User talk:MarkThomas/Archive Oct 2007

Cromwell
Hello Mark. Another editor has expressed concern over your removal of references from this article. While I appreciate you have gone to some lengths to explain your edits in edit summaries (and I am not familiar with the article, so I can't comment on the content itself), we should nevertheless think twice before removing supporting refs unless they are clearly false, misrepresented or misleading. References are a good thing, after all. I feel that, at least some of your removals, do not fit that criteria. For example, this edit is justified by "alas, no mention of the word genocide to support the reference. Deleted". However the deleted reference appears to say, "The massacres by Catholics of Protestants... were magnified for propagandist purposes to justify Cromwell's subsequent genocide."" I can only assume you made an error, since the justification clearly does not tally with the action. In addition, you remove a reference for using the term "ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide", because they are not the same, then claim ethnic cleaning should be mentioned. It surely makes much more sense to add the term "ethnic cleaning" to the sentence and leave the reference in, then, rather than delete a good and relevent source (by your own words)? Don't you agree? Please reconsider these edits like these (especially the first one, which really should be reverted), as well referenced material is much harder to find than to delete. Thanks. Rockpock  e  t  20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Rockpocket. I did make a mistake on the one you refer to and will add it back. However, reading your comments to Hughsheehy, I see that you regard this as bad behaviour by me and an alleged repeat of previous bad behaviour. This accumulation of "bad behaviour" reports arises from a chain of misleading and misunderstood attacks on me by Hughsheehy, Domer48, Sarah777 and others connected to my attempts to de-POV articles related to British and Irish history. Many of the edits I made have stuck, but in the process I was subjected to what amounted to fusilades of attacks, some of them very deliberately and cynically misleading and a determined attempt to game admins. See for example Sony-youth's comments on this under "SirFozzie and favouritism" in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence.


 * In the actual article, the massive chain of references that variably support the genocide claim are way, way over the top and I think if someone else were editing this down other than myself you would not have commented. I don't have a "history of reference deletion" as claimed by Hughsheehy on your talk page. The previous one he gets worked up about me deleting he misrepresents as a reference deletion when it was no such thing. What got this started was there used to be a sentence in the Cromwell article that claimed the Down Survey stated that Cromwell had devastated the population of Ireland, or words to that effect, allegedly supported by a reference. I deleted the sentence and the reference because the Down Survey says no such thing and the reference was to a contemporary interepretation of that historical source.


 * I do appreciate that it might look to a passing admin as if I am damaging sources, but what I'm actually trying to do is get an element of NPOV into what is a very contentious issue. The Cromwell invasion of Ireland is a cause-celebre within Irish history and an extremely emotional and politically-laden saga. It is an object of faith with many Irish nationalists and others that Cromwell was the destroyer and mass-murdered in Ireland. Yet many mainstream historians do not agree or take a more moderate opinion. It is very difficult to argue a negative; some historians, mainly in the Irish tradition, or from the US, argue that it was genocide. Others do not say this, but there is no book counter-attacking the "genocide theory" because it is not a theory that would widely be taken seriously by many historians.


 * In summary, I am trying to edit from an NPOV perspective and getting a great deal of flak for it. MarkThomas 07:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Mark. My apologies in the delay in getting back to you, its been a crazy week at work. I tried to be careful in my wording in response to Hugh. As a passing admin, and on quick review of your block log and recent edits, is is difficult not to conclude that your editing is problematic in some form. Of course, it takes two to tango, so I'm not about to declare you have indulged in "bad behaviour" in this instance, though I can see why it appears so, and justified why. I understand that your interaction with, for example Domer48 and Sarah777, is acrimonious (and a glance at Arbcom suggests they are on very thin ice also) but you must understand that Wikipedia should not, and does not, operate in that way. Who is attacking and who is attacking in response to attacks, who is POVing and who dePOVing (in each other's opinions) is kind of irrelevent to me. The fact is that everyone mentioned above (with the exception of HughSheedy, simply because I have not investigated his contributions fully yet) has behaved in a manner, at one point or another, that is unacceptable. So teasing out the root cause is near impossible.
 * That said, I don't doubt you are a good faith editor an genuinely wish to improve these articles and have found yourself drawn into some personal situations. The way to move forward is to take the attacks without response, let other people indulge in meatpuppetry without doing so yourself to balance it up. Then you can go to an admin and request assistance and you will be backed to the hilt. So, let me give you some advice on how better to tackle this concern (which is not unfounded) in a manner that promotes co-operation.
 * You make a fair point that the number of references for a single sentence is perhaps unnessary. But can you see that a lack of sources may also come under attack, since you consider the assertion controversial. So they provide references and its a problem and they don't provide references and its a problem. If I was them (and by that I mean people who have been contribution to this part of the article) then I might also consider that the goal of others is to remove this info altogether, rather than ensure it is properly represented. If you wished to reduce the number of refs, then you could have added the content about "ethinic cleansing" yourself and attributed the reference to that. This would have demonstrated to other editors that your goal was not to "cleanse" the article of all mention of the criticism, rather make it more accurate and better sourced. I edit regularly in the field of animal rights and am a founding member of the animal rights wikiproject. This despite the fact I strongly disagree with animal rights as a philosophy. Yet I have the trust of all the pro-animal rights members because they have seen that I as as quick to add sourced material I come across that could be seen as pro-rights as I am to add criticism. This is the key to earning trust and respect of other editors. It can be tough, sometimes, adding stuff that you personally believe to be wrong, but thats what realy NPOV editing is. Rockpock  e  t  20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands does not suggest that the mainstream thought is that is was genocide, simply that some historians have described it as such. There is nothing wrong with that, as it appears to be a perfectly accurate reflection of the reality. The opposite POV doesn't have to be explicitly stated, as it follows that those who have not described it as genocide do not consider it so. It might be worth discussing with other editors if there is some why you could indicate in the sentence whether there is consensus on the issue among historians, or if that there is a "camp" of historians that believe it to be so, or a camp that doesn't. This sort of information would be helpful to the reader, rather than "some historians". But the key is to strike a tone that shows you are not against including the information, simply that it should be represented in the most accurate and informative matter.
 * These are just a few suggestions that would got some way towards giving other editors confidence that your motivations are to ensure accuracy and neutrality. I do appreciate your efforts at reconciliation with Hugh, though, and i'll urge him to work towards a better working relationship in future, rather than dwell on past problems. Rockpock  e  t  22:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your time and considered thoughts on this Rockpocket. I have found this very helpful, and also your contributions elsewhere on this. One small thing - it does now say "some historians" but that was an edit of mine that was reverted a number of times in the recent past but has now stuck. On a general note, I will seriously try to be more constructive and less combative. Thanks again for all your input. MarkThomas 15:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I know that my take can only ever be a snapshot of what has gone on in entirity (it can be really difficult to piece together the history of article such as this) and so I some have missed some of the past good (and occasionally bad) work of editors getting the article to its current stage. I don't doubt your intentions and motivations, I think its just that sometimes, on Wikipedia, you have to be clever about understanding how others perceive your edits. You shouldn't have to convince other editors of your good faith (that is what WP:AGF is for), but if you can do so then you will have greater success. Good luck, and feel free to attract my intention if you require assistance in future! Rockpock  e  t  18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)