Misplaced Pages

User talk:DHeyward: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:36, 19 July 2007 editDHeyward (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,753 edits →state terrorism← Previous edit Revision as of 02:43, 20 July 2007 edit undoGiovanni33 (talk | contribs)10,138 edits →From the Democide articleNext edit →
Line 263: Line 263:
|- |-
|} |}

==Your're edit waring against consensus and violating of 3RR==

Since you said you didn't see any consensus on talk, I'll point out the section for you: ] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except yourself--the lone editor Tbetty, who I might add provide any good reasons, or convince anyone (even those who share your POV that you were right). This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of yourself, Mongo, and now Dan. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, your removing it is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed, and reported. I will give you a chance to self revert, first, though (as I alaways do with any editor before making a report). If you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.

Also, I will say this qualifies as distruptive editing since you are editing against consensus, blanking sourced material that a majority of editors support, and agreed to add in the talk page: a total of 16 editors supporting this section and reverting its blanking, with only ONE editor who stated his disagreement. In fairness, Mongo changed his mind later--after it was added and all the work was done-- but was part of the consensus to add the material discussed on the talk page (which is exactly what I added). For you to blank this, is distruptive given this action is against consensus and will just be reverted by others. Again, self revert and I invite him to discuss your problems with it on the talk page and get a new consensus among editors about changes he wants to see in it. I'll respect consensus on the matter, and I insist on the same from others. Your current actions are unacceptable and a violation of policy that I will seek to have enforced.

Consensus to add was clearly established. I even held off after consensus was reached (and editors asked me to now start the section) for a few more days to allow more time just to make sure. To review, we have Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds, Mongo, Merzbow, BMF81, BernardL, Strothra,Seabhcan, Lifarn, Pexise, StoneinTheSky vs. You (and you did not provide any valid reasons that were accepted). Now, while you, Dan, and Mongo, have now decided to blank the section, be clear that it is against the consensus that was reached on talk. This disruptive esp. since its being done by you without discussion on talk for any objections you might have, which can be then addressed. Also, consensus for this is even more clear when we consider that even more editors have shown their support for the section by reverting the blanking, inclding the admin John, Lifarn, Jack Merridew, East718, Pexise,SevenOfDiamonds, and myself. This is not even including the additional editors who showed they accepted it by simply making other edits after it was restored. Do we need a Rfc, about this section, and the best practices for your small handful of editors are now blanking it, and refuse to use the talk page to try to achieve a new consensus? I think this is a very basic issue and you can figure out what it the best way to go aboug addressing any issues you have moving forward. AGain, I give you a chance to self revert now before I report you. Its up to you.] 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


==Move America Forward== ==Move America Forward==

Revision as of 02:43, 20 July 2007


Thursday 26 December04:24 UTC

Please add comments to the bottom.

Barnstar

The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is overdue I believe. MONGO 06:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thanks! I haven't been doing many article edits lately though. Mostly rewriting crap that annoys me or commenting on process stuff. --Tbeatty 06
56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice you soon archived my previous comment re Bald Eagle. I've reverted the second test/vandalism, next time I'll block. Jimfbleak 07:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. I reverted the bird flu vandalism and changed the status from LC to DL. This was legitimate. You reverted to a vandalised version of the article. --Tbeatty 07:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Many apologies, I saw the status change, and in the light of your previous edit, I failed to read further. LC is correct, taxoboxes give global status from Birdlife International, not US status, so I also see how the confusion arose. I'll try to be slower on the trigger next time, Jimfbleak 07:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was a little loopy with the humor yesterday. All serious today though. Taxonomy box allows lots of different status categories. DL appears to mirror the 3.1 cateogries but giving the "Delisted" information as well. Anyway, I didn't know about the Birdlife International standard. I put it up on talk page with the two different boxes. I'd like to learn more about the Birdlife International standard so I will research. --Tbeatty 07:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on sources

Hi Tbeatty,

It may get lost in Stones' lengthy comments, but would like you to consider and answer my question here .

Thanks, ... Kafkaesque Seabhcan 09:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I already answered it. A notable source would have to explicitly make the case preferably in a peer reviewed journal that such action constituted terrorism. It would have to be an explicit and direct statement. It would have to be in the larger definition of terrorism and not a narrowly constructed "personal definition". Not meeting these would warrant deletion even if sourced as it is synthesis. I then gave an example that is unacceptable. --Tbeatty 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

state terrorism

My dear, what edit summary is this link? --Andersmusician VOTE 22:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

que es la pregunta? No entiendo lo que usted está preguntando. --Tbeatty 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
haha, I'm just commenting not asking for anything. greetings--Andersmusician VOTE 04:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiThanks
WikiThanks

for your support in the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in trying to keep the wording as npov as possible. Gtadoc 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a very good article and I hate to see it ruined by agenda editors. Let me know if I can help anymore. --Tbeatty 20:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment on terrorism

"Really? I thought they were giving money to "End the Occupation" and there were calls in England "Bring the Troops Home" and that the British troops were actually responsible for the 200,000 civilian deaths caused by IRA bombings. After all, the IRA wasn't in Ireland until the British invaded. And that policing, intelligence and diplomacy really worked out in Bosnia. When are those troops coming home? And those damn Chechens not respecting their "occupation" either for their own good. And when is the EU going to admit the state of Basque? Can't really have diplomacy with a group that doesn't have it's own state. But I guess it's only really Iraq that's a problem because... well... Bush. --Tbeatty 08:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)"

I don't understand what you're getting at here - my question was actually serious - why do you disagree that terrorism is a law enforcement issue? Cheers Pexise 15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment was in response to an editor insisting that Americans in Boston were giving money to IRA terrorists. Considering that person also criticized the fight against terrorism in Iraq, I was pointing out his hypocrisy. I don't disagree that terrorism is a law enforcement issue and in fact it would be treated as a crime if it occured on U.S. soil as the military is not allowed to act in that capacity due to Posse Comitatus. It is also a diplomatic issue, an economic issue, an intelligence issue and a military issue. Claiming that Europe is successful against terrorism with only "policing, intelligence and diplomacy" is somewhat laughable. Especially international terrorism. From the Lockerbie Pan Am, London Underground, Scotland airport, Mucnich 1972, German Discotheque, Spain ETA bombings, Greece airport bombings, Ethnic cleansing in former yugoslaivia, Chechnaya, etc, etc. Europe isn't particularly successful at dealing with terrorism. In 1986, the U.S. bombed Libya for a european terorrist attack. They stopped after that. Bosnia was occupied in the 1990's to stop the terrorism but before that it was a disaster. Military solutions aren't the only solutions but they are part of a larger strategy that includes all methods. Europe with the exception of the U.K. has all but ruled out military options either due to political reasons or lack of ability. --Tbeatty 16:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Um - well I would argue that there is no military solution to the terrorist problems you mention and the reasons for failures have been failures in policing, intelligence and negotiation. Yugoslavia wasn't a terrorist issue, it was a civil war. What's more, events such as the London Underground bombings are widely believed to have been exacerbated by UK military action in Iraq. Pexise 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you really arguing that Ethnic Cleansing wasn't a form of terrorism? If so, Guatemala was a civil war. Iraq is a civil war. Would you justify terrorist attacks in U.K by Croat extremists because of British peacekeeping forces in Bosnia and "it's a civil war"? I hope not. The reality is that force is sometime required to stop these attacks. That force is sometimes police actions and shooting at the terrorists. And sometimes that force is military when the terrorists are harbored in other countries and hosted by their client states. The Middle East is one big civil war on low boil with various factions and tribes. Religious, economic and tribal wars. It's Shia muslim vs. Sunni muslim, Muslim vs. Jew, Fundamentalist Muslim vs. Secular muslim, Saudia Arabi vs. Al Qaeda, Persian vs. Arab, Palestinian vs. Israeli, Palestinian vs. Jordanian, Ba'ath vs. Lebanese Christian, Saudi Arabian vs. Egyptian, Hamas vs. PLO, etc ,etc. In 1967, Israel crushed Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian forces, not because Israel was fighting an organized coalition, but because each of three rivals were afraid the other rival would grab too much israeil terroritory in victory. Each, in turn, were drawn in because of their rivalry, not their alliance. Depending on which country is lending support to which faction invites terrorist attack. Peace is elusive because alliances that form for one reason dissolve for others. Today's ally is tomorrows enemy. There is no foreign policy today that will eliminate countries from terrorist attack from countries in this region because the alliances are so complex. Even withdrawing support from Israel which is largely regarded as the number one reason for making the U.S. a target will simply shift it to whatever alliances we have. Supporting Saudia Arabia makes us a target. Supporting Egypt makes us a target. Supporting Lebanon, supporting Jordan, supporting the PLO, supporting Iran, supporting pakistan, supporting indonesia, all makes us a target by somebody. "neutral" is not an option because of the amount of money that is involved and the level of exports these countries have. Today's enemy is Al Qaeda and they are the most powerful today. But they weren't the terrorists of yesterday and they won't be the terrorists of tomorrow. They didn't do Munich 1972 or PAn Am over Lockerbie. Abu Nidal wasn't in Al Qaeda. Leon Klinghofer wasn't killed by Al Qaeda. You can rest assured that there will be a new crop of terrorist organizations in the future and undoubtedly it will be tied to some policy the U.S. has today, but it really doesn't matter what the policy is, there will be terrorists. It could be Jordanian terrorists upset that we support Palestinians or it could be palestinian terrorists upse tthat we opposed them.
Second, I am not sure what there is to negotiate. Al Qaeda wants to overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia. They want the U.S. military out of Saudia Arabia. Complying with that would have been extremely problematic for our ties with the other nations in the region especially with an inteact Iraqi regime headed by Saddam Hussein. There simply is no easy answers. But when the other side negotiates with violence (as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran do), violence may be required to stop it.
But back to State Sponsored Terrorism by the United States, I hope that if you stick to your convictions about Civil Wars not being terrorism, I am sureyou will support removing Guatemala and Nicaragua events from the article. --Tbeatty 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm - regarding Al Qaeda, I would say that to an extent you're right that you can't directly negotiate because the aims of the organisation are too extreme and unacceptable, however, I would argue that a negotiated resolution to the Israel/Palestine situation would definitely help to decrease support for Al Qaeda and reduce their global influence.
I would say that Al Qaeda is a policing and intelligence issue, as it seems to be headed by a few charismatic and powerful individuals. Al Qaeda is the result of an ideology and organisation propogated by a few individuals, combined with sympathy for these ideals brought about by the international context in which they preach. Negotiation and sensible policies can help to resolve the problems of the international context, good intelligence, undercover policing, infiltration, international policing etc. is the only way to capture and defeat the leaders. I see no military solution to Al Qaeda, military actions have just stregthened them so far.
Meeting violence with violence is certainly not the solution. Pexise 12:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Except for one big problem. Hamas just attacked the PLO. Neither faction will tolerate a negotiated settlement. As for Al Qaeda, it is a large and complex organization. As you've seen in Iraq, killing the leader does not end the violence or the organization. But as I've said, AlQaeda will be replaced just as Al Qaeda replaced other terrorists. --Tbeatty 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it is peace for our time...Neville Chamberlain. Next time, we should just send bin laden a letter, telling him we are very angry I guess.--MONGO 14:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, as we've seen in Iraq, prosecuting and disposing of the leadership of the Ba'ath party has indeed ended that organisation.
And you're analogy is completely erroneous as there was no open open conflict in Iraq before the government was removed, so saying 'the violence continues' is also incorrect.
As for strange intervention by MONGO: is prosecuting and bringing someone to justice, which is what I'm advocating, equivalent to sending them an angry letter? Well, obviously not, please don't mis-characterise my arguments. Pexise 14:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
First, you have to find and then capture bin laden before you can prosecute him. Sorry if you find my intervention strange. Peace is not always possible, sadly. I strongly doubt that the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds and persecuted Shia's would concur that there were no open conflicts in Iraq before the government was removed. It wasn't exactly like the garden of Eden you know.--MONGO 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, my point was that the current situation of widespread terrorism and anarchic sectarian violence is radically different from the government oppression that characterised the Saddam Hussein regime.
Of course you have to find and capture Bin Laden - this was implicit in my comment. Pexise 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way Tbeatty - responding to your earlier point - what do you propose as a military solution to the London Underground bombings, ETA etc? Bomb Leeds? Bomb the Basque country? These are policing and intelligence issues - as evidenced today by the successful capture and prosecution of 21/7 London bombers. Pexise 17:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From the Democide article

More importantly look at the missing countries.

Genocides and Politicides from 1955 to 2001 From No Lessons Learned from the Holocaust?, Barbara Harff, 2003.
Sudan 10/56–3/72 400,000–600,000
South Vietnam 1/65–4/75 400,000–500,000
China 3/59–12/59 65,000
Iraq 6/63–3/75 30,000–60,000
Algeria 7/62–12/62 9,000–30,000
Rwanda 12/63–6/64 12,000–20,000
Congo-K 2/64–1/65 1,000–10,000
Burundi 10/65–12/73 140,000
Indonesia 11/65–7/66 500,000–1,000,000
China 5/66–3/75 400,000–850,000
Guatemala 7/78–12/96 60,000–200,000
Pakistan 3/71–12/71 1,000,000–3,000,000
Uganda 2/72–4/79 50,000–400,000
Philippines 9/72–6/76 60,000
Pakistan 2/73–7/77 5,000–10,000
Chile 9/73–12/76 5,000–10,000
Angola 11/75–2001 500,000
Cambodia 4/75–1/79 1,900,000–3,500,000
Indonesia 12/75–7/92 100,000–200,000
Argentina 3/76–12/80 9,000–20,000
Ethiopia 7/76–12/79 10,000
Congo-K 3/77–12/79 3,000–4,000
Afghanistan 4/78–4/92 1,800,000
Burma 1/78–12/78 5,000
El Salvador 1/80–12/89 40,000–60,000
Uganda 12/80–1/86 200,000–500,000
Syria 4/81–2/82 5,000–30,000
Iran 6/81–12/92 10,000–20,000
Sudan 9/83–2003 2,000,000
Iraq 3/88–6/91 180,000
Somalia 5/88–1/91 15,000–50,000
Burundi 1988 5,000–20,000
Sri Lanka 9/89–1/90 13,000–30,000
Bosnia 5/92–11/95 225,000
Burundi 10/93–5/94 50,000
Rwanda 4/94–7/94 500,000–1,000,000
Serbia 12/98–7/99 10,000
20th century democides causing more than one million deaths. From Death by Government, Rummel, 1987. Several estimates have been revised after this date: China, the colonial ones, in general.
Cambodia 1975–1979 2,035,000
China (KMT) 1928–1949 10,075,000
China (PRC) 1949–1987 77,277,000
China (Mao Soviets) 1923–1949 3,465,000
Colonialism 1900–Independence 50,000,000
Congo Free State 1885–1908 est C20th 3,480,000
total of 10,000,000
Germany 1933–1945 20,946,000
Japan 1936–1945 5,964,000
Pakistan 1958–1987 1,503,000
Poland 1945–1948 1,585,000
Mexico 1900–1920 1,417,000
North Korea 1948–1987 1,563,000
Russia 1900–1917 1,066,000
Turkey 1909–1918 1,883,000
Vietnam 1945–1987 1,670,000
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000
U.S.S.R. 1917–1987 61,911,000
Selected pre-20th century democides. From Death by Government, Rummel, 1987 .
Christian Crusades 1095–1272 1,000,000
Albigensian Crusade 1208–1249 200,000
By Mongols 14th–15th Century 29,927,000
By Aztecs Centuries >1,000,000
Thirty Years' War 1618–1648 5,750,000
Witch Hunt 15th–17th Century 100,000
Spanish Inquisition 16th–18th Century 350,000
In China 221 BC–19th Century 33,519,000
In Iran 5th–19th Century >2,000,000
In Russia 10th–19th Century >1,007,000
In Ottoman Empire 12th–19th Century >2,000,000
In India 13th–19th Century >4,511,000
Slavery of Africans 1451–1870 17,267,000
In Japan 1570–19th Century >1,500,000
Of American-Indians 16th–19th Century 13,778,000
French Revolution 1793–1794 263,000
Bloodiest dictators for the millennium.Rummel, .
Qing Dynasty,
mainly Empress Dowager Cixi		 1859-64,
Tai Ping Rebellion		 12,000,000
Genghis Khan 1215–1233 4,000,000
Adolf Hitler 1933–1945 21,000,000
Chiang Kai-shek 1921–1948 10,000,000
Kublai Khan 1252–1279 19,000,000
Vladimir Lenin 1917–1924 4,000,000
Leopold II of Belgium 1885–1908 10,000,000
Pol Pot 1968–1987 2,000,000
Joseph Stalin 1929–1953 43,000,000
Hideki Tojo 1941–1945 4,000,000
Mao Zedong 1923–1976 77,000,000

Your're edit waring against consensus and violating of 3RR

Since you said you didn't see any consensus on talk, I'll point out the section for you: ] As you can see, ALL editors on both sides of the fence agreed for its inclusion, except yourself--the lone editor Tbetty, who I might add provide any good reasons, or convince anyone (even those who share your POV that you were right). This section was the end product of all these editors working together, tailored to the various conditions they requested for me to abide by. In addition to this clear talk page consensus, various other editors have supported it in edit summaries, restoring it, once it started to be taken out by the likes of yourself, Mongo, and now Dan. Since this section is well sourced, a product of a majority of editors from different POV's, and supported by a majority of editors working on the article, your removing it is unacceptable edit warring, and will be opposed, and reported. I will give you a chance to self revert, first, though (as I alaways do with any editor before making a report). If you have specific objections to the content, please discuss this on the talk page instead. I'll be happy to discuss any objections you have here or on talk, and if there is a new consensus to remove or making any changes, then we can do so. Until then, you are advised to stop being disruptive to this article.

Also, I will say this qualifies as distruptive editing since you are editing against consensus, blanking sourced material that a majority of editors support, and agreed to add in the talk page: a total of 16 editors supporting this section and reverting its blanking, with only ONE editor who stated his disagreement. In fairness, Mongo changed his mind later--after it was added and all the work was done-- but was part of the consensus to add the material discussed on the talk page (which is exactly what I added). For you to blank this, is distruptive given this action is against consensus and will just be reverted by others. Again, self revert and I invite him to discuss your problems with it on the talk page and get a new consensus among editors about changes he wants to see in it. I'll respect consensus on the matter, and I insist on the same from others. Your current actions are unacceptable and a violation of policy that I will seek to have enforced.

Consensus to add was clearly established. I even held off after consensus was reached (and editors asked me to now start the section) for a few more days to allow more time just to make sure. To review, we have Bmedley Sutler, SevenOfDiamonds, Mongo, Merzbow, BMF81, BernardL, Strothra,Seabhcan, Lifarn, Pexise, StoneinTheSky vs. You (and you did not provide any valid reasons that were accepted). Now, while you, Dan, and Mongo, have now decided to blank the section, be clear that it is against the consensus that was reached on talk. This disruptive esp. since its being done by you without discussion on talk for any objections you might have, which can be then addressed. Also, consensus for this is even more clear when we consider that even more editors have shown their support for the section by reverting the blanking, inclding the admin John, Lifarn, Jack Merridew, East718, Pexise,SevenOfDiamonds, and myself. This is not even including the additional editors who showed they accepted it by simply making other edits after it was restored. Do we need a Rfc, about this section, and the best practices for your small handful of editors are now blanking it, and refuse to use the talk page to try to achieve a new consensus? I think this is a very basic issue and you can figure out what it the best way to go aboug addressing any issues you have moving forward. AGain, I give you a chance to self revert now before I report you. Its up to you.Giovanni33 02:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Move America Forward

You are continually removing the guardian reporter hoax - you say there are no sources. Please let me point them out to you

How did you possibly miss those? --77.98.177.54 14:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ones a blog and none say it was hoax or. It's Original Research to claim the person doesn't exist or whatever the claim is without a reliable source (i.e. no blogs) making it. --Tbeatty 14:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the claim was the it was rumoured that the person doesn't exist. A blog shows that rumours exist does it not? --77.98.177.54 20:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
nope. Not a reliable source per WP:RS. --Tbeatty 21:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetfest

Take a look at the meatpuppet-fest over at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. I've seen meat attacks before, but this one seems to be the mother-of-all-meat-sock-puppet-aloosas. It's so bad it's funny.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)