User talk:Viajero/Archive 3

The Holocaust Industry has been protected in a less than ideal state


 * I know, but it just temporary. We need a better solution though then endless reverts. Will work on it. Come back soon! -- Viajero 01:14, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Greetings from Zero. Don't worry, I won't leave WP because of Leumi. However, sometimes particular articles get so bloated with garbage supported by obsessive fanatics that any time spent on them is wasted. And this one is obsessive. Wouldn't be so bad if he actually knew some history. Cheers, --Zero 05:11, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Viajero

I've taken a look at your post on leumi's talk page and i think most of it is reasonable but feel the last paragraph is a bit strong. It's best IMO not to be confrontational, but try to persuade. theresa knott 11:12, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't notice that the holocaust industry page was protected when i made that edit. I've reverted and will add the attribution back in once the page is unprotected. theresa knott 11:51, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You seem to be worried about having "a notoriously rabid pro-Israel advocacy group" quote on the article ? Why? IMO it does not do to underestimate the intelligence of potential readers. I say, let leumi insert the quote but rebutt it. Why not add something like "notoriously rabid pro-Israel advocacy groups like the ADL have predictable said (leumi's insertion)? theresa knott 13:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * This would work for me. However, I doubt Leumi would accept that formulation; he denies ADL is such an organization. -- Viajero 15:48, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But worth a try though. theresa knott 16:46, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Notoriously rabid in your opinion, outstandingly moderate in his. This is exactly the sort of unnecessary POV description that we all want to avoid. The NPOV thing to say is that "the ADL have said (leumi's insertion)", since everyone agrees that they have. -- Derek Ross

I've weighed in on the Leumi thing, as you requested. --MIRV 19:58, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Viajero, I resent this. You speak as if I'm the only problem here. The fact is that I am trying to bring balance to Wikipedia just like you are. We may disagree on what constitutes that, but both of our intentions are good. Furthermore, my edits have been NPOV. You've reverted many of them because you don't believe in the perspectives I've brought up, but they are legitimately expressed by many individuals. I don't say, "This is the way it is" for what I write, I say, "Many people, such as so and so and so, think this is the way it is." Frankly, I think it's very NPOV to say that the perspectives I bring up are illegitimate, while the perspectives you do are not. (Your refusal to consider Daniel Pipes as a source as one example, and you're instance of keeping in that the refugees were forcefully removed when in fact that is a claim being another.) Also, I think it's slightly hypocritical, with respect, to demand that what you disagree with be taken out, but when I request what I disagree with to be taken out for discussion, you claim that it's illegitimate. I don't appreciate you viewing me as some sort of a troll or fool here. I follow the rules of NPOV just as you do. I simply add perspectives that you don't like. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included, alongside opposing ones. An encyclopedia shouldn't only portray one sides views. I'm trying to contribute to NPOV here, not damage it and it doesn't help things when you talk about "a unified policy on Leumi" as if I represent the only major problem on this issue. Respectfully, I think I am not the only one who should consider the meaning of NPOV. Leumi 23:01, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, in response to what you've put on my user page, this is what I wrote:
 * Viajero, I agree wholeheartedly in the principle of editorial neutrality. Which is why I've been working to provide that balance and neutrality in these articles. As I've stated before, balance means both sides, not just yours. I have been working to present balanced neutral versions of both topics, however you seem to be removing one side in favor for the other. Take the case of From Time Immemorial for instance. Rather than allow an opposing viewpoint you removed it from the page, claiming it was a forgery and calling all my attempts to prove it represented a legitimate view not the work of legitimate scholars. In the interests of balance and neutrality that we both hold dear both sides must be taken into account. Also on the issue of neutrality, why do you insist that the claim that refugees were forced out of Israel be taken as a fact? A more accurate statement is that their are claims of their being forced, but as it is by no means a fact, we should only present the opposing arguments and the let the reader decide. I think that your concept that your views must be stated as fact represents a departure from neutrality, much more than the inclusion of an opposing view that I provide. With respect, I think we both need to allow both sides to be represented in the interests of the editorial neutrality principles that Wikipedia is founded upon, principles that both you and I believe in strongly. In that we both have common ground. Just as you will not allow a pro-israel/anti-palestine bias, I will not allow an anti-Israel/pro-palestine one. I'm not trying to bring about the former, only the removal of the latter. Hopefully we can work together to achieve neutrality. Leumi 23:11, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Viajero, Thanks for your nice words on the mailing list, but there's an error which should be corrected. I don't want to write there myself, but I wonder if you can post this statement from me: ''Just to set the record straight, I am one of those weird people who think that squinting at mouldy microfilms for a couple of hours is fun, but my professional training is not in history. Therefore it is not correct to call me a historian even though I admit to knowing a little about the subject.'' Thanks! --Zero 09:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Viajero. I just realised I have neglected to reply to your warm welcoming. My belated thanks. Hadal 10:10, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi. I moved your new page to Guidelines for controversial articles so that it wasn't in the main article namespace. I hope this is ok. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:34, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry. I've never before had to deal with the more interesting markup on that particular page! -- Pakaran 22:50, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * People forget that trailing dash all the time. My advice: always preview before saving. -- Viajero 22:54, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you have a question for me, you should ask it on my talk page (so I am sure to see it). In response to your question: Wentent didn't seem to like the list, so I shortened it by removing what I felt was the person least associate with the time period; Bakunin died at about the same time the historical period was beginning. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Those two users: RK has been here a long time and is perfectly well aware of what is detectable and what isn't.  It's easy to connect via several totally different IP numbers and the similarity in style is awesome. (I was not the first to notice, btw.) But of course it doesn't really matter one way or the other. Cheers. --Zero 03:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you are so concerned with drawing people into New Imperialism; why do you tolerate the section on The word "Imperialism" -- shouldn't that be on another page (perhaps, Imperialism)? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Good stuff! Yes, I agree with you that views like Leumi's shouldn't be."censored". On the other hand, I don't think WP should present faulty interpretations of reality either. Writers like him like to paint controversies where there really are none, or when there are an agreement among the expert opinion and the controversy is limited to laymens opinions. It makes the articles look like propaganda smorgasbords where the reader is expected to pick and chose among two ore more intertwined interpretations of reality to create his or her own version. I think it's more important to have articles that actually make sense and present a coherent, understandable description of the phenomen. BL 15:41, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that edit warring is, on this issue, the only choice. From Time Immemorial is simply not "debated": it is generally agreed among almost all scholars of the issue to be a fraud, and the opposing view is held only by a few biased authors and laymen. Equivocation between the two opinions would be tantamount to insisting that though the Skeptic's Dictionary (or whoever) claims that the reptile men from Sirius don't exist, some people think they do, so we should present both views equally. That is, I think, not neutrality but bias. --MIRV 21:23, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Any photo taken prior to 1923 that says it has a copyright on it, is lying. As long as it hasn't been artistically altered it's public domain. (I actually saw a thumbnail of a better one but it's been taken offline, unfortunately.) - Hephaestos 01:09, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Not only would the copyright be expired, I used to pay tax money to support that place. :) Image:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg Image:FraknLynchedSmall.jpg - Hephaestos 01:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Mary Phagan one is a different kettle of fish, mainly because I don't think it's a photo. It looks more like a drawing to me, and besides I find it doubtful that a 13-year-old pencil factory worker would be able to afford to have a photo portrait done.

That said, I'm guessing what this is is a newspaper drawing (similar to the one on the front of the Atlanta Constitution of Leo Frank) that probably ran while the trial was going on. If so it's probably fair game, but it would be nice to be able to verify it.

I generally don't post drawings or paintings unless the source I got them from posts a date for them, after all one could conceivably make a drawing of Mary Phagan today, in which case it would be copyrighted (although as I said I doubt that's the case with this specific one). - Hephaestos 17:04, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I believe the chimp's name is actually Nim Chimpsky. -leigh 19:14, Dec 21, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to send you my Christmas greetings. Best. Pfortuny 20:00, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Take a look at User:OneVoice's work at Elon Peace Plan, Proposals for a Palestinian state and so on. He/she is here entirely to promote ethnic cleansing of the the Palestinians. His style is so similar to Leumi's that it is uncanny. Cheers, --Zero 13:33, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for putting a link for the Bam Citadel in the Main Page. Ahmad, 31 Dec 2003

Your request for help in expanding the Guidelines for controversial articles
Hi, I am still quite new to Wiki, but I would like to do something to help if you would still like it. The guidelines look good so far how are you hoping to expand them?user:Zestauferov

I have reason to believe Humus sapiens is RK. Can you look into this? -- 213.231.204.211 12:23, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * And why is everybody so prejudiced against IP addresses? No, I'm not Zero0000 and you're free to check that as well. -- 213.231.204.211 12:56, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * No, as far as I know it is several months since I wrote something without logging in.--Zero 07:54, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just responding to your notes and tips re talk:Jane Jacobs etc. I'm definitely in a learn-as-I-go pattern, and I'll keep that article in mind to tackle at some point. Thanks for the tips! Radagast 00:35, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you will (not) like to know that the entire text of "Palestinian views of the peace process" (that you successfully listed for deletion) is being forced into Israeli-Palestinian conflict by RK without the least effort to fix it. --Zero 12:13, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have almost no time recently and W/P is impossibly slow. I made a brief comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales but I should write something to the mailing list about why the material was unacceptable. --Zero 23:33, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Surely you know that removing an entirely relevant paragraph is not the right idea.

Surely you know that removing an entirely relevant paragraph is not the right idea.

Scholars continue to debate the causes and ramifications of the "New Imperialism"; most notably, the relationship this period has with the Great War, the Long Depression, and the Second Industrial Revolution. This period coincides with the rise of Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States; and, during this period, China and Latin America were beginning to industrialize. The Russo-Japanese (1905), Spanish-American (1898), and Boer Wars (1880-81 -- 1899-1902) were all fought during this period. This was the era of Léopold II of Belgium, Mutsuhito of Japan, Napoleon III of France, Wilhelm II of Germany; as well as: Bernstein, Chamberlain, Cleveland, Crispi, Disraeli, Ferry, Kipling, McKinley, Milner, Rhodes, Roosevelt, and Von Bismarck.

Lirath Q. Pynnor

I made a partial list of Danny's original articles at User talk:Zero0000/Danny. I also attempted to subscribe to the mailing list and post the list there (in its entirety), but as far as I can tell it didn't work. If my mail to the mailing list does not appear within a few hours (I'll be away for a least 8), you could consider posting it there yourself. --Zero 14:13, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RK
good point. Please make it on Conflicts between users and maybe, just ,maybe we can get something done. Jack 00:53, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Characterizations of the ADL should be on the ADL page not scattered through other pages. Could you explain to me way you disagee? OneVoice 22:43, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia article should be an organic entity. Readers should not to go to another article to obtain essential information; links are connections to additional information. A quote should be placed in context; the individual or organization -- if not universally known -- needs to be qualified. Most readers probably -- particuarly non-Americans -- won't know what the ADL is. To quote the ADL is this instance and not identify the nature of the organization is extremely reader-unfriendly. -- Viajero 23:08, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a good argument, a convincing argument to me. I have taken the description used in the first sentence of the ADL page and placed it here verbatim. OneVoice 01:25, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for adding to the Faisal Husseini page. I was told that if I just started the page adding a minimal amount of material other would pick it up and greatly improve it. OneVoice 02:08, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Many articles here begin as mere stubs of a line or two. That article was a good start, only it needed to be in real English -- complete sentences and the like. -- Viajero 09:42, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you as well! BTW, sorry for not keeping in touch; I haven't been on Wiki as often as usual for the past few months. I'm also sorry for failing to respond to your e-mail sent about a month ago. Several days ago, I just noticed it. I use that account solely for Wiki, and I suppose I have the tendency to miss important messages since the in-box is flooded with dozens upon dozens of messages form the Wiki mailing list. I felt awful for not being able to respond in time to be of any use. I can relate to all these problems all too well, which is the reason that I haven't had the energy to be anything more than a sporadic contributor lately.

I'm a little busy now, but I'll get around to seeing what I can do concerning the Israeli-Palestinian articles. You are quite brave for traversing the madhouse of the Middle East articles. 172 14:49, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

- Thanks for noticing my additions to Opera seria! A notice from you is a compliment that I enjoy. That's a good piece on Les Troyens, long one of my favorite operas. Wetman
 * I agree it's not easy to get good material on the background of operas. I've considered sitting down with a good Verdi biography I have here, and rifling it for evocative stuff. (I haven't the heart to edit Glofish BTW.) You've gpt the gist of it... Wetman 10:13, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the word terrorist, I respectfully disagree that this term should be absolutely purged from the wikipedia. I agree fully, however, with what you wrote on my talk page about just presenting the facts and letting people decide for themselves. I see the statement "Sendero Luminoso are a terrorist group" as clearly a POV matter of opinion. However, "Many people consider Sendero Luminoso to be a terrorist group" is quite different. This second statement is not a statement of opinion, but a statement of fact which reports on the public perception of Sendero Luminoso, without judging whether that perception is true or false. In order to be a complete, NPOV encyclopedia, we have to report all viewpoints. It seems that Lancemurdoch and perhaps a few others are rather sympathetic to Sendero Luminoso and object to the use of the term "terrorist"; nonetheless, many people in the world, from all countries, consider them to be exactly that, and we are duty-bound to report this state of public opinion. Failure to accurately report that people actually think this in the world is tacitly POV. Kwertii 12:30, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with this 100%. Having said that, I do think the Shining Path article needs to have something in it that explains the appeal of the movement to certain sections of Peruvian society. I've dug up something which should be suitable, so I'll add it to the article shortly. -- ChrisO


 * Kewertii: Do we need to report all viewpoints in the world? I am not sure. Look, I think you must agree, "terrorism" is a lot more than just a technical term; it carries emotional baggage and implies a moral judgement. Passing moral judgements on subjects is obviously incompatible with NPOV. Moreover, if we label Shining Path or Al Queda or bin Laden "terrorist", whether we do directly or indirectly (see: Avoid weasel terms), the case can also be made for labelling our governments and leaders terrorists. For example, because of the mining the harbor of Managua in the 1980s, or destroying the Al Shifa pharmaceuticals plant in Sudan in 1998, or causing 500,000 Iraqi children to die of malnutrition during the 1990s by means of sanctions, many millions of people in the world consider the US government and George Bush terrorists, and they could rightfully insist the phrase "many people consider this a terrorist organization" inserted at the top of the article on the United States, the US State Department, or the CIA. Passing moral judgements can go both ways.
 * I am tempted to say that "terrorist" doesn't belong anywhere but under Terrorism, but that may be unnecessarily restrictive. Still, if it is to be used, I would ask what purpose it serves. In the middle of ChrisO's superb article Binational solution, he included in the narrative that the Israeli government in the 1960s regarded the PLO as a "terrorist organization", and he did so for a purpose; it was an integral part of the historical development. He wasn't simply indirectly including a moral judgement. At the moment, Chris's addition of the US and UK government position on the Shining Path in Shining Path is IMO an improvement over simply stating "many people think..."; but Chris, I would still ask you to consider the fact that the assessment of an organization as "terrorist" is hardly just a technical, bureaucratic matter, and that many of the governments which do so have no right to take the high moral ground.
 * In any case, Shining Path's atrocities are copious, unambiguous, and well-documented. Why can't we simply present them as such and avoid all forms of passing moral judgement? -- Viajero 23:53, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hey! There was no disambiguation page. What was I supposed to do? ;) 168... 18:25, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

But List of conductors itself offers no disambiguating links to List of conductors (material) and List of conductors (orchestra). That is the terrible flaw in the system to which, in my innocence, I fell prey. Sorry to be a stickler. I take that back. Actually I love being a stickler. 168... 01:51, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stickling is sometimes just a sport for me. Actually I don't want to make a list of conducting materials. Your first impression was right. I was just trying to be witty. In fact, I've been continuing to try to be witty as we've talked more about it, but somewhere along the way I guess my wit waned. 168... 15:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. There was already a Vladimir Jabotinsky. Same person? Morwen 18:39, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But now I am fucking pissed. I just spent three hours on that article. Google doesn't return anything on "jabotinsky" in Wikipedia, and I saw a red link to his name in an article, so I assumed an article didn't exist. deep sigh I quit. -- Viajero 18:49, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)