User talk:Neil zusman

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Xnuala (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi there! I noticed your recent contribution, Libricide, and am not sure if it is something that should be included as an encyclopedia article. There seems to be a number of statemtents indicating a particular viewpoint, especially with relation to U.S. politics. Are you interested in perhaps working on this article to bring it in line with the NPOV guidelines? I'm also not sure what the intention of including text from other Wikipedia sites is for. I'm eagerly awaiting your response!--Xnuala (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I'm in the midst of posting an article and I didnt think I was necessaily being anti-U.S.  I used the Wikipedia page as a guide and am deleting as i go. I am trying to be neutral but am grateful for the help. Give me another hour and we can talk.

Neil zusman 16:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case (with the Wikipedia page as a guideline!), and I brought that up at the AFD page! Would you mind if I deleted or rewrote the statements that could be percieved as NPOV?--Xnuala (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do so. I will check my version. You are very fast, it's great. I am trying to be responsible. I entered the word "libricide" into wiktionary yesterday. This is my first time.

Neil zusman 16:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just happened to be watching at the time! I may be busy offline for a few hours, but I will definitely come back afterward. I think it's fantastic that you are contributing to Wikipedia!--Xnuala (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I'm honored and wish to make a good contribution. It's an international issue and I wanted people to be able see the issue. I look forward to hearing from you. I will try to finish this edit over the next 2 hours.

Neil zusman 16:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to re-post on this for now. I hope it meets your approval. Thank you for your attention.

Neil zusman 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Neil, I think the issue isn't approval but more compliance with Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and verifiability. Right now, I don't think the article will survive AFD in its current state, and I don't have the resources to do a lot of work on it this week.  I'll see what I can get done, but I would like it if you continued to contribute!--Xnuala (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

My sources are verifiable. I tried to be absolutely neutral. Could you tell me where you are interpreting an anti-US stance? Native Americans and the Indian Wars perhaps?

Neil zusman 01:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it isn't the neutrality of the material that raises flags, but the inclusion of them. This section

"The systemic destruction of books is seen by some as a function of social and political problem-solving. Preservation may not be on top of the list of an invading army’s priorities. The head of President George W. Bush's cultural advisory committee, stepped down in protest over the US failure to stop the pillage, adding to international calls for action to protect Iraq's heritage. [6] The United States quickly secured the airport, the Oil Ministry and a hotel, and failed to protect the museum and libraries in Bagdhad that were looted in 2003 and will never recover despite great efforts to restore and find what was taken."

doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article--was it libricide or just a situation where the priorities were financially motivated rather than to protect the culture. I think we have to focus on more broad examples of libricide, including better descriptions of the historic incidences as well as including some broader sources about cultural destruction. I'm not an expert at all, so I think it would be great if we could recruit more Wikipedians to collaborate with on this article.--Xnuala (talk) 02:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the discussion on my article. I agree with you. I was perhaps too slanted in this comment. It is however, based on a report by Agence France presse. Perhaps they are illegitimate? I caught Dubya in my sights because it is a fairly recent act. Knuth spends the last chapter in her (2006) book on it. I read both Knuth books, she is an Associate Prof. in Hawaii and her books have been favorably reviewed by reliable sources like the ALA. I also read the Bosmajian book, Burning Books. He is the professor emeritus at Washington State and has published works on censorship and language for over 30 years. Getting more general sources would be possible, but would require re-wiring these already published works for Wikipedia.

Thanks again. you guys are brutal.

Neil zusman 02:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Having read the discussion and consdierations, it is not just Knuth, but Bosmajian as well who is notable here. The Book Burning section on history doesn't bring it up into the present very effectively- that is my goal, as it is of Bosmajian and Knuth. Librarians must consider future forms as well as the past of terms or categories that evolve. Book burning is a child of Libricide- it also includes the buildings, the museums and libraries, and whole cultures whose expression is damaged permanently by their destruction. Books that have been burned can be reproduced quickly. I am a Library Science student.

Neil zusman 13:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca Knuth
Hi Neil! I am not confident that Libricide will pass its AFD. Would you consider writing an article on Rebecca Knuth instead, where her important works such as Libricide can be explored? I think Knuth would pass the notability criteria...as a Library Science students you must have access to a number of the peer-reviewed journals in that subject area. Have you encountered any research done by other academics about Knuth's work?--Xnuala (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Another idea I have is to create a section on the destruction of libraries as part of the Cultural genocide article. What do you think?--Xnuala (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of including the term and topic in cultural genocide. i think it fits and its not just book-burning. all i have on knuth are reviews. thanks again. i stil would like to have it considered. 24.235.69.137 23:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Our discussion
Neil,

I am writing to update you, I did not forget about you last night. I'm doing some additional research and will respond ASAP. I want to make sure I have plenty of information before going forward. Thank you for allowing me to assist you. CASCADIA Howl/Trail 21:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your responses. Review MeCASCADIA Howl/Trail 14:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Private Sandbox
Neil, the best place to begin working on a rework- at the moment anyway, is by adding /sandbox to your userpage, this will make a sub-page for the article. This will keep it out of the way and allow you and other editors to tweak it a bit before making it public. 14:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have posted the article in full here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Neil_zusman/sandbox

Please take some time to read and consider my case and refer to this link to correspond with others. Does the sandbox stay put, or does it blow like sand?

Neil zusman 17:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC) added Neil zusman 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Libricide collaboration
Hi Neil! Nice to see you back! I'm absolutely willing to keep going on this...I want to get to my local library and borrow the book Libricide shortly, so I can have a better understanding. Now, I know this is a tough decision for you to make, but I think you should clarify whether you want a Wikipedia article on Libricide, or whether you want to find another venue to publish where you can present it as more of an essay. Tell you what, I'll make a version at User:Xnuala/sandbox/Libricide, and you can tell me what you think!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 00:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

-Xnuala, I welcome your collaboration and input, recognizing that there is good sense in the consensus from AFD, and I'd like to follow-through. I have no commercial interests, just personal. Wikipedia has been fascinating. I am not the best essay writer I have read. I felt that my handling of the issues may be in need of serious re-organizing. My interest is still in Wikipedia.

Neil zusman 02:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting news article
You've probably already seen it, but I thought you might be interested in this article. Bit of a bummer, but interesting reasoning... RTucker 16:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

reply
• Libraries, thrift shops wouldn't take unwanted books, store owner says

Tom Wayne needs to stop complaining about the reading habits of others and read- books or the internet, himself. There are many charitable organizations that might have taken his books, including the local Friends of the Library.

• Store plans monthly bonfires until 20,000 books burned

Burning books in this way is such a meaningless act of symbolism.

• Store owner says customers lost to TV, Internet

He needs to keep in touch with his clientele. Although many independent bookstores have gone under, many survive. Publishing is changing. Books have a long and useful life ahead of them.

I didn't email him for his defense, but I appreciate your bringing this to my attention. Stupid acts of opportunistic book burning are very far from what Libricide is about and why it is important for all of us to recognize it, politically, historically, sociologically, legally. The intentional destruction of libraries and cultures by state sanctioned action continues with no one being brought to justice. The crimes against humanity occur when histories are lost forever by decree.

Tom Wayne's crime was simply air pollution. To a larger extent, he neglected to consider others, which is not a crime proves his self-serving grandiosity proves why he deserves to be out of business. He is a loser because he only understands himself, if that.

Neil zusman 10:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)