Anthere, I see that you are distressed by the recent exchanges here over the Cassini-Huygens issue. I feel I should write to tell you how I'm seeing the dispute. I can say that, as an American, I feel no particular attachment to Cassini -- I am sure all the editors who have responded also did not even consider that the way Cassini-Huygens was reported here could be seen as pro- or anti-American. Because of this, it feels odd to me (and perhaps others) that someone would see our coverage and a) assume that pro-American bias created the current article situation, and b)consider the matter serious enough to raise on the mailing list. I am not saying that you should not have done so. But it did seem odd to me that the issue was of that level of significance, especially since your comments lead me to believe that the content of the articles themselves was not partisan -- it was merely the naming of articles that gave the appearance of bias. I am happy to agree to rearranging article titles in whatever way is most respectful of the ESA -- I feel confident that the other editors responding to you also have nothing but respect for the ESA's accomplishments. I would say, though, that the responses I saw to you were not aimed at diminishing European accomplishments in any way. What I saw looked to me (again, this is only my perspective) like good editors who, like me, had never considered the issue of bias in this area. These editors replied with an explanation of why they saw the current issue as reasonable -- I think it is because "bias" is such a harsh word these days (it suggests that we have consciously and intentionally pushed America to the front) that these editors wanted to make clear that the current article situation had been created for reasons of space and organization, not because of who made and/or launched what. Anthere, I am sorry you have become upset. Stan did say some things harshly to you, and I hope he will apologize. But I do understand in a small way how Stan felt -- it remains confusing to me that this issue was major enough to take directly to the mailing list. Matters of article naming are normally handled on talk pages, and I still don't fully understand why this should have been different. I recognize that, as an American, I may be less aware of European concerns, but as I said above, I am completely confident that this situation arose entirely innocently. No slight was intended -- after all, if I saw that the French Wikipedia had redirected everything about Cassini to a Huygens article, I would just assume it was for organizational convenience, or because of common usage in French, or perhaps simply because well-meaning French editors didn't consider the American perspective. I might leave a note on the talk page, but I wouldn't write to a fr.wikipedia mailing list accusing them of bias. And whether or not you intended that tone, Anthere (and I don't believe you did intend it), I do have to tell you that I felt you were accusing us of intentionally biasing the Wikipedia against European space efforts. And I have to say, I find that difficult to handle -- rather than asking why the situation arose, or merely pointing out that it would be better to name the articles in a different way, the word "bias" appeared from the very beginning. It made us defensive. I like you, Anthere, and we've always gotten along well. I'm confident we will continue to do so indefinitely. I'm not writing this to attack you or to make you feel unappreciated -- you have given more to Wikipedia than I ever will. Your suggestions about Cassini-Huygens should certainly be taken. But I feel that, as a colleague (and perhaps even a friend?), I need to say that your initial email on this issue came across as angry, and I think it should not have been. I find errors and holes in our coverage every day. I could, if I wanted, see in some of these errors a bias in Wikipedia -- a bias against Christians (of whom I am one) or homeschoolers (of whom I am one) or Swedish-Americans (of whom I am one). And perhaps there are such biases. But it is more productive for me, I think, to talk openly with people, to start dialogue to educate others, to work quietly on my own to make change happen, and to assume good faith as much as I can. If I claim bias, I must wait until I have established good communication with those who may feel I am accusing them of intentionally doing such things. You are free, of course, to do as you like. Perhaps the situation is different for you. But I would ask you (nicely, I do hope) to consider my thoughts on the issue. My best wishes to you, as always,
James Rosenzweig en:User:Jwrosenzweig
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com