Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:14, 19 October 2005

1. User talk:Rex071404/archive1
2. User talk:Rex071404/archive2
3. User talk:Rex071404/archive3
4. User talk:Rex071404/archive4
5. User talk:Rex071404/archive5

Last update: 10.18.05

reply to your query

I have responded on User talk:Fred Bauder. -- Viajero 10:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I too, have responded on User talk:Fred Bauder. Rex071404 13:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to copy all that stuff to the talk page of Ward Churchill? I would have thought that the discussion belonged on Fred's talk page. -- Viajero 13:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was necesary. I want to make sure readers at Talk:Ward_Churchill are fully apprised. Rex071404 13:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My comment on Ward Churchill's appearance was based on his resemblance to some of my close relatives (my mother and grandmother) whom I know to be partly Native American. Fred Bauder 15:37, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It would have been less prone to misinterpretation, had you said that to begin with. Still, you would never say that someone "has a big nose" or "thick lips" and then suggest that they are this or that, would you? Why then try to divine Churchill's geneology from his appearance? And by doing that, aren't you weighing your edits with your personal opinion? And if so, that's truly POV. The public facts do not reasonably support any assertions or suppositions about Churchill actually being a Native American (not in any true sense). That being the case, I frankly am unmoved that you "feel we should take his word for it" based on your personal opinion of his appearance. I think Fred, as an attorney, you ought to be able to see the error of your logic here. Your personal feelings are not one of the public facts which we can rest our editorial standards on. Indeed, we've already established that such methods are not the rule here - as evidenced by the fierce way my personal feelings are scrubbed by others from articles such as John Kerry. Also, as evidenced by the blocking of my edits to Dedham, Massachusetts, it's not enough that an individual editor personally "know" or "feel" something to be true. Rather, it must be backed up by public fact sources that other editors will accept. I have two problems with using your "feelings" as a source: a) feelings are subject to change and therefore are not reliable as an ongoing fact referrence and b) I am repulsed by the notion we ought to judge people by appearance. That said, thanks for answering about Ward Churchill. But, I am still curious, why did you not answer my email? And why do you stand mute on that topic in this reply to me? Rex071404 15:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Ward_Churchill):

I did say that to begin with and only on the talk page. As to your mail, I do not recall a particular message to me. Fred Bauder 16:09, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Did say what? Rex071404 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested

On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an "undeleted" copy of his "complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: "The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."

Many of the records contain praise for Kerry's service. For example, the documents quote Kerry's former commanding officers as saying he is "one of the finest young officers with whom I have served;" is "the acknowledged leader of his peer group;" and is "highly recommended for promotion."

Neutrality 01:04, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the 1st wound was indisputably "minor" and ought to be referred to as such. Rex071404 02:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy Page

Can you help with the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page? Thanks 24.147.97.230

• Well, since you ask -- what makes you think a link to a discussion forum on any website is encyclopedic? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A reverse of that question would be more germane; in particular, please answer this question: Please state specifically, how does the inclusion of the link which I posted (and you deleted) make the wiki article on Ted Kennedy less "encyclopedic"?

By the way, you did not answer my question, you only asked me a question. If you revert me, please show me the courtesy of answering my questions. Thanks. Rex071404 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I reverted your changes because followed the link, saw that it was a discussion board on a political website, and knew that such links in general were not encyclopedic sources -- and this one in particular wasn't even remotely encyclopedic. I figured you'd know why, since you've been around here a while, and you know what constitutes a useful link in an article. This wasn't one. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

So your "answer" is that the link I supplied makes the article less encyclopedic, because it makes the article less "useful"? How is the article less "useful" to readers with the inclusion of the link? Or in other words, how is the article more useful to readers with the link removed? How does the omission of the information supplied by that link benefit those who seek information about Ted Kennedy? Please advise. Rex071404 04:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I detected no encyclopedic content on the page linked to. If there are useful sources pointed to on the page, you might consider linking to those. But chat pages are ipso facto not encyclopedic sources (except in an article aout chat pages); it doesn't matter what their content is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Your "ipso facto" answer is a circular reference to your previous answer, explains nothing and does not actually answer my most recent question pertaining to "useful" (see above). So far, I've been able to glean from your comments that you take the view things must be "encyclopedic" or else not be referred to/linked to? If this is the case, please direct me to a page (or pages) which makes clear what you understand "encyclopedic" to be, ok? If not, then please clarify your previous answers. Thanks. Rex071404 03:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

welcome back, rex. I have a problem using freerepublic or democraticunderground on any article really, if the info you want to include is his grimaces during bush's speech, why don't you use the x234 link that freerepublic excerpts from, as it has the actual vidcaps from the footage... assuming that such an event is encyclopedic in the first place (i really don't care either way). --kizzle 04:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

aw rex, don't go back to "please advise"... seriously, i hated that before :) --kizzle 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

John Kerry's wound

Hello. I don't think it was necessary to link to wound because the average reader is not necessarily going to wonder what a wound is. On the contrary, most already know, and a link may be superfluous. Wikilinks are primarily used to link to something that is too complex to explain in an article that is only somewhat related. As a counterexample, one would not link to son on the article about George W. Bush, even though he is the son of George H. W. Bush. An overabundance of links is just that. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 07:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)