. The stub that Fred reduced it to was a little too small, IMO there's a bit more salvageable material in the current article than that, but not really out of line. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I know it seems drastic, but there was not > one
source cited.
{{sofixit}}, dont {{fuckitup}}.
Basically it was just the sort of chatting > we used
to do in the Navy. We called it
scuddlebutt.
No, its called "scuttling other peoples work in the name of policy." Citing sources is a requirement, but its not a prerequisite. Volunteers are not on a schedule and there is no timeframe nor deadline for an article's development. The article needed to be there. Its there due to the work of the "off-their-medications" and retired set to whom Wikipedia owes its early existence.
Deletionism is evil when it makes claims to being an editorial decision. Willy on Wheels could have done the same thing. The issue (for anyone who considers making any change to any artice) is: are you helping to develop it or are you claiming to be in an editorial position to simply scuttle it?
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
G'day Steve,
<snip />
Deletionism is evil when it makes claims to being an editorial decision. Willy on Wheels could have done the same thing. The issue (for anyone who considers making any change to any artice) is: are you helping to develop it or are you claiming to be in an editorial position to simply scuttle it?
YAKWAICM5GBP.
--- Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
YAKWAICM5GBP.
Yes, Mark. Very well said.
Stevertigo
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com