It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc. It was also done (sorry, Ed, but I have to point this out) by having the title "Can we ban 172 now" appear countless times as an email header. He reads the list. He has feelings. That very title, to someone who has contributed such high quality work to Wikipedia, is insulting and crass.
If the problem with 172 was that he was rude, I can point to many more examples of rudeness by the people who are most vociferous in condemning him. It is unfortunate that there is no equal number of emails condemning their behavior.
If the problem was content, then answer his arguments on a point by point basis. If it is his political positioning, then point to where rather than engaging in the same political positioning. Very often, the attacks we make on the foibles of others are a projection of our own foibles.
If the problems are reverts, then respond to VV's reverts with equal vehemence, instead of implying that VV's reverts were justified because he is on the same political bandwagon as you.
If the problem is none of these, then 172 deserves an apology.
To everyone, I suggest that maybe the time has come to start considering quality over quantity and content over form. If we don't, it seems to me that we will end up with neither.
Danny
That's what the discussion was about. Systemic editing from a particular point of view, however well written and subtle, combined with refusing to allow information that contradicts that point of view from being included in the article is not quality.
Fred
From: daniwo59@aol.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2004 21:03:47 EDT To: wikiEN-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] 172
the time has come to start considering quality
Danny wrote
It was also done (sorry, Ed, but I have to point this out) by having the
title "Can we ban 172 now" appear countless times as an email header.
That was mischief-making. __This list__ (which would be the 'we' in question) is a discussion forum, and has no power to ban anyone. I was away through this episode, and find the way it was initiated very distasteful. (Though everyone on WP should stay within the rules.)
Charles
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc.
Just for the record, the sense in which Fred used "revisionist" is a well-understood technical term (it's the first of the definitions in [[revisionism]]), along with "traditionalist" and "post-revisionist". Cold War specialists describe their own positions relative to these groupings for instance. It can hardly be construed as a personal attack by anybody who understands the meaning of the term.
If the problem was content, then answer his arguments on a point by point basis. If it is his political positioning, then point to where rather than engaging in the same political positioning. Very often, the attacks we make on the foibles of others are a projection of our own foibles.
I've spent hour after frustrating hour on talk pages with 172 actually; when one resolves not to get into edit wars with somebody who has a habit of reverting (VV is just one of many who 172 has reverted), talk pages are one's only option. You should review them for yourself before you start talking about foibles and projection.
To everyone, I suggest that maybe the time has come to start considering quality over quantity and content over form. If we don't, it seems to me that we will end up with neither.
Well, I've spent a bunch of time in the library checking 172's content, and found some serious problems. Unfortunately, my attempts to discuss it were so frustrating that I turned away from those articles, and it now falls to others to fix them.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc.
Just for the record, the sense in which Fred used "revisionist" is a well-understood technical term (it's the first of the definitions in [[revisionism]]), along with "traditionalist" and "post-revisionist". Cold War specialists describe their own positions relative to these groupings for instance. It can hardly be construed as a personal attack by anybody who understands the meaning of the term.
The fact remains that the term "revisionist" is nothing more than jargon. It is far less clear than the other two terms on the above list, "Stalinist" and "totalitarian", and they're debatable enough. "Traditionalist" and "post-revisionist" may be defined in terms of "revisionist" and are thus also jargon. The current Wikipedia article has no less than eight definitions of "revisionism" several of which could be applicable. Since we are criticizing several articles the assortment of possible definitions could follow from one to the other. Indeed the indicated "first of the definitions" states
Among historians, revisionism has traditionally been used in a completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic. This usage has declined among historians because in recent years the word has come to be used in the following sense:
In other words we have an unsubstantiated "traditional" usage which has declined in favour of one or the other of the remaining seven other definitions, but we can never be sure which. The term "well-understood" is pure sophistry.
Then you would have us believe that the position of "Cold War specialists" would somehow be relevant. Most of us have not been indoctrinated into the brotherhood of "Cold War specialists"; we're not specialists of any kind. Why should we be presumed to have accepted the definition used by a specialist group
The commentary ends with a rhetorical flourish that diminishes the validity of any understanding that is not based on the understanding asserted by the commentator.
I looked in the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" for what it had to say about "revisionism". It begins by saying that it is "often derogatory" and adds the meaning "a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles." It adds as a secondary meaning: "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view."
Not all Wikipedians are members of an ivory tower cabal of historians. We have not, as it were, paid our dues to historical orthdoxy. Perhaps we are their worst nightmare when we ask them to substantiate their positions without descending into jargon.
Ec
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:10:35 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
Stan Shebs wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc.
Just for the record, the sense in which Fred used "revisionist" is a well-understood technical term (it's the first of the definitions in [[revisionism]]), along with "traditionalist" and "post-revisionist". Cold War specialists describe their own positions relative to these groupings for instance. It can hardly be construed as a personal attack by anybody who understands the meaning of the term.
The fact remains that the term "revisionist" is nothing more than jargon. It is far less clear than the other two terms on the above list, "Stalinist" and "totalitarian", and they're debatable enough. "Traditionalist" and "post-revisionist" may be defined in terms of "revisionist" and are thus also jargon. The current Wikipedia article has no less than eight definitions of "revisionism" several of which could be applicable. Since we are criticizing several articles the assortment of possible definitions could follow from one to the other. Indeed the indicated "first of the definitions" states
Among historians, revisionism has traditionally been used in a completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic. This usage has declined among historians because in recent years the word has come to be used in the following sense:
In other words we have an unsubstantiated "traditional" usage which has declined in favour of one or the other of the remaining seven other definitions, but we can never be sure which. The term "well-understood" is pure sophistry.
Then you would have us believe that the position of "Cold War specialists" would somehow be relevant. Most of us have not been indoctrinated into the brotherhood of "Cold War specialists"; we're not specialists of any kind. Why should we be presumed to have accepted the definition used by a specialist group
The commentary ends with a rhetorical flourish that diminishes the validity of any understanding that is not based on the understanding asserted by the commentator.
I looked in the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" for what it had to say about "revisionism". It begins by saying that it is "often derogatory" and adds the meaning "a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles." It adds as a secondary meaning: "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view."
Not all Wikipedians are members of an ivory tower cabal of historians. We have not, as it were, paid our dues to historical orthdoxy. Perhaps we are their worst nightmare when we ask them to substantiate their positions without descending into jargon.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 11:10:35 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
Stan Shebs wrote:
daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc.
Just for the record, the sense in which Fred used "revisionist" is a well-understood technical term (it's the first of the definitions in [[revisionism]]), along with "traditionalist" and "post-revisionist". Cold War specialists describe their own positions relative to these groupings for instance. It can hardly be construed as a personal attack by anybody who understands the meaning of the term.
The fact remains that the term "revisionist" is nothing more than jargon. It is far less clear than the other two terms on the above list, "Stalinist" and "totalitarian", and they're debatable enough. "Traditionalist" and "post-revisionist" may be defined in terms of "revisionist" and are thus also jargon. The current Wikipedia article has no less than eight definitions of "revisionism" several of which could be applicable. Since we are criticizing several articles the assortment of possible definitions could follow from one to the other. Indeed the indicated "first of the definitions" states
Among historians, revisionism has traditionally been used in a completely neutral sense to describe the work or ideas of a historian who has revised a previously accepted view of a particular topic. This usage has declined among historians because in recent years the word has come to be used in the following sense:
In other words we have an unsubstantiated "traditional" usage which has declined in favour of one or the other of the remaining seven other definitions, but we can never be sure which. The term "well-understood" is pure sophistry.
Then you would have us believe that the position of "Cold War specialists" would somehow be relevant. Most of us have not been indoctrinated into the brotherhood of "Cold War specialists"; we're not specialists of any kind. Why should we be presumed to have accepted the definition used by a specialist group
The commentary ends with a rhetorical flourish that diminishes the validity of any understanding that is not based on the understanding asserted by the commentator.
I looked in the "New Oxford Dictionary of English" for what it had to say about "revisionism". It begins by saying that it is "often derogatory" and adds the meaning "a policy of revision or modification, especially of Marxism on evolutionary socialist (rather than revolutionary) or pluralist principles." It adds as a secondary meaning: "the theory or practice of revising one's attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view."
Not all Wikipedians are members of an ivory tower cabal of historians. We have not, as it were, paid our dues to historical orthdoxy. Perhaps we are their worst nightmare when we ask them to substantiate their positions without descending into jargon.
Ec
Entry into a discussion of Marxist studies requires a willingness to become familiar with the vocabulary used in the field just as in the case of other specialized areas. Requiring the construction of complicated new verbal constructions is unreasonable. (And ultimately uncomprehensible.)
I wrote the original article [[jargon]] but eventually wrote [[technical terminology]] also.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 12:43:23 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
So now you add arrogance to sophistry. You may have expressed your POV at [[jargon]] and [[technical terminology]] but that does not change the fact that you use "revisinism" as jargon. We already have eight defininitions in the article "revisionism", why not just add your own revised definition as a ninth? Being coy about the definition and citing only an ISBN number, seems only a thinly veiled attempt to market the tract an behalf of the authors.
To discuss with this elite crew we must accept a revisionist (in the ordinary sense) interpretation of the term "revisionism". We need to accept this ultra conservative premise put forth by these tractarians.. We are not allowed to depend on the out-of-fashion Marxist "revisionism" of Bernstein and Kautsky.
Nobody is requesting "complicated new verbal constructions". A definition comparable in length to those already in [[revisionism]] would be enough. Better still avoid the jargon altogether.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Entry into a discussion of Marxist studies requires a willingness to become familiar with the vocabulary used in the field just as in the case of other specialized areas. Requiring the construction of complicated new verbal constructions is unreasonable. (And ultimately uncomprehensible.)
I wrote the original article [[jargon]] but eventually wrote [[technical terminology]] also.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
The name of the book is "In Denial" the ISBN is just a guide to locating it for those who know how to use it. ISBN 1893554724.
I suppose if we did an article on Marxist studies that language and its alternatives could be fully set forth. What is needed here is the information that due to interest by American intellectuals who perhaps were involved in the upheavals of the 60s and 70s and entered Marxist studies a climate of hostility to criticisms of Marxism became established in American academia. There are a few scholars who have continued to research the problems of what caused Marxism in practice to go wrong and armed with the material resulting from the opening of the Soviet archives have made significant contributions to the field. Fairness in our articles requires both viewpoints be set forth.
For example 172 did not like the phrase, "Red Terror". Lenin and Trotsky liked it and put it into practice but 172 didn't like it. So it couldn't be in the history of the Soviet Union.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 22:37:13 -0700 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] 172
So now you add arrogance to sophistry. You may have expressed your POV at [[jargon]] and [[technical terminology]] but that does not change the fact that you use "revisinism" as jargon. We already have eight defininitions in the article "revisionism", why not just add your own revised definition as a ninth? Being coy about the definition and citing only an ISBN number, seems only a thinly veiled attempt to market the tract an behalf of the authors.
To discuss with this elite crew we must accept a revisionist (in the ordinary sense) interpretation of the term "revisionism". We need to accept this ultra conservative premise put forth by these tractarians.. We are not allowed to depend on the out-of-fashion Marxist "revisionism" of Bernstein and Kautsky.
Nobody is requesting "complicated new verbal constructions". A definition comparable in length to those already in [[revisionism]] would be enough. Better still avoid the jargon altogether.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Entry into a discussion of Marxist studies requires a willingness to become familiar with the vocabulary used in the field just as in the case of other specialized areas. Requiring the construction of complicated new verbal constructions is unreasonable. (And ultimately uncomprehensible.)
I wrote the original article [[jargon]] but eventually wrote [[technical terminology]] also.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
I have no reason to doubt that the indicated book used these terms in a specialized way. (The book appears to be anti-Marxist, and a pro-Marxist book would likely use it in a different way.) Neither way advances anybody's cause in these debates. It's the "specialized way" that gives the problem, and turns the term into jargon. If there is no definition of a term which the participants in a debate can hold in common, then perhaps it would be better to find a more appropriate term.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Marxist studies uses the terms "revisionist" and "traditionalist" in a specialized way. See page 2 of In Denial, ISBN 1893554724.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 daniwo59@aol.com wrote:
If the problem with 172 was that he was rude, I can point to many more examples of rudeness by the people who are most vociferous in condemning him. It is unfortunate that there is no equal number of emails condemning their behavior.
I've been busy with work for the last few days, & there are probably better issues I should address, but seeing this statement from Daniwo has made me angry. 172 is consistently rude to anyone whom he does not consider his intellectual equal, & especially to those who hold a contrary opinon contrary to his.
I know this because I have crossed paths with him several times, & every time he has shown himself to be an intellectual bully, more intent in proving that he is right than in the Wikipedia process of debate, mutual respect, & the goal of a Neutral Point of View. Allow me to document these exchanges:
1. A few months after I started contributing to Wikipedia, when it was a much smaller world both in terms of articles & contributors, I decided to take a look at the Genocide article. I found it odd that the statements that the Soviet Union & the Chinese had engaged in genocide had been removed & replaced with long, opinionated rants by 172, who had added a section that asserted the rule of the Belgian Free Congo was very much an example. What I found odd about this was 172's arguments were that the deaths by the 2 communist regimes were not an intentional act: while of speciifc ethnicities people died, there was no intent to target them based on their ethnic background. However, as horrific as the tale of the Belgian Free Congo was, there is no evidence that the persons responsible intended the widespread murder _based_ on their ethnic identities.
The issue was one of definition: genocide can be considered as a Crime against Humanity, yet not all Crimes against Humanity are acts of genocide. Admittedly, in popular usage the two terms become synonymous, yet I felt 172 was showing bad faith in applying the narrow definition only to the cases of the Communist countries, yet applying the looser one to the Belgium Congo: either all 3 cases are included, or all 3 cases are excluded.
(Admittedly, my opinion is that we should hold to the narrow definition, otherwise we end up with a catalogue that includes every case of one nation subduing one or more other natins -- which is then the whole of history.)
I expressed my opinions in the Talk page, & received this response for my pains (which appears at Talk:Llywrch):
"First, I am not a Stalinist. Second, if I have to convince you of what happened in Central Africa or Southwest Africa, then you're ignorant. Third, if you are at all familiar with mainstream scholarship on Chinese history, then I wouldn't have to convince you that those Free Tibet charges are extremely questionable. Forth, I'm not here to advocate anything."
An admission here: due to his dogged defence of the Soviet Union & China, I made the observation that he appeared to be the last believing Stalinist left -- an allusion to the fact that almost every 1930's Stalinist would infallibly defend every act of the Soviet Union, no matter how plausible, clearly documented, or wrong, while simultaneously emphasising every mistake or crime of Capitalism, the United States, etc. Perhaps I was the first person to apply this label to 172; but I am amazed that he still rants about this off-hand comment over a year & ahalf later.
The whole exchange ended badly: no matter what was said, 172 would not concede that there was a contradiction, & proved very inflexible. Some of made fun of him for this inflexibility, lacking any better course for conflict resolution. I finally decided that since Wikipedia had so many areas in need of material, that it was just wiser to avoid 172 & hope that he matured, & learned how to engage in a constructive dialogue.
2. 172 nominated [[J�rgen Habermas]] as a Featured article, & I expressed the opinion that it did not qualify because the article was full of jargon & buzzwords & failed to explain his philosophy in a manner that could be understood by a layman. He responded that as it was a technical topic, the average layman should not expect to understand it -- yet it should be a Featured Article, a claim that led to a spirited exchange mentioned elsewhere.
I attempted to set forth an explanation why I felt the article was too technical & jargon-laded, which appears in the Talk page to [[J�rgen Habermas]]. However, 172 has not ssen fit to respond to my criticism, nor even acknowledge its existence. I hope that someone can use it to make this article more understandable.
3. About a month ago, 172 was listed at Quickvotes as possibly having done something deserving a ban. The usual accusations & counter accusations wer exchanged until 172 announced that he would leave Wikipedia shortly because of his treatment -- once he had finished a couple of thing. Then he decided that was not enough, & started throwing the "fuck" word around, as in "fuck you" to one poster, & "I'll leave when I fucking decide to leave" to another poster. For a person who claims to be very educated, & literate he seems to have a problem finding the acceptible language to express himself.
The specific passages are at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AQuickpolls&diff=3...
Having sysop priviliges, I would have banned him for that rudeness; but if he was truly going, doing so would only provide him with another excuse to linger around & share what obscenities he knew. So I let him off, yet he didn't leave. Because of that, I doubt he'll live up to his promise of leaving Wikipedia he made last night.
All of these incidents follow the same pattern: 172 asserts something that is challenged, he repeats his reasons, he ignores any kind of rational input from the other party (e.g., authorities quoted, logical arguments, etc.), he starts getting nasty, & finally threatens to leave -- but stays. Can contributing to a project where many of the other contributors are unworthy of respect be worth contributing to? Can this project be so unimportant it's not worth the effort to respect other contributors? And how can the answer be anything but no to both?
In conclusion, 172 does not have the personality to be on Wikipedia. I feel that whenever he makes an edit, there are only 3 choices left to the other party: agree with him; avoid him; or get ready for a nasty flamewar. My experience with him has negatively affected how I deal with new contributors: I can never be sure if the next person I have a disagreement with will treat me with the contempt 172 is always ready to hand out. And I suspect that there are dozens more people like me either currently on Wikipedia, or who have left because of 172's arrogance.
Geoff
At 10:14 PM 6/5/2004 -0700, Geoff Burling wrote:
I've been busy with work for the last few days, & there are probably better issues I should address, but seeing this statement from Daniwo has made me angry. 172 is consistently rude to anyone whom he does not consider his intellectual equal, & especially to those who hold a contrary opinon contrary to his.
I've only crossed paths with 172 once, as far as I remember, and it was a somewhat similar experience. I stumbled upon the article [[Origins of the American Civil War]] and noticed that due to its long length it had been split into four articles titled Origins of the American Civil War, Origins of the American Civil War (2/4), Origins of the American Civil War (3/4) and Origins of the American Civil War (4/4), all with a hand-crafted table of contents and a set of "next page"/"previous page" links at the bottom linking them together. I thought this was a rather inelegant and fragile way to organize it, and went to the existing subpage [[Talk:Origins of the American Civil War/categorization]] to look over previous discussion and talk about how I wanted to change things.
172 seemed quite opposed to me doing anything at all, even before I'd started presenting any specific ideas. He told me to read all the relevant sections of other talk: pages without telling me which pages he was referring to, and although I spent a great deal of time explaining why I thought the article needed changing he wouldn't tell me why he was so dead-set _against_ changing it. He moved the subpage /categorization to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_... in the middle of our discussion, protected it without explanation, and finally he stated that if I were to attempt to go ahead "that's going to provoke an edit war." Since I'd seen some of his other edit wars and I didn't seem to be getting anywhere with the discussion I just threw up my hands and went on to other things.
This isn't a particularly "nasty" confrontation, as far as these things go, but on the other hand I suspect it didn't get nasty because I simply gave up and let him have his way. I feel bad about that; I honestly wanted to improve the article but got driven off by threats and hassle rather than convincing arguments to the contrary. 172 has since apologized but his apology didn't contain any suggestion that he might be willing to allow changes to the structure of those four articles so I don't know if it was really worth much. I'm not concerned with my hurt feelings, I just want to tidy up without fear of being bludgeoned into submission by edit war if I do something 172 doesn't like.