Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:25, 4 May 2012

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity

Hi Sean, on the Alan Lomax page you blanked out this paragraph on the grounds that unless backed by a RS it represented a synthesis to connect Alan Lomax with the United Nations:

n 2001, in the wake of the attacks in New York and Washington of September 11, UNESCO's Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity declared the safeguarding of languages and intangible culture on a par with protection of individual human rights and as essential for human survival as biodiversity is for nature, ideas first articulated by Alan Lomax.

In 2006 there was a conference, The Lomax Legacy: Folklore in a Globalizing Century, at the Library of Congress at which one of the attendees was Preston D. Hardison who served on the UN Committee for cultural and biological diversity since its inception in 1995. I don't know this would count as a RS, but I would like to assure you and wikipedia readers that, while it is true that while many anthropologists and biologists shared these concerns, Lomax articulated them before the committee was formed in 1995 -- and was very vocal about them indeed at countless anthropology conferences! It is no stretch to say there was a connection. Mballen (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I blanked it despite agreeing with what it said. It was just me being a policy pedant. The section caught my eye because I was trying to figure why there wasn't anything about ACE. I'm sure we can find some sources that make a direct connection between Lomax and the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity and talk about them together because, as you say, there really is a direct connection in many ways. I'll have a look too. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the ACE document "About Cultural Equity" is fit for purpose and the associated "An Appeal for Cultural Equity" by Lomax could be cited too. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sean --I am relieved to understand that you agreed with the gist of the statement you blanked out but took issue with the manner in which it was expressed. I was concerned about making the article too long - basically. (Also wondered about appropriateness of citing ACE). At least that's my rationalization. Also reluctant, because of other commitments - you know the drill. However, thanks to all this I now have a clearer mental trajectory of Lomax's life and the consistency of his interests, beginning in the late forties with his defiance of the reactionary turn in the nascent field of professionalized folklore studies (the sharp right turn is a matter of record) and his decision to strike out in a different direction from his father and do something theoretical. It is all in John Szwed's book, though that book is so full of detail it is not really brought to the fore. The story of his life is not what maybe I and most other people had pictured, in short. So maybe I will do it, sooner or later. Mballen (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Imperial!

What did you study? ~ Iloveandrea (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Geology Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

If you think that someone is sock

Just file SPI.I think its not good throwing accusation for editing environment. --Shrike (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that I don't want Luke 19 Verse 27 blocked ? I want him to stay out of the topic area (he is topic banned) and to stop harassing editors. Of course it's a sock of Lutrinae/Modinyr editing quite openly from Hawaii without any attempt to hide his IPs. He is easily recognizable. I have told him that if he follows the rules I am not interested in him but he is not getting the message. Perhaps he will get it eventually if I send it enough times without me having to file an SPI so that he can continue to contribute outside of the topic area. I am not interested in whether he pretends to be upset about it. It is all fake, everything. I'm not just throwing an accusation for the sake of it. I know what I'm doing. Please try to understand what kind of personality type we are dealing with and how very difficult it is to deal with them. When it's clear that there is no alternative, I will file an SPI. They will be blocked but you can be sure that they will come back. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Funny staff

--Shrike (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is marvelous...however...

• "Zero0000, the creator of the Machsom Watch article, is a campaigner active across a range of topics on the Arab-Israeli conflict"...this is why NGO Monitor have trouble qualifying as reliable. They couldn't have picked a worse example of a "campaigner".
• Obviously I'm a little annoyed that I didn't get mentioned given that it is very simple to establish the following from highly reliable sources on the internet that have commented on my editing; "Arabist editor", "(biased) administrator", "is a schmuck", part of the "Arab Islamic militant lobby" etc etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think when it was written you was not active.Nevertheless its academic source that printed in academic journal so it may used as WP:RS probably in Academic studies about Misplaced Pages--Shrike (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I guess it probably qualifies for that article. It would be a good source to take to RSN too. The discussion would probably be highly entertaining and interesting. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Something I find curious is that the paper doesn't mention "weight" at all and that there are mentions of "reliability" and "consensus", but no discussion or examination, which I would have thought should have been fairly central. The first mention of reliability comes in a statement about the removal of text which was cited to a reliable source. Investigation shows that the reliable source referred to, was NGO Monitor itself. Not mentioning that seems a little disingenuous to me. Looking at articles written by Andre Obeler (who is CEO of ZionismOnTheWeb.org) I'd say that the credibility of what he says about racism is stretched by the frequency with which he approvingly quotes people such as Natan Sharansky. I see that he thinks that sites such as Misplaced Pages are being used to spread a social acceptability of antisemitic attitudes and discourse.     ←   ZScarpia   16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That paper is a gem on so many levels. Even better, it's already been added to Machsom Watch... I sometimes wonder whether the topic area would be improved if serious editors gave up and switched to just vandalizing articles Joe Orton style. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"NGO Monitor should not be taken seriously", The Electronic Intifada. Entirely accurate, not an RS. Oh the irony. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Presumably, this is the edit where Zero0000 justifies this removal by falsely claiming that he or she “removed unsourced attacks.” When the deletion was done, no source was given for any part of the section from which the sentence was removed. From working back through the version history, it doesn't look to me as though a source ever had been given either.     ←   ZScarpia   18:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look a bit further it carried on with Special:Contributions/Zeq=CAMERA adding this piece of unreliable settlerist garbage, this Ynet article which doesn't support the content and a WP:CIRCULAR cite to Misplaced Pages. Of course he had support. The whole thing from CAMERA infiltration, using trash sources, writing a paper about it etc is pretty repulsive and immoral. Still, gotta laugh. In an ideal world Electronic Intifada would write an article about it and ask CAMERA and NGO Monitor to comment so that the circle of absurdity can be closed. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

CAMERA vs Electronic Intifada again. Glucojasinogen might be a real condition and it has two academical sources supporting it by now, so it would be a tendentious editing to dispute it. See Apollo's talk page discussion: after two generations of Misplaced Pages-inspired Chinese Whispers, people will one day look back at these times of ours and date the beginning of the permanent loss of reliable knowledge in the world to the founding of Misplaced Pages. Go Wikipediocracy.com! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Glucojasinogen case is a really nice example. I hadn't heard of that one. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for the links.     ←   ZScarpia   10:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you clarify what these criteria are which affect your involvement in AE and what is the purpose of your "self-imposed restriction", if you will arbitrarily lift it "when certain specific criteria I use to decide whether to involve myself in an issue are met", meaning there is no 'restriction' taking place at all?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 10:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm let's see, perhaps if you could have been less of an asshole in the way you phrased your question it would have helped. If you had explained how wasting my time engaging with nationalists who bother me about non-content issues benefits the project that would have helped too. But since you asked, if there are sockpuppets present or if I perceive someone to be acting unethically (for example by putting outside interests before our obligations here) or making factually inaccurate or irrational statements, or if there is very clear evidence of content being put at risk by advocacy, the use of low quality sources etc, I am much more likely to comment. I might not though. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are describing is standard practice; that when you consider something important, you are more likely to comment. What I am asking is in which circumstances does the restrictive capacity of your pious self-imposed block actually have an effect, as you appear to be stating that when you are anyway disinclined to comment, then ...gasp...you won't, and when you desire to "thrash" about, you still will? And as for your "nationalist" description then "hmmm let's see". The term usually has patriotic connotations, and since neither my country of birth or residence is in the Middle East, I would caution you against such facile heuristic labelling, although I must confess to being more nationlistic then others.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If you would like further information I suggest you a) explain why I should continue this discussion given that you are behaving like an childish asshole b) why you believe that when you ask for something impolitely you will receive it and c) why you don't examine the AE cases from say 12 February 2012 onwards related to the topic area (there are many) and see if you can figure it out for yourself. I don't understand what your BBC article has to do with me or this issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Sean I ask you to strike inappropriate comment in first line of your last post. --Shrike (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention of complaining about lack of civility as it is understandable for editors' tensions run quite high, when their conduct is being carefully examined. I have no doubt that a man of your experience and background will be intimately capable of identifying a "childish asshole". I have requested this information as you have been asked twice about the exact nature of your 'block' in two separate AE's, which does not appear to have impeded your "thrashing" in any way, and it is to remove all confusion that I seek this clarification. Please can you finally elucidate for all and sundry what I have previously asked, in which circumstances does the restrictive capacity of your 'block' actually curb your editorial behavior?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 13:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, I don't regard it as inappropriate. I regard Ankh's behavior and tone here as inappropriate. Perhaps you should be asking him what he thinks he is going to achieve by behaving this way here. If people come to my page for no other purpose than to cause conflict they should expect to see a selection of colorful words from my native language. There are many others I could have used. Ankh, try to understand that I find you behavior here unacceptable, although I acknowledge your way over-the-line, completely inappropriate, profoundly offensive, completely unwarranted double entendre which I shall let slip because it is quite witty. I have no blocks self imposed or otherwise. There is no thrashing. I have provided you with a list of the criteria. You can see the two (I think) AEs where I have commented, you can see the one (I think) I filed and you can see all of the others where I decided not to comment because they didn't fit my criteria (or I was busy with something else, who knows). I don't have criteria that "curbs" commentary. Not commenting is the default. I have the opposite, specific criteria for commentary. There is nothing pious about it. It is practical and specific. Try to stop acting as if your are entitled to something. You aren't. If you want something from me you will need to behave like a decent person who is here to make the encyclopedia better. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Peace brother, and enjoy the Thai experience.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

re:...settle down, you're deliberately making it even worse. If this is what you regard as legitimate humor you may have been exposed to British culture for too long. It's something you will probably never recover from. The inappropriate comedy scar seems to last forever as far as I can tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

1. On the vital connection between biological diversity and cultural diversity, see the article "In Defense of Difference: Scientists offer new insight into what to protect of the world's rapidly vanishing languages, cultures, and species" (Oct. 2008), published in Seed Magazine: "Last October, when United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released its Global Outlook 4 report, reiterating the scientific consensus that, ultimately, humans are to blame for current global extinctions, UNEP for the first time made an explicit connection between the ongoing collapse of biological diversity and the rapid, global-scale withering of cultural and linguistic diversity: 'Global social and economic change is driving the loss of biodiversity and disrupting local ways of life by promoting cultural assimilation and homogenization,' the report noted. 'Cultural change, such as loss of cultural and spiritual values, languages, and traditional knowledge and practices, is a driver that can cause increasing pressures on biodiversity...In turn, these pressures impact human well-being'".