User talk:Buffs/USS Liberty incident draft/Archive

Archive 1
It's an excellent idea to have an "alternative" version of the article, since it enables uninvolved editors to browse or glance at the "official" and "unofficial" article and decide which article lends credit to the project. Perhaps the biggest advantage is that it allows a new article that is differently structured from the existing one - this kind of change can't really come about in small, discreet and consensus-bearing steps.

However, such an "unofficial" article requires an "owner" (I would offer your services, but I've already spoken my mind on that subject) to protect it from people content with the status quo at the main article. With the best will in the world, such people are not going to be much help with an article that has this degree of problem. PRtalk 14:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not intended as an alternative, but as "scratch paper". It's a place where people tweak sections, comment, make sweeping changes, etc.
 * This is not intended to supplement Wikipedia in any way and will never be an actual article, though portions (large or small) could easily be copied & pasted into the main article.
 * It is intended to be a place where we can work on the information to slowly build a better article through "small, discreet and consensus-bearing steps" (and that is how Wikipedia and my intent through mediation is intended to work in the first place)
 * This will not be a fast process, though some portions will be faster than others.
 * No one owns any page on Wikipedia and no page can be "protected" such a manner as you prescribe
 * "...such people are not going to be much help with an article that has this degree of problem." I think if you will join this mediation attempt, you will see a reasonable process. Deriding them isn't going to help the article in any way and will only serve to inflame the situation.
 * I'll be straight-up honest with you at all times. I don't shy away from a fight. I don't put up with BS. I do my level best to get things done that need to get done. I realize that EVERYONE has their biases (including myself), but the more important thing is to appropriately include such biases in such a way that the article is NPOV. As an example (assume these are all appropriate sources):
 * Source A: "Oranges are the historically the most nutritious fruit in the world"
 * Source B: "Papayas are the historically the most nutritious fruit in the world"
 * Now, obviously, some people are going to take sides on such an issue. The majority of the Western world may side with the oranges crowd because oranges are far more plentiful and they are more familiar with them. Those areas where papayas grow has a different bias. The "trick" is to find a way to state both sides of the issue in the same article/paragraph/sentence.
 * "Though oranges enjoy the support of many medical personnel, papayas offer the strongest support for nutrition."
 * This sentence isn't going to cut it and will only piss off the orange people
 * "The consensus of medical personnel believes oranges are the strongest support for nutrition, though there is some disagreement from fringe groups."
 * Well, this one only dismisses the legitimate analysis of the papaya crowd.
 * There are several ways to handle this:
 * Create a paragraph that states there is no solid conclusion, but strong cases have been made on both sides. Create subsections where the merits of each side are discussed absent of material from the other side.
 * Same as #1 except the subsections are shorter and each side has a separate article in which to discuss the topic in-depth. Example: Aggie Bonfire and Aggie Bonfire Leadership.
 * Create a series of paragraphs that discuss both sides within the same section.
 * In such a contentious issue, it is unlikely that we can come to agreement within the same paragraph outside of the basic facts. Option 1 and Option 2 seem to be the best option.
 * Now, my real life is busy and I will not have a lot of time for other aspects of Wikipedia, but I think improving such a contentious issue is worth the pain. This is the kind of discussion which we will have in mediation and we will cover the specifics there. I promise your voice will be heard and all appropriate and appropriately documented information will be included in some form within this article or a related subarticle.
 * Are you in? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of this sand-box page for the purposes you're describing. There is nothing in policy to prevent anyone hosting, in their own UserSpace, an article that is very different from the main article. They are (as best I know) fully entitled to defend everything in it quite ruthlessly (except over BLP or NPA). Whether you can afford to be seen hosting and "defending" something inescapably POV is a slightly different question.
 * And, much as I love your oranges vs papayas analogy (one of my mentors says "Don't use analogies!", I've ignored that part of his advice) it's not referring to the point at issue with the article we're talking about. What if people credibly suspected of serious CoI come and insist that really bad material must overwhelm the article? I'm not talking about bias (none of us are clean in that respect), I'm talking about falsification at the kind of level that David Irving was guilty of? (Irving was proved in a court to have falsified the meaning of his sources - so I'm allowed to bad-mouth him). However, even Irving's never been convicted of holocaust denial - and where individuals have been convicted of holocaust denial in a criminal court, I've been threatened with a blocking if I name them. Note the attack on the RS status of a top Israeli academic that immediately follows - we're not talking minor bullying here.
 * I have another personal question for you - but I'm not sure whether to send it to you here, or at the page, or via your e-mail. PRtalk 11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My point was that the page cannot be owned and prevented from editing by other users. This is simply a place to spitball ideas and use as a cnavass from which to make a "painting". As for "Whether you can afford to be seen hosting and "defending" something inescapably POV is a slightly different question." I have no idea what you are talking about.
 * You may send me the question in any manner you desire, but I may not choose to respond in the same manner. — BQZip01 —  talk 23:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 2

 * Thank you for noting above that "You don't need to point out that you disagree." This saves me (for one) making any comment. How about the other dozen or so editors who didn't sign up for the mediation at the regular TalkPage?
 * I'm more puzzled by the statement you made earlier and have now deleted "My point was that the page cannot be owned and prevented from editing by other users". If your thinking about the purpose or extent of mediation is undergoing evolution then I, for one, would be interested to know where it's heading now. PRtalk 20:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Thank you for noting above that 'You don't need to point out that you disagree.' " This saves me (for one) making any comment.
 * You are welcome.


 * "How about the other dozen or so editors who didn't sign up for the mediation at the regular TalkPage?"
 * How about them? I'm not going to presume on their intentions one way or another. If they've chosen not to join, then they've chosen not to join. They also haven't opposed it or offered opinions on it in any way.


 * "''I'm more puzzled by the statement you made earlier and have now deleted "My point was that the page cannot be owned and prevented from editing by other users".
 * Please read WP:OWN. It explains everything.


 * "If your [sic] thinking about the purpose or extent of mediation is undergoing evolution then I, for one, would be interested to know where it's heading now."
 * I never said anything remotely close to that.
 * — BQZip01 — talk 21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)