User:Ikip/D

This is my essay about how POV warriors delete material which they disagree with, and how it is actually detrimental.

Comments to other users:

User_talk:TDC/Archive_5
I really hope that someday you could learn to be less destructive, and more creative in your edits. I know you can learn to be more creative, because I have seen your excellent edits, such as the excellent rewording in Richard Pipes which really made the article a better article and less POV. Is this too much too hope?

As I wrote before which I have criticized both liberals and conservatives equally about, certain wikipedians seem to only want one view in an article. They seem to fear presenting both views, equally. These people seem to have little faith in the average person weighing the information themselves and coming to a rational conclusion based on the facts presented.

With your edits, like many liberals and conservatives here alike, you seem to have no faith in people rationally weighing the facts themselves.

For example, I remember in your edits with Fidel Castro. You deleted reference to his personal life. Somehow, it seemed, you only wanted one side of Castro presented: Castro as a monster. You seem to fear that presenting Castro as a normal human being, more nuainced then your monster caracture, would somehow weaken your argument agains Castro.

I disagree, instead of helping present your POV, you are actually harming the presentation of your POV. Leaving this information in about Castro's personal life only makes the article stronger and with more deepth, it does not take away from Castro's attrocities. And in fact, it actually makes your argument better and stronger, because the article appears more balanced, and less like a biased screed written by a Miami Cuban with an axe to grind.

How does this relate to What's the Matter with Kansas? and your edits? If you would have rewrote the criticisms of Steven Malanga instead of deleting them, not only do you avoid a revert war, the article is better and deeper as a whole, and it makes the criticism section seem stronger, NOT weaker.

If people read only bad things about What's the Matter with Kansas?, they will sense that the article is biased and the person writing it has an agenda to smear Frank, and the credibility of your contribution and the entire article suffers. People will not trust the article, and will go somewhere else to find a more balanced view.

The most important point I want you to remember is:

It is in your best interest to allow criticism and differing views.

I hope someday you will come to this realization.

I simply don't buy that you dont have enough time to fine tune articles--you have argued this from the beginning with me, including on WSI. It just doesn't ring true, especially since you selectively delete sections which don't match your POV.

Who decides what is a "stray comment"?

User_talk:TDC/Archive_6
When are POV warriors like yourself going to realize that the article is actually strengthened by having two sides? I just don't get it, I still see the large deletions which don't meet your POV, the large fights, etc. I would like to think that I have become a much more sophisticated POV warrior myself, and actually a dipomat in a few disputes, but I still see the same troubling behavior from you.

I find it troubling how much you delete--large, large portions of text which don't meet your own POV. As I mentioned above: an article is actually strengthened by having two sides. I hope someday you will see this. Take for example, Philippine-American War, which has stayed pretty much static for months. I met CJK for the first time on this article, when he was arguing that Philippine attrocities should be added to the article. This was several months ago, and I brisled at the suggestion, using similar POV language that you used before, and still contine to use. Calling CJK a jingoist, apologist, etc. But I added the suggestion, Philippine-american_war and CJK left happy. I just see you spending so much time in edit wars which could be avoided with a little diplomacy. Talking with CJK for weeks and weeks and being in other aruguments like Norm Coleman and No Gun Ri, have made me realize how much easier it is to allow both sides, and how much less energy I am expounding by simply tempering my words. My edits are staying static not for hours, like many of yours, but for months. Many are not even questioned.

As Isaac Asimov stated about creationists, "Creationists don't want equal time...they want all the time there is." Your edits and behavior show there is truly only one opinion which should be on wikipedia: your own.

You are welcome to edit any of my work, but I am familar with your tactics, and won't allow you to delete large portions of text which don't fit your own POV. When I say edit, I mean adding an opposing view, which I will gladly and warmly embrace, not delete large sections which doesn't meet your own view of the world.

I find the people who scream POV the loudest are usually the biggest POV warriors. I am curious with all of your POV fights across wikipedia, you talk a lot about certain sources being POV, but what do you consider as NPOV? What is a source which is NPOV to you?

This is the stark difference from the two of us, I welcome "relevant information" which contradicts my POV, because I feel that the article benefits.

I spend most of my time adding content to wikipedia, whereas you spend a good amoount of time deleting it. That is our biggest difference. Other than fights about copyright violation, my edits have become less and less controversial, my tone less and less confrontational. Sure, I sometime digress, but overall, my tone is much different than before. End result: My edits stay on wikipedia unopposed for months and months. Whereas you are still in the POV warrior mode, deleting large portions of text which don't meet you own POV.

So you spend a lot of time focusing on one article pushing your POV, arguing back and forth, getting into minor edit wars. Whereas at the same time, I am adding information, unopposed to 10 articles, with 90% less emotional work and mental labor. Take for example CIA, I have completly rewritten large portions of this page, with little or no opposition.

RE: ''Don’t you see a problem with that? Would you find it all right to write an article on the No Child Left Behind act and use reference, verbatim, nothing but white house press releases on the subject? ''

I would welcome other editors to come along and not delete the white house press releases, as you are apt to do, but to add their own POV. that is the difference between the two of us.

User_talk:Rjensen
I think the rest of the page needs to be cleaned up and referenced, but I worry about you doing it, how much will you delete in the process? Will this article go from one political ideology (leftist) to another (rightist) after you get done? Can both views coexist equally? I think they can, by your edit history before, and your edit today, I dont think you do.

I am getting nostalgic. Who decides what is "oddball", who decides what is "solid secondary sources"? If it doesn't meet your standards, (because that is what we are really talking about, isn't it) you delete it. But as the user wrote above, you "are infamous for erasing edits that disagree with his beliefs without explanation yet he charges any who oppose his beliefs of promoting their religious beliefs!" Your deletions are "mainstream", and your sources are solid, but other wikiusers (who happen to have opposite viewpoints then you), are "oddball". How can you be so incredibly intellegent yet so ideologically inflexible? It just blows my mind. You are obviously making a lot of users pissed off, and your edits are less effective because you have to spend so much time defending your deletions, when you could be pushing your POV much more effectively, by allowing other peoples views to stand next to your own. So keep edit warring Rjesen. As I mentioned, I just wrote today that behavioral changes happen glacially. It appears like you are going to push it to far and get into a Afd with some of these users, then you will be forced to comprimise and allow opposing views on the pages you edit.

Go ahead and delete portions of the page that you don't personally agree with. I am going on wikivacation for a bit, and I won't be there to stop you. But other wikiusers probably will, and you will have to get in another edit war, wasting valuable time and energy when you could be working on other articles to match your views.

It is a losing strategy. Deleting referenced material is damaging to wikipedia, and it makes your finished product look like a propaganda page, which doesn't convince most neutral users of anything, because I would like to believe that the average person can easily pick up propogranda. Again, it is a losing strategy to push you POV. Instead, why not comprimise and allow everyones views on the page, thats what I do, and I am much more effective pushing my POV....and my partisan message is actually stronger....sigh....behavioral changes happen glacially

Talk:Vladimir_Lenin
Let people decide for themselves who Richard Pipes and Lenin are, any interested casual reader can go to Richard Pipes and read the Richard_Pipes section themselves. It always baffels me how ideologues on both the right and the left are so blinded in their ideologies that they can't let any deragatory information into their pet articles. Instead, they want to spoon fed readers their own POV. Don't insult their intellegence, most casual readers can easily detect bias. The most convincing article is an article which presents both sides, not one side.  Some of you probably want to convince people that Lenin was a swell guy, some of you probably want to convince people that he was a criminal. Present both sides equally and let people decide for themselves, quit trying to spoonfeed readers, thats the whole concept behind NPOV.

Talk:Vladimir_Lenin
It is a real shame that there is so much collective knowledge of Lenin among all of the wikipedians here, including the knowledge of Colin4C, White Guard and others, but two or three ideologies are blocking this article from going from a:

mediocre, biased article, prone to major revert wars, with certain sections completely unreferenced, and the constant loss of a lot of solid referenced material,

...into a really good article.

User_talk:Travb/Archive_6
I have also learned to permit dissenting opinions. In fact, I think for the average reader, any wikipedia article is stronger and more credible when all sides are presented, not just one. People really quickly realize when they are reading partisan bullshit, and once that happens, you have lost a reader.