Cunctator insists on having an article at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]], despite many other people's objections. There seemed to have developeda consensus that the article be called [[Homophobic hate speech]], but Cunctator decided unliaterally to change that. We need a decision that everybody can live with.
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 07:24:37PM -0800, Zoe wrote:
Cunctator insists on having an article at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]], despite many other people's objections. There seemed to have developeda consensus that the article be called [[Homophobic hate speech]], but Cunctator decided unliaterally to change that. We need a decision that everybody can live with.
The article is about the slogan, isn't it? It is false and misleading to name the article "Homophobic hate speech" when it is really about the slogan "AIDS Kills Fags Dead".
The real question you should be asking is: is such an article encyclopedic, and does it belong in the Wikipedia at all? I respectfully submit to the jury that such an article is NOT encyclopedic, and does not belong in the Wikipedia.
Denis Diderot is rolling in his grave at your descration of his legacy. You Wikipedians would have crucified Samuel Johnson long ago, had he shown up and tried to contribute. Shame.
Jonathan
On 3/2/03 10:24 PM, "Zoe" zoecomnena@yahoo.com wrote:
Cunctator insists on having an article at [['AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan]], despite many other people's objections. There seemed to have developeda consensus that the article be called [[Homophobic hate speech]], but Cunctator decided unliaterally to change that. We need a decision that everybody can live with.
Since Zoe is bringing up an issue on the mailing list that Jimbo has already agreed to look into, and is mischaracterizing my actions, I'll reply.
I am not the only person who believes that the article should not be called "homophobic hate speech". Thus, my decision--to maintain the status quo, no less--was not unilateral, a claim Zoe has made on three different forums now.
This issue is being hashed out through discussion on the pages, development of a new [[homophobic hate speech]] article, and Jimbo's eventual involvement.
There's no need for my actions to be impugned.
I would also like to point out Zoe's use of the passive voice ("there seemed to have developed a consensus..."), an excellent rhetorical device to deflect responsibility and refutability. The parties involved are few enough that active statements can be made.
Like so:
Jtdirl feels very strongly that this entry title should not exist, and has argued that Wikipedia may be up for legal liability for having it. Mav considers that the title's offensiveness outweighs the limited significance of the specific topic. AxelBoldt and The Cunctator think that the entry is appropriately named and properly specific. KF thinks it's fine. Eloquence thinks the subject isn't significant enough to have its own entry. Stan Shebs found the entry directly useful. It's hard to tell what Vert thinks. Other people have weighed in without indicating a strong preference one way or the other, while discussing the merits of the various arguments.
And evidently Zoe is offended.
There are really two issues here: the specific content issue, and then the issue of working courteously with others to achieve consensus.
1. On the specific content issue... "Homophobic hate speech" is a clearly necessary and useful topic, and separate from the specific example of this 'AIDS kills fags dead' example.
The title [[Aids kills fags dead]] was poor, and Axel has actually gone so far as to apologize for it, although I think he didn't need to do that, since it was a well-intentioned article all along.
Is the topic important enough to deserve it's own article? I think yes, it is, especially in conjunction with a more general article on homophobic hate speech. I would have said 'no, probably not' until I actually read the article and learned a couple of things from it.
--------------- SIDEBAR ----------- For example, "everyone knows" that some Christian groups are outspoken against homosexuality. But I generally assume that they are _Christian_ about it, i.e. "love the sinner, hate the sin". And I'm sure that most of them are. (I don't agree with their position, I should say!) If people are referring to *these* groups as practicing "hate speech" I think they're going overboard.
But for a Baptist minister to lead a protest at the funeral of Matthew Shepard is really shocking. What's to protest? He was a victim of really horrible and very un-Christ-like violence. And to compound that with a slogan about AIDS! ------------END SIDEBAR----------------
So, I learned something. I had barely heard of Fred Phelps, and I had never heard this slogan before.
So, I think that the way things washed out this morning is fine. We have a short, non-political, NPOV article (I guess it could always be improved in this regard, but people aren't fighting much over the specific content, which is a good sign)
I SHOULD ADD THIS HERE: I generally don't edit because I don't want to be involved with content issues *and* co-operation issues. My opinions on content are equal to everyone elses, in this sense, it's the wiki way. I only offer my point of view on this as a wikipedian, not as a "ruling" of any kind.
2. On the "working well with others" issue -- I think that a certain minimal amount of edit-warring is inevitable, but here's a couple of tips that will probably be helpful: (a) let the other person win, for awhile, and hash it out on the talk pages and (b) it should generally be uncool for anyone (other than me, ha ha) to simply announce what consensus is, in formulations such as "it has been decided"
So: try to relax, everyone. And that's a ruling. :-)
--Jimbo
Cunctator has made a number of additions to the "What Wikipedia is not" policy page
To see the diff: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&...
The one I quety is this, under the "not a genealogical or biographical dictionary" heading:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
any thoughts on this?
Quoting Cunc, I think:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
I'm not going to speculate on his motives, really, but it sounds to me like he's just written what has been the consensus, and it actually counts _against_ the very Sep11 entries that people have objected to.
Some of the Sep11 casualties made the news _individually_ for various reasons. That's a pretty good indication of their being suitable for an encyclopedia entry. Others, we don't have any independently-verifiable information about... which is a pretty good indication of their not being suitable for an encyclopedia entry.
--Jimbo
tarquin wrote:
Cunctator has made a number of additions to the "What Wikipedia is not" policy page
To see the diff: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&...
The one I quety is this, under the "not a genealogical or biographical dictionary" heading:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
any thoughts on this?
Perhaps the "(or deaths)" could be interpreted that way, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. Most of us who see no merit to having 11 September biographies in Wikipedia see the creation of the separate space for this as a reasonable compromise. I'm sure that if Cunc or any others began abusing this policy statement in the way you suggest you would have others to complain beside you.
Cunc's proposed change is a reasonable guideline that still requires some measure of common sense. (Do we really need to define "newsworthy"?) It does thwart those people who would sillily interpret the policy as outlawing any kind of biography. It still leaves room for royal genealogies where (particularly in mediaeval contexts) knowing the relationships is parallel in importance to having a program to identify the participants in a sporting event.
Eclecticology
Tarquin wrote:
Cunctator has made a number of additions to the "What Wikipedia is not" policy page:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
It seems to me that Cunc has added this so he can better justify the keeping of the Sep11 casualties in Wikipedia.
There's already discussion of this point going on at [[Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not]]. The mailing list has been full enough already, so we can all go there if it's the contents of the page that we're discussing.
-- Toby
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
Define newsworthy in this day of blogs and instant reporting about every little thing.
<fictitious> The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday about a shop owner in los angeles who finds the restriction on liquor permits restrictive. </fictitious>
It was in print in a national newspaper. Should it be here? Probably not.
Likewise is something was not in print in a newspaper and not covered by CNN, does that by default make it not encyclopedia-ish?
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 17:17, Christopher Mahan wrote:
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
A good measure of achievement is whether their lives (or deaths) were newsworthy, that is, that there exist external sources on the people.
Define newsworthy in this day of blogs and instant reporting about every little thing.
<fictitious> The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday about a shop owner in los angeles who finds the restriction on liquor permits restrictive. </fictitious>
It was in print in a national newspaper. Should it be here? Probably not.
Likewise is something was not in print in a newspaper and not covered by CNN, does that by default make it not encyclopedia-ish?
It should be noted that tarquin above was quoting something I wrote.
In terms of your fictitious example, it probably wouldn't merit its own entry, but it would certainly be reasonable for there to be an entry that discusses Los Angeles liquor permits, referencing that article. If that shopkeeper was killed by a cartel of teetotalers, for example, then the shopkeeper might merit his own entry.
--- The Cunctator cunctator@kband.com wrote:
In terms of your fictitious example, it probably wouldn't merit its own entry, but it would certainly be reasonable for there to be an entry that discusses Los Angeles liquor permits, referencing that article. If that shopkeeper was killed by a cartel of teetotalers, for example, then the shopkeeper might merit his own entry.
I hear you.
I just tried to make the point that newsworthiness was not necessarily a criteria for inclusiveness into the W.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Christopher Mahan wrote:
I just tried to make the point that newsworthiness was not necessarily a criteria for inclusiveness into the W.
Not an absolute, no, but it probably is helpful. In the case of a thorny problem like the sep11 entries, it's really helpful. It gives us an external (i.e. not driven by internal wikipedia politics) reference point so that we can move forward in an NPOV manner.
Let me explain: "Is this person important enough?" Gee, that's a very subjective question, and different people will feel differently. And, in this *particular* case, emotions are strong, and who *really* wants to argue that ANY dead person is "not important enough".
But one thing that we can all agree on is a simple factual question: was there news coverage about this person?
This kind of "external" informational "hook" can be really helpful in coming to a reasonable answer. There could be exceptions, of course.
--Jimbo
This kind of "external" informational "hook" can be really helpful in coming to a reasonable answer. There could be exceptions, of course.
--Jimbo
I hear you. I just didn't want some people to latch on to it like gospel-truth.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/