This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 23:04, 14 May 2011 (→Linnaeus and Watson: re: my three rules of non-engagement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:04, 14 May 2011 by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) (→Linnaeus and Watson: re: my three rules of non-engagement)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives | |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit warring clarification - a month later (let's finish what we've started)
We had a useful discussion at WP:ER, but it seems it died out just as we were about to reach a consensus on implementation. Please see my restart here, it would be a shame to let good ideas go to waste when we are so close to actually making something good out of all that talking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do not think we need any policy changes, but there are two important lessons: (a) one must be extremely careful with reverts, even one revert; and (b) do not edit any articles in the state of active editorial war between multiple parties. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
personal info
Did you want your email revealed in that comment you left? I will ask for someone to oversight it if you didn't. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) /Sign mine 03:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please do. Sorry, I made it by mistake. There was a form that I thought was an email form, but it was not. Thank you! Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Linnaeus and Watson
I don't know about Linnaeus, and while Watson did hold some pretty nasty views, the difference is that neither dedicated their professional lives to "proving" that blacks are inferior to whites. So while a source here or there may mention in passing that one of these two guys held some racist views, most sources on them don't mention that fact. On the other hand, Rushton's "work" is exclusively dedicated to "proving" the intellectual superiority of whites and many many unbiased sources which talk about him describe him as racist. BLP and NPOV does not mean hiding important facts from the readers. You state I think that bringing politics to science is an extremely bad idea and this may be true (I'm not so sure - it depends), but this isn't "science" here, it's "scientific racism" (with the word "scientific" in there not being meant literally).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I never even heard about him before. However, after looking at his fund, I realize that you may me right and changed my comment . But I know a little more about others. Claiming that Carl Linnaeus was a scientific racist is ridiculous. As about Watson, well, one could reasonably argue that he stole his Nobel Prize from Franklin, but "racist"? No, I do not think so. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, with Linnaues, I think it's just strange to talk about "racism" among 18th century people. As for Watson, I think he just made some ill-thought out statements probably reflecting some subconscious old-man's racism. That's way different than dedicating one's life to "proving" blacks are inferior to whites, as with Rushton.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The issue on this article has never been over whether or not it should mention the Pioneer Fund at all, I think everyone agrees that it should. The issue has been whether this should take up as much space of the lead section as it currently does (around 1/4 of the lead), and whether it's appropriate for information that's being presented as criticism of Rushton to be cited to sources which don't actually criticize him. I made a proposal here for how I think this section should be changed, but nobody replied to it. For some reason all of the people commenting in the RFC have been under the impression that I wanted to remove the PF reference entirely, and none of them commented on the actual change I was proposing. Your opinion about my proposal would be welcome.
I also think that if you're going to form an opinion about the PF based on the article about it, it should be based on the article as it existed before Volunteer Marek or Miradre started editing it. Miradre edited from a pro-fund point of view and Marek from an anti-fund point of view, but Marek was involved more recently than Miradre, so the article now largely reflects his point of view. this was the state of the article before either Miradre or Marek became involved in it, which had been stable for over two years, and I think this version was considerably more neutral than the current one.Boothello (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the Race and Intelligence article or the PR article? Either way I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about - The issue has been whether this should take up as much space of the lead section as it currently does (around 1/4 of the lead). On R&I, before I made my addition there was no mention of the PF in the lede what so ever . My addition was a couple words. Likewise in the Phillipe Rushton article, it's just a single sentence. The version of the PF article you link to was a straight up whitewash of a particularly nasty organization. Even in the the part on Draper, a very disgusting fellow, the criticisms is hidden away and weaseled ("He is said to ..." etc.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Rushton article. The lead section of that article is 161 words long, and it devotes 41 words to information about the Pioneer Fund, so this is taking up around a quarter of the lead. Several of the sources for it also don't mention Rushton. Every other time I tried to explain what's wrong with this you either ignored me entirely (as in the comment that I linked to) or said that you didn't know what I was talking about (as you are doing here), so I'm not really interested in trying to have this conversation with you again. However, I would like to get Hodja Nasreddin's opinion.Boothello (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I do not have time for that. I think the intro can be easily rephrased as follows per our WP:BLP policy. But I would suggest to continue this discussion (if you wish) at the article talk page, rather than here, so other people could also take part in this. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Rushton article. The lead section of that article is 161 words long, and it devotes 41 words to information about the Pioneer Fund, so this is taking up around a quarter of the lead. Several of the sources for it also don't mention Rushton. Every other time I tried to explain what's wrong with this you either ignored me entirely (as in the comment that I linked to) or said that you didn't know what I was talking about (as you are doing here), so I'm not really interested in trying to have this conversation with you again. However, I would like to get Hodja Nasreddin's opinion.Boothello (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek undid part of your change to this article. I changed one aspect of his new wording, which was stating an opinion as a fact, but I'm also unsure about it in other ways. As I mentioned here, several of the sources that it's citing are sources that don't mention Rushton at all, but in the past when I've tried to replace these with sources that criticize him directly, I was immediately reverted. Would you mind taking a look at the current wording, and whether you think it's acceptable in a BLP article?Boothello (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You probably do not know it, but I was already sanctioned by Arbcom, although in a different case. Hence I follow several self-imposed rules: #1 Do not edit any articles in a state of active editorial dispute between multiple parties (this is waste of time, although commenting or making a single compromise edit may be acceptable). #2 Never revert other editors back if they reverted your edits. Start talking to clarify the situation if it is not already clear. Go edit other articles if consensus can not be found after brief discussion. #3. Never report other users at AE/ANI. If others started something, comment in a reasonable and neutral fashion. Based on that, there is nothing I can help in this case. Sorry. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
FYI
I mentioned you here. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please take it easy. Nothing happened. I voted. That's OK. She made this comment. I think she misread my intentions and tried to explain this to her in the most civilized fashion . She deleted my explanation because she does not want to continue this discussion. That's fine. She read it. I personally feel very comfortable talking with you, with her, or anyone else. But it seems that you guys do not feel comfortable talking with each other. So, I think you should not talk or comment about each other. But if you really want to comment about someone, please comment about me. I honestly do not care, beyond politely explaining my intentions. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are really taking it easy, aren't you? It is probably the way to go.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, everything is cool. If someone does not want to talk, this is fine too. In such cases, one should not try to continue conversation or interpret refusal to talk as a sign of bad faith. I can see only one problem: the inappropriate use of project talk pages by several people (I do not mean you). If they want to discuss policy changes or DYK nominations of specific articles, that's fine, but do not criticize anyone personally. There are user talk pages and AE page to discuss behavior problems. But they already criticized that person at AE page and even get her topic banned, did not they? Why do not they just drop the stick? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Good songs by Kochetkov, Egorov and others I am listening right now. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Hodja, as one of your friendly talk-page readers, I went back and tried to improve the discussion at W:TDYK saying "I also urge that we discuss policy proposals without pointing to individual editors whose behavior would have been forbidden if a new policy A or B had been in force. The point is not to embarrass individual editors who were acting in good faith to create and nominate articles they thought would benefit DYK, and we should avoid hurting the feelings of other editors if we can." On the other hand, I think one should WP:AGF that GatoClass used names in his examples of DYK behavior that should be forbidden to demonstrate that such behavior is, in fact, occurring. In response to a challenge to document tag-team endorsements at DYK, I documented quite a few similar patterns but did not post any of them publicly except one small fraction at GatoClass's talk page. I am glad you raised your concern here on your talk page, and I'm glad I saw it. By the way, you can easily send me email via my talk page. Nobody's goal was to be hurtful, IMO, and anyone who did want to pick up sticks would take them to AE, RFCU, or WQA. betsythedevine (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can not agree. Such problems must be resolved not by focusing on contributors ("a challenge to document tag-team endorsements"), but on improvement of content. Simply look at an article and evaluate if it was appropriate for a DYK and never ever mention contributors at this page. That is exactly what I did . And that was a response to my comment. Grossly inappropriate as focusing on contributors, to tell it softly. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "challenge to document tag-team endorsements" is here; my earlier statement (which was being challenged) tried to make the point that the problem is not one contributor behaving badly but many different contributors behaving in a way that gives examples why our policy needs a change. You disagree that our policy needs a change, and so the final consensus, whatever it may be, will not be unanimous. betsythedevine (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I still believe that looking for "tag-teams" everywhere is extremely damaging for this project and sometimes amounts to witch-hunt. And I also believe that almost all problems can be resolved by focusing on the content rather than on criticizing contributors. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have to concur, about "but many different contributors behaving...", that is merely escalating talking about editors as opposed to content. I am tired of editors calling more than one editor who disagrees with them a tag team, meat puppets, etc. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 21:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)- Agree. "Tag-team" are any two like-minded editors who work in the same area. Or maybe they even work in different areas, but sometimes have a friendly conversation and occasionally watch each other to tell: "hey, I agree/disagree with something you are doing". If this is treated as crime, no wonder why people are leaving this project. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have to concur, about "but many different contributors behaving...", that is merely escalating talking about editors as opposed to content. I am tired of editors calling more than one editor who disagrees with them a tag team, meat puppets, etc. PЄTЄRS
- Sorry, but I still believe that looking for "tag-teams" everywhere is extremely damaging for this project and sometimes amounts to witch-hunt. And I also believe that almost all problems can be resolved by focusing on the content rather than on criticizing contributors. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "challenge to document tag-team endorsements" is here; my earlier statement (which was being challenged) tried to make the point that the problem is not one contributor behaving badly but many different contributors behaving in a way that gives examples why our policy needs a change. You disagree that our policy needs a change, and so the final consensus, whatever it may be, will not be unanimous. betsythedevine (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I can not agree. Such problems must be resolved not by focusing on contributors ("a challenge to document tag-team endorsements"), but on improvement of content. Simply look at an article and evaluate if it was appropriate for a DYK and never ever mention contributors at this page. That is exactly what I did . And that was a response to my comment. Grossly inappropriate as focusing on contributors, to tell it softly. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Hodja, as one of your friendly talk-page readers, I went back and tried to improve the discussion at W:TDYK saying "I also urge that we discuss policy proposals without pointing to individual editors whose behavior would have been forbidden if a new policy A or B had been in force. The point is not to embarrass individual editors who were acting in good faith to create and nominate articles they thought would benefit DYK, and we should avoid hurting the feelings of other editors if we can." On the other hand, I think one should WP:AGF that GatoClass used names in his examples of DYK behavior that should be forbidden to demonstrate that such behavior is, in fact, occurring. In response to a challenge to document tag-team endorsements at DYK, I documented quite a few similar patterns but did not post any of them publicly except one small fraction at GatoClass's talk page. I am glad you raised your concern here on your talk page, and I'm glad I saw it. By the way, you can easily send me email via my talk page. Nobody's goal was to be hurtful, IMO, and anyone who did want to pick up sticks would take them to AE, RFCU, or WQA. betsythedevine (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- P.S. Good songs by Kochetkov, Egorov and others I am listening right now. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, everything is cool. If someone does not want to talk, this is fine too. In such cases, one should not try to continue conversation or interpret refusal to talk as a sign of bad faith. I can see only one problem: the inappropriate use of project talk pages by several people (I do not mean you). If they want to discuss policy changes or DYK nominations of specific articles, that's fine, but do not criticize anyone personally. There are user talk pages and AE page to discuss behavior problems. But they already criticized that person at AE page and even get her topic banned, did not they? Why do not they just drop the stick? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You are really taking it easy, aren't you? It is probably the way to go.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Almost all problems can be resolved by focusing on content rather than contributors; not ALL problems can. There is at the moment great disharmony over some issues at DYK that could be solved either by a policy change, or by all the people who are upset suddenly not being upset any more, or by some other method I haven't thought of. The point of improving policy is to end the fighting at article after article with some impersonal rules. I agree that "tag-team", a commonly used shorthand way to describe editors who share a POV and work on the same article, is not the best way to talk about editors who share a POV and whose participation at DYK includes praising or confirming one another's articles. betsythedevine (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have any particular POV about Nazi Pilots (the DYK I commented about), and I did not know any of the people involved just a couple of months ago. But I now have a strong POV about DYK noticeboard as a place that needs to be avoided. Could we please stop this discussion as something hardly productive? Thanks, Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Almost all problems can be resolved by focusing on content rather than contributors; not ALL problems can. There is at the moment great disharmony over some issues at DYK that could be solved either by a policy change, or by all the people who are upset suddenly not being upset any more, or by some other method I haven't thought of. The point of improving policy is to end the fighting at article after article with some impersonal rules. I agree that "tag-team", a commonly used shorthand way to describe editors who share a POV and work on the same article, is not the best way to talk about editors who share a POV and whose participation at DYK includes praising or confirming one another's articles. betsythedevine (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
<--Bowing and exiting, but let me just say that I absolutely did not consider Hodja Nasreddin to have any POV about Nazi pilots, nor did I take any part in incidents that led to this thread. I was purely responding to your comments about several people proposing policy changes. betsythedevine (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)