User talk:Alarob/Archive 1

Proposed revision to Naming the American Civil War
I have pared back this section to less than 25% of its former length, and I'm ready to assert that it has been improved 250%. The point of the revision is to make the useful and interesting information in this section accessible to readers who are neither experts nor Civil War buffs.

Am I saying that the details that used to be there have no value? Of course not! I believe the former section could still be posted elsewhere on the Internet and find an appreciative specialist audience. But an encyclopedia is comprehensive, not exhaustive. That is a crucial distinction.

War Between the States
This term was in frequent use both during the war and has been frequently used every since. Some writers on the war have expressed a strong preference for "War Between the States" over "Civil War."


 * The Confederate government avoided the term "civil war" and referred in official documents to the "War between the Confederate States of America and the United States of America." In less formal usage it was called "the war between the states."


 * European diplomacy produced a similar formula for avoiding the phrase "civil war." Queen Victoria's proclamation of British neutrality referred to "hostilities ... between the Government of the United States of America and certain States styling themselves the Confederate States of America."


 * After the war, the memoirs of former Confederate officials and veterans (e.g., Joseph E. Johnston, Raphael Semmes, and Alexander Stephens) commonly used the term "War Between the States." In 1898 the United Confederate Veterans formally endorsed the name.


 * In the early twentieth century the United Daughters of the Confederacy led a campaign to promote the term "War Between the States" in the media and in public schools.


 * Efforts to convince the United States Congress to adopt the term, beginning in 1913, were unsuccessful. Congress has never adopted an official name for the Civil War.


 * The name "War Between the States" is inscribed on the Marine Corps memorial at Arlington Cemetery.


 * References to the "War Between the States" turn up in federal court documents from time to time.

The names "Civil War" and "War Between the States" have been used jointly in some formal contexts.


 * The war's centenary in the 1960s saw the creation of the Georgia Civil War Centennial Commission Commemorating the War Between the States.


 * In 1994 the U.S. Postal Service issued commemorative stamps titled "The Civil War / The War Between the States."

My objective is to contribute to an article that non-specialists will read, remember, and use. I do not think we're there yet.

Naturally I do not consider my edit to be definitive. In Wikipedia, nothing ever is.

I would appreciate hearing that my fellow editors no longer oppose including this revision to the article. -- Alarob 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Reviews of above
I have reviewed the above, and will 'mull over' this version in good faith. Have a good weekend.--Fix Bayonets! 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the article after three days. Please give it your attention there. -- Alarob 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pi-unrolled
I recently cranked out a new and greatly improved version of Pi-unrolled.gif and (why not?) nominated it for FP. Since you commented on the workshop page of this graphic, I'd like to invite you to comment on the new nomination. Thank you. John Reid 04:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your help request
Please see WP:RV for how to revert. Thanks. --Alex (Talk) 21:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility
I highly suggest you adopt a civil and non-pompous/non-sanctimonious tone. I do not respond well to insults and accusations: especially insults/accusations couched behind a not-so-clever façade of superficial language and feigned good-faith. --Fix Bayonets! 22:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing feigned about my good faith. I continue to assume good faith on your part, as well, but it's getting to be a chore. -- Your pal, Alarob

Naming the Civil War
You have recently edited Naming the American Civil War. I am stepping back from the article for a day or so to avoid an edit war. My request is that you consider stepping in to apply some peer pressure in the interest of civility, NPOV, assuming good faith, etc. It's up to you. -- Alarob 00:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit short of time today, but will weigh in tomorrow. I hate this sort of dispute... Hal Jespersen 02:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alarob, thanks for also asking me for an opinion. The article in question is not one that I have read often, and will need to study it a bit before responding. As a direct descendant of several Union soldiers, it will always be the Rebellion or the Civil War for me, as I default to what primary papers they left behind, but I can be NPOV in this matter :>) for a Yankee. Scott Mingus 12:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

War for State's Rights: Evidence needed
You have objected vehemently, and in bold red type, to the proposed demotion of the name "War for State's Rights" in the article Naming the American Civil War. Neither you nor Black Flag have explained your objection. Other editors have asked for evidence to support the contention that this was a frequently or prominently used name for the war. Will we ever receive it? Or will you withdraw your objection? -- Alarob 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fix_Bayonets%21"

"You have objected vehemently, and in bold red type, to the proposed demotion of the name "War for State's Rights" in the article Naming the American Civil War.... -- Alarob 23:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)"


 * In the article "NFACW," I had included documented references which had demonstrated uses of the term "War for States' Rights" during the War or shortly after. I'm sorry that the evidence offends you somehow, and drives you to post patronizing comments intended for me:


 * (example: "You seem convinced of the historical significance of the name as being greater than that of other names...."--Alarob -- You know very well I never made such a ridiculous statement -- F. B.)


 * Wikipedia is a project to further knowledge, not a project to supress historical evidence which offends you personally. I request that you continue this discussion here on your talk page.  I don't wish to engage in a conversation with you on my own talk page, for the reasons I had stated before, and I will not respond there.--Fix Bayonets! 23:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem.

Regarding the evidence you mention: It is anecdotal and does not come close to the evidence available for the other names discussed in subsections (War of the Rebellion, War for Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression).

My actions concerning this article have not been motivated by feelings or an agenda, an idea you assert repeatedly. My work on the War Between the States section (which you opposed, then accepted) should provide an example. Also recall that I have disputed other editors' suggestions that War for Southern Independence and War of Northern Aggression should be demoted. I provided the only evidence anyone has offered for these two. I did not do it because I like these terms, but because I consider them to be in widespread use. My view of all of these cases, including War for State's Rights, is subject to change in light of evidence.

I have looked for evidence to support War for State's Rights and have not found it. But to be clear, I am not out to eliminate it. My point is that it does not deserve its own subsection -- unless we also add subsections for War for Southern Rights, War of Secession, and any other name that gets used once by any writer in the 1800s.

Again, I am not pushing an agenda. When it looked like an edit war was looming, I deliberately stepped out of the picture and asked the last 10 editors (including you) to come have a look instead. All I am asking of you now is evidence that supports your opinion concerning this article. More important, other editors have asked for it as well.

I have tried at all times to be civil. I apologize if my language has come across as patronizing. I would appreciate an apology for your own expressions of contempt and suspicion toward me, which are inconsistent with good faith. But I do not require an apology as a condition for treating you with respect. It's your decision.

P.S. Concerning your added comment that some of my contributions on the discussion page were "directed at [you]," I believe you took some comments personally that were not intended for you. For example, "partisans of a particular point of view" was not written with you in mind. It surprised me that you repeated it as if it applied to you. Please think about that in the context of assuming good faith. Believe it or not, I did not come here to fight you or to impugn the honor of Confederate veterans.

My comments were directed at you when I replied directly to you, or named you. -- Alarob 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

F.B., I am doing everything I can to reach an understanding with you. Can you explain to me why we should have a subsection for War for State's Rights but not for:
 * War for Southern Rights
 * The Revolution of 1860 [sic]
 * War of Northern Subjugation
 * War of Yankee Invaders
 * War to Suppress Yankee Arrogance
 * War of the Abolition Party against the Principles of the Constitution of the United States
 * War in Defense of Virginia
 * Mr. Lincoln's War
 * War of Secession
 * War of the Insurrection
 * Slaveholders War
 * The Great Rebellion
 * War to Save the Union
 * War for Abolition
 * War of Southern Reaction
 * War to Prevent Southern Independence
 * The Late Unpleasantness
 * and any number of others we have not yet included in the article.

Do you see my point? I suppose we could give equal prominence to every one of these, and more. I just don't think we would have an article that people would actually read. -- Rob C (Alarob) 22:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the only person engaging in a crusade against the little section titled 'WFSR.' And you can't argue that the 'WFSR' cites given are anecdotal but Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" isn't.--Fix Bayonets! 23:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gee, F.B.!, you're right. The only reason we're having a conflict is because I'm stubborn, obtuse, and unwilling to accept other points of view. Why, it's the only possible explanation.

Seriously, B., you seem not to have noticed that I just agreed with you about the anecdotal character of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Once again, you get crossways with me even when I am on your side.

I don't get it. Are you just spoiling for a fight? Do I remind you of someone you hate? More to the point, are you able to control your anger and concentrate on the article? You don't have to answer me, of course, but I hope you will reflect privately on these questions. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Lists idea, for Fix Bayonets!
Hope you're having a good weekend, F.B. Wanted to add that, on looking back over this discussion, maybe it is not such a bad idea to list all the names of the war in some way. Not as a bulleted list, probably, but in a way that is easy to reference. The only question in my mind is how to organize them. Alphabetically? By region, as "northern" and "southern" terms? We don't know when each of them came into use, or how widely they are each used, so we can't arrange them chronologically or by popularity. Maybe alphabetical order is the best, as editors may not be able to tell whether specific terms are regional.

It seems like a good use of an encyclopedia article: to list all known names for the American Civil War. I suppose we'd have to draw the line somewhere. For instance, some names for the war might be so obscure as to only lead to triviality or confusion -- like, say, "Last Campaign of 2d Lt John Habersham Maxwell of Bethel, Maine" -- or "23rd-38th Great Raëlian Manifestations in North America." ;-) But I guess we can deal with these case-by-case.

Interested to hear what you think. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality
Those WBTS people get on my nerves ... I'm not sure I'm neutral enough on that one! --evrik (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Re: Fix Bayonets!, yeah, I'm beginning to think that a user conduct request for comment is going to be the way to go here. It just might be too complicated of a situation for the admins to take in at once on AN/I. I'll let you know, thanks for the message. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

F.B.!, in case you're listening, I find it charming that you have deleted every comment of mine on your Talk page except the one in which I crave your pardon (in much gentler terms than you demanded it). Your passion for, er, improving the record has since extended to my own Talk page as well, and is a thing to marvel at. It seems to be your view that being Southern means never having to say you're sorry. I'm beginning to wonder whether we'd have gotten along better if I had refused to apologize, but instead had demanded satisfaction upon the field of honor. -- Rob C (Alarob) 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I invite you to comment on User:Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started today. Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!.  I didn't go into too much detail on the Naming of the Civil War dispute, simply because there was so much else for me to cover that I was already familiar with.  So, please add whatever you have in the way of diffs and disputes on it if you like.  Thanks for any input you have. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 04:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine for us to endorse an outside view. We cannot, however, edit the text of the outside view section. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:203.143.254.76
Thanks for chcking that user out, turns out they were already blocked by I forgot to leave a blocked message on their talk page. In the future, WP:AIV would be the place to go for quick blocking when you see a vandal. Thanks, and happy editing! --Daniel Olsen 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic barnstar query
If I may butt in on this one... subsuming Islam under "religion" because it's "too specific" strikes me as analogous to subsuming baseball, basketball, football, etc. under "sports," or chemistry, physics, astronomy, psychology, etc. under "science." We don't do that because expertise in one of those areas doesn't necessarily translate into the other areas. Similarly, expertise concerning Islam does not automatically imply expertise regarding Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, etc. So "Islam" is appropriate as a category, and an "Islamic barnstar" (or Jewish, Buddhist, etc.) is an appropriate recognition for specific expertise and Wiki contributions.

Hope this is helpful. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree.
 * -- Cat out 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * -- Cat out 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I'd be interested to know on what grounds you disagree. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there are other reasons than the ones I specified. I'll give you some.
 * Using your analogy:
 * For starters, Islamic barnstar is more like a barnstar award for Chicago Bulls related articles. It is too specific...
 * Basketball is a vast and dynamic topic with an increasing number of articles. For instance, you have articles about individual players. Thats a +500 new articles per generation for players alone with the assumption that only each US state has one and only one basketball team (with 10 players) notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Islam is on the other hand a static topic. It isn't like there are 500 new prophets or any other notable developments in Islam (or any religion for that matter).
 * Religion is a bit of a complicated topic. It is fairly easy to distinguish tennis from basketball. Very unlikely for them to have any related articles. But same can't be said about religion. Many articles such as Adam, Angel, God, Devil talk about same thing portrayed in different religions.
 * We want wikipedia to be a united community. Barnstar awards should reflect that and should not be in any way controversial. It would be silly to create a "anti-working mans barnstar" since that isn't a valid topic. "Anti-islam" or "Anti-Christianity" and etc can be valid topics. Do you get what the prospective problems are?
 * I can list more reasons... But these should be adequate.
 * -- Cat out 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't find any of these reasons convincing. Here is why:
 * 1) The analogy with the Chicago Bulls assumes that religions (like Buddhism, Islam, etc.) are competitors in a game called "religion." To me, that does not describe reality. (I grant you that there may be some believers who feel this way. But are they typical? Not in my experience.)
 * 2) Islam (or any other religion) is not "a static topic." Here's an example, just drawing on my own contribs to Wikipedia: Farid Esack. It's not just that this is a bio of a living person, but that his thought is not static although grounded in traditional Islamic learning.
 * 3) Sure, some articles overlap different traditions. The same goes for or the contested term football or the objects called bat and ball. That doesn't preclude barnstars for specific sports, so I don't see the case for abolishing them from religions.
 * 4) I do not see how a barnstar for a particular religion is necessarily controversial or "anti" another religion. Naturally, recipients of these barnstars would have to abide by the rules and principles of the community. But this goes for scientists and athletes as much as for believers in God.

I get the prospective problems, but do not see them as grounds for prohibition. That's where I'm coming from. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there are prospective problems, than that makes it an inapproporate barnstar. This isn't a prohibition thing. Think of the atheists receiving the barnstar... A general religion award would not cause any such problem and would serve the same purpose. -- Cat out 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

On looking at the list of barnstars I see that categories are indeed very broad (e.g.., there is no "physics" or "football" barnstar). I've been proceeding on the assumption that your position is that any "Islam" award should be prohibited. But maybe that's not what you're saying.

If you're proposing that there should be a barnstar for "Religion" to go with the ones for history, culture, math/science, etc., then I'm with you 100%. I also agree that at that level there is no need for a barnstar pertaining to a specific religion.

Moreover, a broad-category barnstar on religion would recognize editors who work on more than one. An "Islam" award should be handled at the WikiProject level or below. -- Rob C (Alarob) 18:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Migdia Chinea Varela
I just wanted to let you know that I listed this article under AfD, since the author contested the prod. I think it is healthier we all hava a debate about it. Regards, -- lucasbfr talk 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)