The wikipedia may have a neutrality policy, but it hasn't many teeth, and some POV's seem alot more equal than others. Two that I have run up against time and time again are the Socialist POV (socialism has never been implemented, most socialists define socialism like I do, etc...) and the Pathological Skeptic POV (Humans are an ape, God is just one diety among many, most scientists agree w me, etc...) Instead of the collective editing process minimizing the insistance of these editors to remove cited facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=46806965&oldid=46...
and to make unsubstantiated claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism#Unsubstantiated_claims
majoritocracy and oligarchic admins who shoot from the hip seem to have the final say, trumping NPOV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade
The wikipedia needs to make some changes. Either rewrite NPOV to reflect those biases welcomed by the project, or find a way to enforce neutrality which works, i.e. not popularity contests.
SS
In other words, Sam, you keep getting caught trying to insert your POV into articles.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
-Matt
Dismissing him out of hand is inappropriate without looking at the edits. There is plenty of POV editing on the other side too. I'm going to answer him too, but after I look at some sample edits.
Fred
On Apr 13, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Matt Brown wrote:
In other words, Sam, you keep getting caught trying to insert your POV into articles.
Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Dismissing him out of hand is inappropriate without looking at the edits. There is plenty of POV editing on the other side too. I'm going to answer him too, but after I look at some sample edits.
Granted, but Sam's positioning of himself as the crusader of neutrality against the armies of bias is rather laughable.
-Matt
Laugh all you want, but after you research please.
Dismissing me out of hand with a "Move along, folks, nothing to see here." does help cull the more gullible viewers however, which I guess I could thank you for...
SS
On 4/13/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Dismissing him out of hand is inappropriate without looking at the edits. There is plenty of POV editing on the other side too. I'm going to answer him too, but after I look at some sample edits.
Granted, but Sam's positioning of himself as the crusader of neutrality against the armies of bias is rather laughable.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Fred
On Apr 13, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Matt Brown wrote:
On 4/13/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Dismissing him out of hand is inappropriate without looking at the edits. There is plenty of POV editing on the other side too. I'm going to answer him too, but after I look at some sample edits.
Granted, but Sam's positioning of himself as the crusader of neutrality against the armies of bias is rather laughable.
-Matt _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 13 Apr 2006, at 23:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Yes that seemed to be the main issue when I looked.
I looked over the Socialism article and it didnt seem too bad, especially as it is an overview article that mainly is referencing other articles, always a hard thing to write well. Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
Thats a pretty uninsightful interpretation of what was going on. Editors have been trying to insert that claim that socialism opposes racism:
"Socialism rejects the [[racist]] theories and [[totalitarianism]] of the Nazis, while Nazism rejected the policies of [[internationalism]], [[egalitarianism]], [[class struggle]], and common ownership of the [[means of production]] pursued by many socialists.<ref>[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]], Leon. ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm What is National Socialism?]'' June 10 1933</ref>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=46506992&ol...
That is a highly misleading "citation" there. Trotsky doesn't define Socialism any more than Hitler, Mao or Marx does. They all are persons who claimed to be socialists, with wildly divergent views. There is no consensus amongst socialists on these issues, and it is false to claim their is one.
SS
On 4/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 13 Apr 2006, at 23:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Yes that seemed to be the main issue when I looked.
I looked over the Socialism article and it didnt seem too bad, especially as it is an overview article that mainly is referencing other articles, always a hard thing to write well. Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On the contrary, the [[Socialist International]], which speaks for mainstream socialism, does oppose racism.
Fred
On Apr 14, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
Thats a pretty uninsightful interpretation of what was going on. Editors have been trying to insert that claim that socialism opposes racism:
"Socialism rejects the [[racist]] theories and [[totalitarianism]] of the Nazis, while Nazism rejected the policies of [[internationalism]], [[egalitarianism]], [[class struggle]], and common ownership of the [[means of production]] pursued by many socialists.<ref>[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]], Leon. ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm What is National Socialism?]'' June 10 1933</ref>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Socialism&diff=46506992&oldid=46506617
That is a highly misleading "citation" there. Trotsky doesn't define Socialism any more than Hitler, Mao or Marx does. They all are persons who claimed to be socialists, with wildly divergent views. There is no consensus amongst socialists on these issues, and it is false to claim their is one.
SS
On 4/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 13 Apr 2006, at 23:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Yes that seemed to be the main issue when I looked.
I looked over the Socialism article and it didnt seem too bad, especially as it is an overview article that mainly is referencing other articles, always a hard thing to write well. Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What is mainstream socialism? Do you mean Democratic socialism? Or social democracy? Why is that "mainstream"?
Something like "The socialist international opposes racism" would be fine, I can't imagine who would object to that.
My point is that plenty of socialists were racist, and that nazi's are not ruled out from being socialist for racism or opposition to democracy for that matter. Socialism is known for its centrally planned command economy, according to my economics textbook. That is a criteria which all socialists fall under (to my knowledge). It is also material, rather than rhetorical in nature.
SS
On 4/14/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On the contrary, the [[Socialist International]], which speaks for mainstream socialism, does oppose racism.
Fred
On Apr 14, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
Thats a pretty uninsightful interpretation of what was going on. Editors have been trying to insert that claim that socialism opposes racism:
"Socialism rejects the [[racist]] theories and [[totalitarianism]] of the Nazis, while Nazism rejected the policies of [[internationalism]], [[egalitarianism]], [[class struggle]], and common ownership of the [[means of production]] pursued by many socialists.<ref>[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]], Leon. ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm What is National Socialism?]'' June 10 1933</ref>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Socialism&diff=46506992&oldid=46506617
That is a highly misleading "citation" there. Trotsky doesn't define Socialism any more than Hitler, Mao or Marx does. They all are persons who claimed to be socialists, with wildly divergent views. There is no consensus amongst socialists on these issues, and it is false to claim their is one.
SS
On 4/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 13 Apr 2006, at 23:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Yes that seemed to be the main issue when I looked.
I looked over the Socialism article and it didnt seem too bad, especially as it is an overview article that mainly is referencing other articles, always a hard thing to write well. Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I mean democratic socialism or social democracy, not totalitarian movements which adopt some socialist elements or label themselves socialist while butchering millions. Of course they don't label themselves totalitarian.
Fred
On Apr 14, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
What is mainstream socialism? Do you mean Democratic socialism? Or social democracy? Why is that "mainstream"?
Something like "The socialist international opposes racism" would be fine, I can't imagine who would object to that.
My point is that plenty of socialists were racist, and that nazi's are not ruled out from being socialist for racism or opposition to democracy for that matter. Socialism is known for its centrally planned command economy, according to my economics textbook. That is a criteria which all socialists fall under (to my knowledge). It is also material, rather than rhetorical in nature.
SS
On 4/14/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
On the contrary, the [[Socialist International]], which speaks for mainstream socialism, does oppose racism.
Fred
On Apr 14, 2006, at 1:49 PM, Sam Spade wrote:
Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
Thats a pretty uninsightful interpretation of what was going on. Editors have been trying to insert that claim that socialism opposes racism:
"Socialism rejects the [[racist]] theories and [[totalitarianism]] of the Nazis, while Nazism rejected the policies of [[internationalism]], [[egalitarianism]], [[class struggle]], and common ownership of the [[means of production]] pursued by many socialists.<ref>[[Leon Trotsky|Trotsky]], Leon. ''[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1930-ger/330610.htm What is National Socialism?]'' June 10 1933</ref>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Socialism&diff=46506992&oldid=46506617
That is a highly misleading "citation" there. Trotsky doesn't define Socialism any more than Hitler, Mao or Marx does. They all are persons who claimed to be socialists, with wildly divergent views. There is no consensus amongst socialists on these issues, and it is false to claim their is one.
SS
On 4/14/06, Justin Cormack justin@specialbusservice.com wrote:
On 13 Apr 2006, at 23:25, Fred Bauder wrote:
Yes, and when I got to looking at it, some of it was still the old National Socialism is socialism stuff.
Yes that seemed to be the main issue when I looked.
I looked over the Socialism article and it didnt seem too bad, especially as it is an overview article that mainly is referencing other articles, always a hard thing to write well. Trying to add a view that National Socialism was, er, the only real socialism ever implemented seemed rather foolish, and out of place there.
The article needs more references, but I can see it is hard to do this in the overview (havent yet had time to read all the subarticles).
Justinc
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:10:30 -0600, you wrote:
Yes, I mean democratic socialism or social democracy, not totalitarian movements which adopt some socialist elements or label themselves socialist while butchering millions. Of course they don't label themselves totalitarian.
It's not the first time I've come across Sam's line of reasoning. Saying that socialists were racist because the National Socialist German Workers Party were racist is about as valid as saying that democracies and republics are all police states because the German Democratic Republic was a police state. It is an absurd and easily demolished inference.
I have more of a problem with those whose decision to believe in literal biblical inerrancy leads them to conclude that any evidence which is not superficially consistent with the King James Version is therefore wrong, and who edit accordingly. Not that Sam is necessarily one such, but his contentious edits to Human and other articles do indicate a viewpoint at odds with informed scientific opinion on this. The fact that many Americans agree is not really persuasive, since a goodly number also apparently believe that Elvis is still alive. Guy (JzG)
I have more of a problem with those whose decision to believe in literal biblical inerrancy leads them to conclude that any evidence which is not superficially consistent with the King James Version is therefore wrong, and who edit accordingly. Not that Sam is necessarily one such, but his contentious edits to Human and other articles do indicate a viewpoint at odds with informed scientific opinion on this. The fact that many Americans agree is not really persuasive, since a goodly number also apparently believe that Elvis is still alive. Guy (JzG)
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are about cataloging facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country). I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the rhetorical games and one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in question. For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]] showing that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a sign of rigour.
People who assume that theirs is an "informed, scientific opinion" in contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Writing_for_the_enemy
SS
On 4/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:10:30 -0600, you wrote:
Yes, I mean democratic socialism or social democracy, not totalitarian movements which adopt some socialist elements or label themselves socialist while butchering millions. Of course they don't label themselves totalitarian.
It's not the first time I've come across Sam's line of reasoning. Saying that socialists were racist because the National Socialist German Workers Party were racist is about as valid as saying that democracies and republics are all police states because the German Democratic Republic was a police state. It is an absurd and easily demolished inference.
I have more of a problem with those whose decision to believe in literal biblical inerrancy leads them to conclude that any evidence which is not superficially consistent with the King James Version is therefore wrong, and who edit accordingly. Not that Sam is necessarily one such, but his contentious edits to Human and other articles do indicate a viewpoint at odds with informed scientific opinion on this. The fact that many Americans agree is not really persuasive, since a goodly number also apparently believe that Elvis is still alive. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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, 15 Apr 2006 01:05:00 +0200, you wrote:
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are about cataloging facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country).
Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one country according to one poll.
I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the rhetorical games and one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in question.
And I'd appreciate it if you stopped making tendentious edits to support your highly specific POV and started "writing for the enemy", and indeed stopped viewing every member of the community who disagrees with you as the enemy.
Improving the articles is easily achieved by the simple expedient of reverting your POV edits.
But I salute your chutzpah in coming to this list expecting to have others support your tendentious editing.
For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]] showing that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a sign of rigour.
And providing a verifiable citation to show that socialists are more prone to racism than any other group would be an ideal staring point for making the assertion in the first place. You have a history of adding contentious text and then challenging others to disprove it. This reversal of the burden of proof is one of the key criticisms on your RfC.
People who assume that theirs is an "informed, scientific opinion" in contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
Don't be an ass. Informed scientific opinion, even among many scientists who are also Christians, is that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Guy (JzG)
Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one country according to one poll.
3 polls, have you read the links in question?
I'll disregard the rest of your name calling, mistatements of my position, and personal attacks. I thought people who read encyclopedias were better than this?
SS
On 4/15/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:05:00 +0200, you wrote:
Encyclopedias are not about persuasion, they are about cataloging facts (like the % of people who believe in God in a given country).
Which is ''not'' how you edited that article. You stated that it was believed by the majority, when actually it's the majority in one country according to one poll.
I'd appreciate it if you two stopped the rhetorical games and one-upsmanship, and focused on trying to help improve the articles in question.
And I'd appreciate it if you stopped making tendentious edits to support your highly specific POV and started "writing for the enemy", and indeed stopped viewing every member of the community who disagrees with you as the enemy.
Improving the articles is easily achieved by the simple expedient of reverting your POV edits.
But I salute your chutzpah in coming to this list expecting to have others support your tendentious editing.
For example, providing a citation to [[Socialism]] showing that the socialist international opposes racism, and removing the statement currently there (that socialism opposes racism) would be a sign of rigour.
And providing a verifiable citation to show that socialists are more prone to racism than any other group would be an ideal staring point for making the assertion in the first place. You have a history of adding contentious text and then challenging others to disprove it. This reversal of the burden of proof is one of the key criticisms on your RfC.
People who assume that theirs is an "informed, scientific opinion" in contrast to others who merely cite facts need to leave their opinions at the door. Books of reference are to have one agenda alone, the cataloging of accurate information. Simply because that information does not suit your POV is no reason to exclude it. Please review
Don't be an ass. Informed scientific opinion, even among many scientists who are also Christians, is that humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
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, 15 Apr 2006 10:41:01 +0200, you wrote:
I'll disregard the rest of your name calling, mistatements of my position, and personal attacks. I thought people who read encyclopedias were better than this?
And instead it turns out that some of them are nearly as bad as you.
Nearly. Guy (JzG)
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 12:05:44 -0600, you wrote:
Dismissing him out of hand is inappropriate without looking at the edits. There is plenty of POV editing on the other side too. I'm going to answer him too, but after I look at some sample edits.
Looking at the articles is fine. Dismissing him out of hand is fine, too, and not in any way incompatible with looking at the articles. Sam's POV is way off neutral; far better to use your own judgment. Which is likely rather better than Sam's, given his past history per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade.
For the record, I followed the linked edits up and came to precisely the same conclusion as JKelly, especially the point about the God article. America <> the world. I wouldn't like to guess what proportion of the world's population are monotheistic believers, but I would find a figure over 50% very surprising given all the pantheists, agnostics and atheists out there.
But then, I'm just a stupid ape descendent who doesn't know any better... Guy (JzG)
Quoting Sam Spade samspade.thomasjefferson@googlemail.com:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&diff=46806965&oldid=46...
It is not immediately obvious to me why we shouldn't mention that most living people believe in God as Creator in the first line of our article if that is, in fact, the case. Your reference, however, only shows that most Americans believe in God as Creator, which is probably not something to include in the first line of that article. I also note that you wikilinked to the article on Satanism from the mention of Dystheism. I suggest that is crediting modern Satanists with a much better grasp of theodicy than is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socialism#Unsubstantiated_claims
This link leads to you stating baldly that Socialism is in some way essentially racist, and a handful of editors commenting that they don't think that most socialists are racists. I don't understand what you want us to take away from that conversation. It certainly doesn't suggest to me the existence of some kind of pro-socialism cabal on Wikipedia as implied by your email.
I do notice that the article is absurdly long, disjointed, full of uncited weasel words, a patchwork of various hobby-horses, and something like half of it renders in an underlined blue font. That makes it pretty much in line with the rest of our top-level politics articles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade
When some number of your peers are suggesting that you have a blind spot when it comes to your own beliefs and that and that you seem to think your edit-warring is more acceptable than it is, it might be worth your time to consider that criticism seriously.
Jkelly