| Revision as of 07:15, 22 April 2005 editSlamvorgin (talk | contribs)1 editNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:16, 22 April 2005 edit undoZen-master (talk | contribs)5,220 edits rv vandalismNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] ] ] ] by ] 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size: 400%; line-height: 100%;">Impotence by SlimVirgin (who could never rise to the occasion)</div>VICTORY | |||
| I've unprotected the page following a request. The editors already warned over 3RR won't be warned again, so please try to reach consensus. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Disagreements about the intro == | |||
| Okay, anyone who is unhappy with the intro, list your problems in this section. Number them so we can discuss them point by point. Do not revert the article, please. It doesn't solve anything. I will be reverting to the consensus version and I request everyone involved to do the same ''no more than once a day''. Even if it's not your preferred version, please revert to it until this discussion is concluded. | |||
| Let's do the intro before we move on to other issues, okay?] 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :There is a lengthy discussion about intro problems and suggestions (including changing "lambasted" to "castigated") from just a a few hours ago in archive4, why did someone archive an active discussion? ] ] 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It hasn't gone away. If you want to revisit the discussion, it's all there. ''Someone'' didn't do it. I did. I was ]. I signed and dated it so that it's clear that I did. If you disagree that we should archive it and start the discussion fresh, you can retrieve it all and reinstate it. That's your prerogative as an editor. I'd certainly prefer it to a snotty comment. I don't agree that castigated is an improvement on lambasted by the way. Castigate is far more severe than lambast. It also implies that the criticism is motivated to punish, which would tend to imply that O'Reilly is a fit person to punish Churchill.] 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::It wasn't snotty, it was pointing out non-standard practice, the current discussion is a rehash of that. And generally discussions active within the last few days (and especially a few hours) are universally left on the talk page when archiving. The problem with "lambasted" is that it implies a physical attack and implies he was deserving of being attacked. Castigated is more neutral in those regards. Fulminated could be the best. ] ] 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The discussions active have been going on for a very long time. Some have already had sections archived. Look, reinstate anything you want to. It's really not a problem. I cannot agree about "lambasted". It ''also means'' a physical attack. There is absolutely no connotation of its being deserved. It says "telling off" to me. Castigated definitely implies desert to me. It says "you are being punished to me". I could definitely go with fulminated against. It is exactly what he did. It has that idea of denunciation, which is exactly the thing. ] 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| My suggestions: | |||
| * Just call him an academic, he's many other things you could list, it's pointless having a catalog. | |||
| ''Why are those things irrelevant? It's particularly important to mention that he is an author because it is something he wrote that caused the problem. You cannot have your cake and eat it re the Indian tI hing. His ethnicity is only an issue because of his activism in American Indian affairs and because rightists want to use his possible dishonesty about it as cause to sack him'' | |||
| * No problem with second sentence, as long as the University inquiry is mentioned. It seems certain that the inquiry is going to be big news later in the year. But the way it's been structured means i can go towards the end which is fine by me | |||
| ''The University inquiry is covered in detail elsewhere in the article. The intro is about him, not about the shit that's been thrown at him. Give a good reason for including it.'' | |||
| * Replace author of many books and essays with 'prolific' | |||
| ''I don't see how that's improving the sentence. Do you mean "prolific author of books and essays" or just "prolific author"? It's obviously of some consequence that he writes essays!'' | |||
| * Delete highly outspoken, replace with outspoken | |||
| ''Does anyone want "highly outspoken" particularly?'' | |||
| * I am yet to hear a single reason why Bill O'Reilly needs to be in this thing. Isn't he everywhere we turn enough already? The controversy was about the essay not because Bill O'Reilly lambasted, excoriated or terrorised him. | |||
| ''You have had it explained about O'Reilly. Tony, he wrote the essay in 2001 and there was no outcry. He was lambasted by O'Reilly and kerbang! Outcry. Pretending otherwise is no good.'' | |||
| * There absolutely must be some reference to the content of the essay. I have tried so many formulations of words that I have nearly run out. It makes no sense to leave this hanging | |||
| ''Nope. It's fully discussed in the article.'' | |||
| * The expression "kicked off a media frenzy" you would not even see in the New York Post. Maybe the Inquirer. | |||
| ''Suggest an improvement that conveys the same idea.'' | |||
| * I believe the rest of the sentence is OK, I suggested a change to state the University's Standing Committee for Research Misconduct is investigating those matters, which they are according to Denver Post it is a very wide ranging inquiry (code for, they're out to get him). | |||
| ''There is no need to detail what the investigations are, Tony. The article does that.'' | |||
| * Delete "various Native American groups" replace with American Indian Movement. Am not particular enthusiastic about this but think it reads better. | |||
| ''Why? Give reasons for your changes. Convince the interested editors. That has to be the way forward. Just saying "it's what I think" or "it's what I will let stand" will just get you reverted.'' | |||
| There you have it. Bear in mind there are dozens of other changes Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have made without any consultation at all. These changes involve the deleting of facts sourced from respectable media sources. I believe this is probably an even more serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy than the multiple blind reverting that Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have been indulging in. To say nothing of today's vandals. ] 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''If you want to work in good faith towards an article everyone is happy with, you have to realise that you cannot have it entirely your own way.''] 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Fair enough. Am trying to keep changes to a minimum anyway. However all bets are off if the term consensus version is used. It is misused to exclude people with a view different to Viajero's and am not interested in that. ] 04:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it just my browser, or has something weird happened to the photograph? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:16, 22 April 2005
/archive1 /archive2 /archive3 /archive4 by Grace Note 01:19, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've unprotected the page following a request. The editors already warned over 3RR won't be warned again, so please try to reach consensus. SlimVirgin 01:09, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Disagreements about the intro
Okay, anyone who is unhappy with the intro, list your problems in this section. Number them so we can discuss them point by point. Do not revert the article, please. It doesn't solve anything. I will be reverting to the consensus version and I request everyone involved to do the same no more than once a day. Even if it's not your preferred version, please revert to it until this discussion is concluded.
Let's do the intro before we move on to other issues, okay?Grace Note 01:14, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There is a lengthy discussion about intro problems and suggestions (including changing "lambasted" to "castigated") from just a a few hours ago in archive4, why did someone archive an active discussion? zen master T 03:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It hasn't gone away. If you want to revisit the discussion, it's all there. Someone didn't do it. I did. I was bold. I signed and dated it so that it's clear that I did. If you disagree that we should archive it and start the discussion fresh, you can retrieve it all and reinstate it. That's your prerogative as an editor. I'd certainly prefer it to a snotty comment. I don't agree that castigated is an improvement on lambasted by the way. Castigate is far more severe than lambast. It also implies that the criticism is motivated to punish, which would tend to imply that O'Reilly is a fit person to punish Churchill.Grace Note 05:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't snotty, it was pointing out non-standard practice, the current discussion is a rehash of that. And generally discussions active within the last few days (and especially a few hours) are universally left on the talk page when archiving. The problem with "lambasted" is that it implies a physical attack and implies he was deserving of being attacked. Castigated is more neutral in those regards. Fulminated could be the best. zen master T 05:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The discussions active have been going on for a very long time. Some have already had sections archived. Look, reinstate anything you want to. It's really not a problem. I cannot agree about "lambasted". It also means a physical attack. There is absolutely no connotation of its being deserved. It says "telling off" to me. Castigated definitely implies desert to me. It says "you are being punished to me". I could definitely go with fulminated against. It is exactly what he did. It has that idea of denunciation, which is exactly the thing. Grace Note 05:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My suggestions:
- Just call him an academic, he's many other things you could list, it's pointless having a catalog.
Why are those things irrelevant? It's particularly important to mention that he is an author because it is something he wrote that caused the problem. You cannot have your cake and eat it re the Indian tI hing. His ethnicity is only an issue because of his activism in American Indian affairs and because rightists want to use his possible dishonesty about it as cause to sack him
- No problem with second sentence, as long as the University inquiry is mentioned. It seems certain that the inquiry is going to be big news later in the year. But the way it's been structured means i can go towards the end which is fine by me
The University inquiry is covered in detail elsewhere in the article. The intro is about him, not about the shit that's been thrown at him. Give a good reason for including it.
- Replace author of many books and essays with 'prolific'
I don't see how that's improving the sentence. Do you mean "prolific author of books and essays" or just "prolific author"? It's obviously of some consequence that he writes essays!
- Delete highly outspoken, replace with outspoken
Does anyone want "highly outspoken" particularly?
- I am yet to hear a single reason why Bill O'Reilly needs to be in this thing. Isn't he everywhere we turn enough already? The controversy was about the essay not because Bill O'Reilly lambasted, excoriated or terrorised him.
You have had it explained about O'Reilly. Tony, he wrote the essay in 2001 and there was no outcry. He was lambasted by O'Reilly and kerbang! Outcry. Pretending otherwise is no good.
- There absolutely must be some reference to the content of the essay. I have tried so many formulations of words that I have nearly run out. It makes no sense to leave this hanging
Nope. It's fully discussed in the article.
- The expression "kicked off a media frenzy" you would not even see in the New York Post. Maybe the Inquirer.
Suggest an improvement that conveys the same idea.
- I believe the rest of the sentence is OK, I suggested a change to state the University's Standing Committee for Research Misconduct is investigating those matters, which they are according to Denver Post it is a very wide ranging inquiry (code for, they're out to get him).
There is no need to detail what the investigations are, Tony. The article does that.
- Delete "various Native American groups" replace with American Indian Movement. Am not particular enthusiastic about this but think it reads better.
Why? Give reasons for your changes. Convince the interested editors. That has to be the way forward. Just saying "it's what I think" or "it's what I will let stand" will just get you reverted.
There you have it. Bear in mind there are dozens of other changes Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have made without any consultation at all. These changes involve the deleting of facts sourced from respectable media sources. I believe this is probably an even more serious breach of Misplaced Pages policy than the multiple blind reverting that Viajero/GraceNote/Kelly Martin and others have been indulging in. To say nothing of today's vandals. TonyMarvin 04:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to work in good faith towards an article everyone is happy with, you have to realise that you cannot have it entirely your own way.Grace Note 05:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Am trying to keep changes to a minimum anyway. However all bets are off if the term consensus version is used. It is misused to exclude people with a view different to Viajero's and am not interested in that. TonyMarvin 04:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Is it just my browser, or has something weird happened to the photograph? SlimVirgin 06:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)