The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide.
However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
I'm sure that if German Wikipedia had "Holocaust" redirect to "Claims of a Holocaust", there'd be an outcry, but why doesn't the same thing happen about this article on Turkish Wikipedia?
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide.
However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
I'm sure that if German Wikipedia had "Holocaust" redirect to "Claims of a Holocaust", there'd be an outcry, but why doesn't the same thing happen about this article on Turkish Wikipedia?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 13/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide. However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
Urgh. Is there any of this sort of idiocy on en:wp?
That's a silly question. *How much* of this sort of idiocy is there on en:wp?
- d.
There's always idiocy, on every wiki. But Turks being allowed to use a WMF wiki to continue to deny what was, lexicographically, the world's first genocide isn't simple stupidity...it's evil. If such a word carries any real meaning.
On 7/13/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide. However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
Urgh. Is there any of this sort of idiocy on en:wp?
That's a silly question. *How much* of this sort of idiocy is there on en:wp?
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
There's always idiocy, on every wiki. But Turks being allowed to use a WMF wiki to continue to deny what was, lexicographically, the world's first genocide isn't simple stupidity...it's evil. If such a word carries any real meaning.
FWIW, the word "genocide" didn't enter the lexicon until 1943, according to several articles on en:wp....
But that's not really the point/problem, per se.
Since I know my own culture the best, I'll use articles from its space, to demonstrate that this is possibly a universal human failing.
The english language wikipedia, for example, doesn't really take the perspective that the biggest number of civilians ever outright slaughtered by an external government in *one single event* is really a nightmarishly terroristic, immoral, and wrong thing, to do. Instead, it equivocates and quibbles, repeating old party lines *justifying* the action, and combines articles on two separate events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
How about the United State's first major genocidal policy? Is it called a genocide? Nope. Again, Quibbling and equivocation, and an "official policy name": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
How about the deplorable white supremacist, ignorant, racism, of a man who said he was "not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" and "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"? Is he condemned for it? Nope. Instead, there's non-stop hagiography and justification for his blatant racism, and a blatant cultural white- washing (*cough*) of both his character and actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
I could keep going on, but I'd better get to my point. Within cultures, there is usually a dominant language (and languages is where wikipedia divides), and those cultures each carry their own narrative style, and with it, their own perspectives on history.
Where wp is *very good* is that those narratives actually get stored, and carried forward, to future generations.
Where wp can be argued as 'bad' (on these kind of topics) is that different cultures, through their language spaces, are allowed to actually display their different perspectives.
This tends to upset folks who want *their* perspective, *their* cultural narrative, to dominate the narrative landscape *across all cultures and languages*. That's not gonna happen until we have one global mono-culture, and whoo boy, we are nowhere near that.
-Bop
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki articles reflect this, but the Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a genocide.
On 7/13/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
There's always idiocy, on every wiki. But Turks being allowed to use a WMF wiki to continue to deny what was, lexicographically, the world's first genocide isn't simple stupidity...it's evil. If such a word carries any real meaning.
FWIW, the word "genocide" didn't enter the lexicon until 1943, according to several articles on en:wp....
But that's not really the point/problem, per se.
Since I know my own culture the best, I'll use articles from its space, to demonstrate that this is possibly a universal human failing.
The english language wikipedia, for example, doesn't really take the perspective that the biggest number of civilians ever outright slaughtered by an external government in *one single event* is really a nightmarishly terroristic, immoral, and wrong thing, to do. Instead, it equivocates and quibbles, repeating old party lines *justifying* the action, and combines articles on two separate events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
How about the United State's first major genocidal policy? Is it called a genocide? Nope. Again, Quibbling and equivocation, and an "official policy name": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal
How about the deplorable white supremacist, ignorant, racism, of a man who said he was "not in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races" and "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"? Is he condemned for it? Nope. Instead, there's non-stop hagiography and justification for his blatant racism, and a blatant cultural white- washing (*cough*) of both his character and actions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_on_slavery
I could keep going on, but I'd better get to my point. Within cultures, there is usually a dominant language (and languages is where wikipedia divides), and those cultures each carry their own narrative style, and with it, their own perspectives on history.
Where wp is *very good* is that those narratives actually get stored, and carried forward, to future generations.
Where wp can be argued as 'bad' (on these kind of topics) is that different cultures, through their language spaces, are allowed to actually display their different perspectives.
This tends to upset folks who want *their* perspective, *their* cultural narrative, to dominate the narrative landscape *across all cultures and languages*. That's not gonna happen until we have one global mono-culture, and whoo boy, we are nowhere near that.
-Bop
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki articles reflect this, but the Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a genocide.
[citation needed]
:)
It looks like our article on the topic is possibly confused, or you are or.... ?. Several social groups seem to want to "claim" it as an initial offense upon them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Coining_of_the_term_genocide
My list so far: Assyrians Armenians Jews
As I alleged to in a prior post, there seems to be something of a cultural argument/demand made by some cultures to adopt and 'own' words that indicate a particular term for their cultural identity.
-Bop
The term was first coined as we know it today in 43, well after the Armenian Genocide had occured. This isn't what I was disputing. I was saying that the Armenian massacre is the earliest event to be described as a genocide and that the Armenian genocide was a (if not the) primary historical precedent to be utilized in its definition, not that the term was coined solely for or during the initial reporting on it.
On 7/13/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki articles reflect this, but the Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a genocide.
[citation needed]
:)
It looks like our article on the topic is possibly confused, or you are or.... ?. Several social groups seem to want to "claim" it as an initial offense upon them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Coining_of_the_term_genocide
My list so far: Assyrians Armenians Jews
As I alleged to in a prior post, there seems to be something of a cultural argument/demand made by some cultures to adopt and 'own' words that indicate a particular term for their cultural identity.
-Bop
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 7/14/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
On Jul 13, 2007, at 8:15 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
Actually Bop, I'm not sure if all wiki articles reflect this, but the Armenian Genocide was aboslutely the first event described as a genocide.
[citation needed]
:)
i know the several emmy awards winning BBC documentary WORLD WAR I produced by carl byker claims it in exactly these words. it has been published on dvd in 2006 http://afbeeldingen.apriana.nl/DVD/AfbeeldingenW/World02.JPG
oscar
On 14/07/07, Ronald Chmara ron@opus1.com wrote:
The english language wikipedia, for example, doesn't really take the perspective that the biggest number of civilians ever outright slaughtered by an external government in *one single event* is really a nightmarishly terroristic, immoral, and wrong thing, to do. Instead, it equivocates and quibbles, repeating old party lines *justifying* the action, and combines articles on two separate events: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
I was thinking about this particular structural aspect just yesterday, in fact (wanting to link an article to specifically the Hiroshima bombing - it's odd the little cul-de-sacs work can take you into).
What this probably needs is moving the "Hiroshima" and "Nagasaki" sections out to daughter articles (discussing the operational/technical details and the effects, together with such subsequent history as is specific to the city or that particular bombing) but mostly keeping the rest intact. Splitting it fully into two separate articles would be unwieldy - the recap of the pre-attack planning and the long-term effects, which make up more than half the content, would have to be duplicated for both.
----
As to the editorial tone being equivocal... we have to remember that *history* is pretty confused on this one. Were the bombings "terroristic"? There are lengthy debates on that, and indeed one ticking over on the talk page just now. Was it "immoral and wrong"? That's a pretty well-supported view, but there are sane counterarguments put forward by the most unexpected people. Did the moral aspects differ between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or what about a putative third bombing? Could one be right and the other wrong? Was it genocide? If not, why not? Historians and philosophers argue over all of these - we quote a general consensus that "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst", but that's still pretty equivocal in terms of drawing a hard bright line between "was right" and "was wrong".
And as a result we have a lengthy "Debate over the bombings" section. Sometimes, the best we can do is reflect that there is no fundamentally accepted answer... we might not do that very well, and it is something that lends itself to rambling muddiness, but that's a matter for pruning. We shouldn't decree what academic consensus *ought* to be in order to write a neater clearer article.
On 7/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide. However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
Urgh. Is there any of this sort of idiocy on en:wp?
That's a silly question. *How much* of this sort of idiocy is there on en:wp?
Well one cogent example is the article on Martin Luther. The German and Danish articles feel quite laid back about mentioning that he had a potty mouth but at the very least for a long time, the en:wp article (presumably affected by more puritan-influenced American Lutherans), was a remarkable piece of portraying the man as a saint, without blemish of any kind, or even simple human failings. Which, if you leave aside his letters and table talk spewing
vitriol and scatological language, for all that, he was definitely of flesh with all that comes with it. Even Melancthon said it after his death, that Luther was (paraphrasing here) certainly remarkably potent medicine for the time but that the times ills were potent too.
I haven't been to the [[Martin Luther]] article lately, as it appeared to be [[WP:OWN]]ed by those few who kept it closely bowdlerised and spit and polished.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 7/14/07, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Well one cogent example is the article on Martin Luther. The German and Danish articles feel quite laid back about mentioning that he had a potty mouth but at the very least for a long time, the en:wp article (presumably affected by more puritan-influenced American Lutherans), was a remarkable piece of portraying the man as a saint, without blemish of any kind, or even simple human failings. Which, if you leave aside his letters and table talk spewing vitriol and scatological language, for all that, he was definitely of flesh with all that comes with it. Even Melancthon said it after his death, that Luther was (paraphrasing here) certainly remarkably potent medicine for the time but that the times ills were potent too.
I haven't been to the [[Martin Luther]] article lately, as it appeared to be
[[WP:OWN]]ed by those few who kept it closely bowdlerised and spit and polished.
Apologies for replying to my own letter. After pushing send, I went back to read [[Martin Luther]] and it is now a broadminded, even and NPOV article of the highest caliber. One that I feel now duty bound to recommend for FAC:hood.
This has been a great reenvigoration of my abiding faith the eventual perfectibility of NPOV on wikipedia. And This Clear example if people will so choose to read it, could serve to give strength to those in smaller wikipedias who labor with greater problems than bowdlerisation. Let us not look to the next week, next year or next decade for where we see wikipedia fulfill its promise. It fulfills it in the present, by on-going, but more importantly the promise will eventually manifest in every wikimedia project of any scope, each at their own pace, in their own time, eventually eventually, eventually.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 13/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide. However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
Urgh. Is there any of this sort of idiocy on en:wp? That's a silly question. *How much* of this sort of idiocy is there on en:wp?
Tons.
Want to own a word? How about a word where there is years of regular debates about redirects, a "see also" header (when not removed, replaced, or edited), complaints about ethnic discrimination, and all sorts of strife?
Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust
Not enough pain yet? Okay, work on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Note the phrase "alleged genocides" for extra credit. :D
-Bop
On 7/14/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13/07/07, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide. However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
Because it would "insult Turkishness."
Urgh. Is there any of this sort of idiocy on en:wp?
That's a silly question. *How much* of this sort of idiocy is there on en:wp?
FWIW. An interesting data point is [[Talk:Che Guevara]]. Not merely in view of the content at stake, but in view of the contestants of the content.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
the armenian holocaust is at this moment a rather *hot* political issue inside turkey itself, with possibly legal consequences for people who publish other than an "official view" in or from turkey afaik. there is a discussion going on even on eu-level about these things. writers and journalists in turkey are often in a difficult position when writing about these historical events.
of course our mission is to collect, develop and desseminate npov content, but this may in such cases collide with present-day political situations and power, present-day political points of view and interests of a nation or a regime, perhaps in some cases even encompass certain dangers for some of our editors as well.
in all projects, a fine balance needs to be found on all its controversial subjects, which may at times be slightly different in different projects and languages, a phenomenon that i consider acceptable if and when within certain limits of *linguistical compromise*, since they are meant to address different "audiences" (the speakers of that language: each language also has its own context of at least history, literature, science and politics), but not when it becomes a *political compromise*.
descriptions of and terminology for historical events in an encyclopedia should generally be based on the science of history, concurring with and referring to relevant international scientifical sources (if available also in the language of a project), not on current political views or nomenclature. but what if there are different views among different scientists, different views in different scientifical literature, possibly in different languages, whether linked to politics or not, how and who are we to judge?
content may perhaps differ slightly in various languages, incorporating linguistical compromises, but i agree this does not seem to be the case here. the title [[Claims_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] does suggest a pov, and the article itself possibly needs serious revision as well, maybe an article [[Armenian_Genocide]] is still missing on tr.wikipedia as well as an article [[International_recognition_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] (or [[International_recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide]], change "international" for "scientific" or "political" and you have 2 more) and probably a whole bunch more like [[Denials_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] and [[Historical_demography_of_the_Armenians_during_the_Ottoman_period]].
it may be that the situation in tr.wikipedia at this point also simply reflects the present status quo in the published turkish language and its publically available sources. yet i do not know 100% for sure, i am no historian myself, and also my turkish (though "tr-1") is simply not good enough to evaluate all this on my own.
that said, i would like to suggest {{sofixit}} to Bogdan Giusca as well, since i think it is finally up to (editors of the) projects themselves to gradually develop an acceptable npov over a period of time, even when this means lengthy and difficult discussions. these had best take place first of all on the project itself imho.
best regards, oscar
You're absolutely right about the possible real-life repercussions for people who fail to toe the official Turkish line when it comes to the Armenian holocaust Oscar.
But I wonder how strong the anonimity of the tr.wiki's users is, and whether their servers are based inside Turkey? If their identity is secure, what reason is there for the minority of the Turkish citizenry to not stand up for the overwhelming verification in scientific historical literature? Though this may sound like the presumptuous generalization by another arrogant American, it is my impression from news and personal accounts from regular business visitors to Turkey that the vast majority of the Turkish public continues to vehemenentely deny the clear international historical consensus of the events. In other words, I fear this slant may be the result of an ignorant or apathetic body of users, and not fear of any real negative affect on user's real lives.
On 7/13/07, oscar van dillen oscarvandillen@wikimedia.org wrote:
the armenian holocaust is at this moment a rather *hot* political issue inside turkey itself, with possibly legal consequences for people who publish other than an "official view" in or from turkey afaik. there is a discussion going on even on eu-level about these things. writers and journalists in turkey are often in a difficult position when writing about these historical events.
of course our mission is to collect, develop and desseminate npov content, but this may in such cases collide with present-day political situations and power, present-day political points of view and interests of a nation or a regime, perhaps in some cases even encompass certain dangers for some of our editors as well.
in all projects, a fine balance needs to be found on all its controversial subjects, which may at times be slightly different in different projects and languages, a phenomenon that i consider acceptable if and when within certain limits of *linguistical compromise*, since they are meant to address different "audiences" (the speakers of that language: each language also has its own context of at least history, literature, science and politics), but not when it becomes a *political compromise*.
descriptions of and terminology for historical events in an encyclopedia should generally be based on the science of history, concurring with and referring to relevant international scientifical sources (if available also in the language of a project), not on current political views or nomenclature. but what if there are different views among different scientists, different views in different scientifical literature, possibly in different languages, whether linked to politics or not, how and who are we to judge?
content may perhaps differ slightly in various languages, incorporating linguistical compromises, but i agree this does not seem to be the case here. the title [[Claims_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] does suggest a pov, and the article itself possibly needs serious revision as well, maybe an article [[Armenian_Genocide]] is still missing on tr.wikipedia as well as an article [[International_recognition_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] (or [[International_recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide]], change "international" for "scientific" or "political" and you have 2 more) and probably a whole bunch more like [[Denials_of_an_Armenian_Genocide]] and [[Historical_demography_of_the_Armenians_during_the_Ottoman_period]].
it may be that the situation in tr.wikipedia at this point also simply reflects the present status quo in the published turkish language and its publically available sources. yet i do not know 100% for sure, i am no historian myself, and also my turkish (though "tr-1") is simply not good enough to evaluate all this on my own.
that said, i would like to suggest {{sofixit}} to Bogdan Giusca as well, since i think it is finally up to (editors of the) projects themselves to gradually develop an acceptable npov over a period of time, even when this means lengthy and difficult discussions. these had best take place first of all on the project itself imho.
best regards, oscar
-- *edito ergo sum*
On 7/13/07, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
The Turkish Wikipedia has no article on Armenian Genocide.
However, unlike all the other 38 Wikipedias which have articles on the "Armenian Genocide", it has an article on "Claims of an Armenian Genocide".
I'm sure that if German Wikipedia had "Holocaust" redirect to "Claims of a Holocaust", there'd be an outcry, but why doesn't the same thing happen about this article on Turkish Wikipedia?
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi,
If their identity is secure, what reason is there for the minority of the Turkish citizenry to not stand up for the overwhelming verification in scientific historical literature?
Minorities don't win edit wars. If they get even close to win... they get banned for vandalism, and that's it. That's the way a wiki works and we all find it normal.
The issue here is about a minority POV that is locally a majority and we want out (as a minority). I.e., it's a matter of WHO has the ultimate power on info generation.
If there are "global truths" (as dictated by the "global majority"), then any single edition can be forced to trim its local POVs, if not, they can keep their POV. So far we have no way to define any "global truth".
BTW, we have no warranty that defining such a truth would generate information mirroring what the potential reader perceives as "true". We would only impose the will of OUR OWN majority on a subject. It's a complicated issue, as it happens any time you deal with the boundary between personal and social freedom.
Besides, what happens with zxx.wiki, if the people of zxx-land are kept from writing what they perceive as "objectively true" and are forced to write what "some strangers out there" write in their media? Would en.wiki accept the POV of radical Islamites, just because it's many of them on earth? I kind of doubt it would...
I'm afraid in such situations all you can require (while remaining in the ranks of mutual respect) is a box telling that "this is a local position that is not reflecting what most of other editions publish on the same issue" (plus maybe a short explanation).
But it cannot be made casually; it must be the result of proper content analysis, made by independent third parties. That is, once more we would need something like a "Meta-Arbitration Committee".
I can't think of a single nation whose history programs are clean from relics of nationalism. So if you start that engine be prepared to a number of those boxes popping out here and there.
IMHO, it would have the nice effect of telling "national" public opinions, who are often artificially kept in insulation from the mainstream POV, that other stories are told "out there". It wouldn't change much in the short run, but it may make a difference in the long run.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
2007/7/14, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
Minorities don't win edit wars. If they get even close to win... they get banned for vandalism, and that's it. That's the way a wiki works and we all find it normal.
Hmmm... Does it? So how is one to define vandalism so that it includes this? I'm quite interested, because in one case where I'm involved (I got asked to come in and look at the matter) that's certainly not how it worked. The page got locked because of the edit war until they would agree. Since they are not going to do that, the page will be locked until eternity, in the version that I think is by far the minority one.
Hoi,
Vandalism is defined as anything else: by majority. If you have enough people to make a policy you make it, and it gets applied. BTW, most of the times it works and it makes a pretty democratic way of life, yet simply expressing the will of the majority does not automatically lead to label the Holocaust as "Holocaust". Hitler and Mussolni were democratically elected, the "democratic" rulers who followed them weren't, so... It really depends on your community and on how you can analyze the subject all toghether.
In your case I'd say people seem more interested in ending a war than in having a majority POV expressed as such. Probably the best thing to do in such cases is to define an external authority (as an independent source of information) that can be trusted as "mainstream" on the subject. I have to warn you that no such choice is going to be perceived as "perfect" (cfr. ISO and languages), yet at least you won't have a few local wikimedians "playing God" over the others.
There cannot be an immediate list of all such possible external references, because the field is too wide. Possibly you might want to ask your ArbCom to analyze such edit wars and to define such a source for a given subject when needed. In this case you can have a simple "step aside when conflict is too high" policy and an associated dynamic list of authoritative sources for the issue. Maybe it would be better if you avoided national sorces any time a wider international source is available, it would help keeping out of the mine field that originates most of such edit wars.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 5:01 AM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/14, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
Minorities don't win edit wars. If they get even close to win... they get banned for vandalism, and that's it. That's the way a wiki works and we
all
find it normal.
Hmmm... Does it? So how is one to define vandalism so that it includes this? I'm quite interested, because in one case where I'm involved (I got asked to come in and look at the matter) that's certainly not how it worked. The page got locked because of the edit war until they would agree. Since they are not going to do that, the page will be locked until eternity, in the version that I think is by far the minority one.
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
In your case I'd say people seem more interested in ending a war than in having a majority POV expressed as such. Probably the best thing to do in such cases is to define an external authority (as an independent source of information) that can be trusted as "mainstream" on the subject. I have to warn you that no such choice is going to be perceived as "perfect" (cfr. ISO and languages), yet at least you won't have a few local wikimedians "playing God" over the others.
I have tried. I was asked to solve the issue, and to do so read in the university library what books I could find about the subject (I'm talking about Saint Boniface in this case, by the way). The reaction to this by the one that I disagreed with, was "That Engels is of the opinion that Wikipedia is meant to propagate the existing historical knowledge and not to extend or correct it, is a very sad thing." If 'the great majority of historians' is not accepted as an authority, I don't think anything else will.
There cannot be an immediate list of all such possible external references, because the field is too wide. Possibly you might want to ask your ArbCom to analyze such edit wars and to define such a source for a given subject when needed.
This will be hard - if I put this for the Dutch ArbCom, the probable reaction will be "the issue is about the content of Wikipedia. Decisions about the content of Wikipedia are not within our jurisdiction, so we will not take the case."
Hoi,
"extending and correcting history" sounds a bit arbitrary, to say the least. I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history book, not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream view altogether seems wrong to me.
Even if mainstream is wrong IMHO one is at least supposed to present it as the dominant POV and THEN discuss it. Especially since I can hardly believe that data about a character who lived in the VI century can be easily found.
Whatever you get is a tale from a third party, written during the Christian Revolution and the barbaric invasions (not the most NPOV time in history) and later endlessly edited by generations of monks who had big vested interests in writing what they wrote. Or more probably first written long after his death, based on oral tales and legends of any kind.
It really looks like an issue to "handle with care". I mean, medieval docs about the "life of Saints" ARE but a wiki, after all. There was absolutely no control for factuality, in that kind of hand-written wikies, so I guess the work of hundreds of scholars who went thru those old papers to interpret them and check them cannot be simply ignored as "futile". One may not agree with them, but censoring their work is not a good practice.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:58 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
In your case I'd say people seem more interested in ending a war than in having a majority POV expressed as such. Probably the best thing to do in such cases is to define an external authority (as an independent source of information) that can be trusted as "mainstream" on the subject. I have to warn you that no such choice is going to be perceived as "perfect" (cfr.
ISO
and languages), yet at least you won't have a few local wikimedians
"playing
God" over the others.
I have tried. I was asked to solve the issue, and to do so read in the university library what books I could find about the subject (I'm talking about Saint Boniface in this case, by the way). The reaction to this by the one that I disagreed with, was "That Engels is of the opinion that Wikipedia is meant to propagate the existing historical knowledge and not to extend or correct it, is a very sad thing." If 'the great majority of historians' is not accepted as an authority, I don't think anything else will.
There cannot be an immediate list of all such possible external
references,
because the field is too wide. Possibly you might want to ask your ArbCom
to
analyze such edit wars and to define such a source for a given subject
when
needed.
This will be hard - if I put this for the Dutch ArbCom, the probable reaction will be "the issue is about the content of Wikipedia. Decisions about the content of Wikipedia are not within our jurisdiction, so we will not take the case."
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
"extending and correcting history" sounds a bit arbitrary, to say the least. I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history book, not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream view altogether seems wrong to me.
Well, it's not a case of ignoring the mainstream view. However, the discussion is about whether we are to discuss the mainstream view (that Boniface was killed by robbers) and then the criticisms of it (that it might for example have been a planned action of Frisians resisting christening), or whether we are to spend at least as much space to this person's private ideas (that Bonifatius was executed because thirty years earlier he had torn down some holy oaks).
I kind of believe that breaking tribal taboos maybe involved in the death of many early missionaries, yet one needs evidence for this. I can hardly imagine a way to find it.
To be sure the early Christian times were close to soviet censorship regarding whatever data about any form of organized pagan resistance. AFAIK no pagan tribal documents have remained, either.
So what can he use for evidence? Because unless he really has some serious academic evidence... he is not reporting about anything apart from his own beliefs.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:36 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
"extending and correcting history" sounds a bit arbitrary, to say the
least.
I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history
book,
not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream view altogether seems wrong to me.
Well, it's not a case of ignoring the mainstream view. However, the discussion is about whether we are to discuss the mainstream view (that Boniface was killed by robbers) and then the criticisms of it (that it might for example have been a planned action of Frisians resisting christening), or whether we are to spend at least as much space to this person's private ideas (that Bonifatius was executed because thirty years earlier he had torn down some holy oaks).
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
I kind of believe that breaking tribal taboos maybe involved in the death of many early missionaries, yet one needs evidence for this. I can hardly imagine a way to find it.
To be sure the early Christian times were close to soviet censorship regarding whatever data about any form of organized pagan resistance. AFAIK no pagan tribal documents have remained, either.
So what can he use for evidence? Because unless he really has some serious academic evidence... he is not reporting about anything apart from his own beliefs.
Well, his main argument is that the whole story of Boniface's murder is a christian apology (interestingly, on the same grounds I have argued that his story is wrong - if Boniface had been killed for the reasons he supposed, he would have been a full-fletched martyr rather than a half-baked one, and so the hagiographies would have embellished the story rather than hide it away).
His main evidence is http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/bonifatius.htm, which as its main theme has the ineffectiveness of Boniface as a missionary in Friesland, but also says: "According to their own laws, as known from the Lex Frisionum, [the Frisians] were in their right to punish those who desecrate holy buildings by dead. Cutting down holy trees belonged to Boniface's missionary repertorium, but no messages about that have been told for Friesland. In this case only in general it is mentioned that he disturbed holy rites. Even if it was not through that, we can still imagine that Boniface's massive evangelisation campaign [...] would have provocated his opponents."
Hoi,
My Dutch is still too weak to appreciate most of the article, yet I did notice interesting maps in there... let alone the mention of Munster that immediately reminded me of other later Christian mythologies (Jan van Lejden,) the map reminds me of the distribution of early dutch "terpen" villages.
Anyway... "we can still imagine that..." is making a logical derivation from similar cases, NOT reporting proven a fact. As I said, I tend to believe that derivations look nice and may have a substantial base in reality, but we make those derivations mostly based from reports of what happened with missionaries in much later colonial times. The cultures and political situations involved ARE different.
To name but one difference, many German and Celtic cultures already used the Cross as a symbol way before they heard about Christianity... so I really don't think that one can present such derivations as a "matter of fact". I'd rather welcome them as "existing hypothesis". This would put things in their place. It's not a matter of censoring existing info, it's simply a matter of saying clear how it was generated.
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 11:19 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
I kind of believe that breaking tribal taboos maybe involved in the death
of
many early missionaries, yet one needs evidence for this. I can hardly imagine a way to find it.
To be sure the early Christian times were close to soviet censorship regarding whatever data about any form of organized pagan resistance.
AFAIK
no pagan tribal documents have remained, either.
So what can he use for evidence? Because unless he really has some serious academic evidence... he is not reporting about anything apart from his own beliefs.
Well, his main argument is that the whole story of Boniface's murder is a christian apology (interestingly, on the same grounds I have argued that his story is wrong - if Boniface had been killed for the reasons he supposed, he would have been a full-fletched martyr rather than a half-baked one, and so the hagiographies would have embellished the story rather than hide it away).
His main evidence is http://www.friesgenootschap.nl/artikelen/bonifatius.htm, which as its main theme has the ineffectiveness of Boniface as a missionary in Friesland, but also says: "According to their own laws, as known from the Lex Frisionum, [the Frisians] were in their right to punish those who desecrate holy buildings by dead. Cutting down holy trees belonged to Boniface's missionary repertorium, but no messages about that have been told for Friesland. In this case only in general it is mentioned that he disturbed holy rites. Even if it was not through that, we can still imagine that Boniface's massive evangelisation campaign [...] would have provocated his opponents."
Hoi again,
I suppose his sources are these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Willibald
Well... much in the same way the legend of the Theban Legion rose in Turin, mostly in the same period.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theban_legion
So much for medieval "biographers".
Berto 'd Sera Personagi dl'ann 2006 per l'arvista american-a Time (tanme tuti vojaotri) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1569514,00.html
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 10:36 PM To: wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sensitive subjects on some Wikipedias
2007/7/15, Berto 'd Sera albertoserra@ukr.net:
"extending and correcting history" sounds a bit arbitrary, to say the
least.
I have LOTS of things that I would rewrite in mainstream history, and even evidence for at least some of them, yet... this would be a new history
book,
not an encyclopedia.
Honestly, I don't understand how they can keep such a stance within the bounds of the NPOV policy, let alone original research. I understand documenting alternative views on a given issue, but ignoring a mainstream view altogether seems wrong to me.
Well, it's not a case of ignoring the mainstream view. However, the discussion is about whether we are to discuss the mainstream view (that Boniface was killed by robbers) and then the criticisms of it (that it might for example have been a planned action of Frisians resisting christening), or whether we are to spend at least as much space to this person's private ideas (that Bonifatius was executed because thirty years earlier he had torn down some holy oaks).
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org