Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mocctur (talk | contribs) at 09:13, 16 October 2012 (Undid revision 518081704 by RJFF (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death and Funeral of Otto Von HAbsburg

How can a picture of a sarcophagus of an ancestor more relevant than the picture of the dead man him self ?????????????????

There is a separate article on the man with lots of pictures. The article on the funeral is complementing the biographical article, so no need to use all the same pictures. A picture from where he will be entombed (which is a world famous crypt and major tourist attraction in Vienna) is highly relevant. Mocctur (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too.

Second: Austria and Hungary wasn't one state but two state, linked by personal union due to the monarch: Francis Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.61.209 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, but I'm aware of this. Mocctur (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Master

The problem with the rationale for your statement is that the Duke of Kent is an anomaly. Most Grand Masters are regular people who are not otherwise notable, and as a matter of fact, the Grand Master pro tem is the one who actually does everything on a day-to-day basis at UGLE. Therefore, I do not believe that your addition is representative of the position at all. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the United Grand Lodge of England is probably the most important grand lodge in existence, and a look at the list of the GMs of that grand lodge and its predecessors shows that high nobility and royalty are very strongly representented over a very long time until this day. Also in other European countries the GM was often a royal or even the King himself. In the European tradition, the GMs are definitely not "regular people who are not otherwise notable". Even in the case of non-royals, they are usually prominent people who are notable in their own right. The Duke of Kent has been the UGLE GM for almost fifty years, and there has never been an UGLE GM who was not a royal or a peer. I don't understand how this could be interpreted as an anomaly, it's rather a prominent and characteristic example of the situation in Protestant Europe. Mocctur (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are accurate, if you limit your scope as you have. UGLE works its own way, as does every other jurisdiction. However, Freemasonry has a worldwide scope, and for example, the third oldest jurisdiction isn't in Europe (and I'm not so sure the UK is really Europe either), but the United States (namely Massachusetts) and as such, there are 50 US state jurisdictions that have nothing to do with nobility, and where the Grand Master serves for only 1-3 years (which was the case in the early years of UGLE). So I see a 50-1 leaning in favor of no connection to royalty whatsoever just in that context. Moreover, there are many new GLs being formed today in Europe where there is also no royal connection. So it really is a statistical anomaly to have a GM who is royalty and serves for life. MSJapan (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why it should be a problem to mention how things work in several European countries. The article is short, and should be expanded upon. Nobody has claimed that American Grand Masters are royals, but it's noteworthy that many European are/have been for a long time. More material on how things work elsewhere would also be welcome. Mocctur (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it causes bias, which is to be avoided because it leads to skewed articles. Given that Freemasonry is worldwide, to limit things to a "few European countries" pretty much skews the article in that direction, which is not accurate. Moreover, nothing is by any means "standard"; every jurisdiction sets its own rules as to how the Grand Master is elected and how long he serves. Hence, we have avoided elaborating on the issue. MSJapan (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Freemasonry started in Europe, where many of the oldest organisations within freemasonry are found. The article is short and should be expanded, not be kept short on purpose (see Misplaced Pages:Wiki is not paper). In an article on this office, it's highly relevant to mention that this particular office was/is often held by royals or monarchs in some countries on the continent where the office and freemasonry evolved. The article only has a short paragraph on this. Expansion on the different practice in America and elsewhere would be most welcome. Mocctur (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Since this is a collaborative editing process the use of edit summaries is a big help to other editors. Please consider using them all the time, and especially when deleting material or tags.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. This edit is unhelpful. Please do not repeat it. --John (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not attacked anyone as anyone reading the comment on that deletion review page are able to tell. Citing policy has nothing to do with "personal attacks" and if a personal attack had taken place, it would somehow involve another person (a target of the alleged "personal attack"). Whether you disagree with WP:IDONTLIKEIT as a policy is irrelevant. Please do not post fake warnings on user talk pages to gain an advantage in content disputes you are involved in and to bully editors who cite policy you may or may not agree with. If you disagree with the policy, take it up elsewhere and obtain consensus to change it. Your comment above constitutes a personal attack against me as an editor and an abuse of a warning message in order to attack an editor holding the opposite view as yours in an ongoing deletion review (where incidentally your position is a minority position and my position seems to be the consensus position and eventual outcome of the review). Please do not repeat it. Mocctur (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, this edit constitutes a personal attack and I strongly counsel you not to repeat it if you wish to retain your editing privileges here. Be warned. --John (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I warn you again against making false allegations of personal attacks when there are none as proven by the diff you provided, in order to harrass an editor holding a different opinion than you in an ongoing deletion review. I find that your behaviour is an attempt to influence an ongoing deletion review by harrassing editors with opposing views with frivolous allegations of non-existent personal attacks. If you continue to harrass me and/or abuse warning templates, I'll initiate a request for comment against you. I also take note of the final decision in the deletion review, which did not go your way despite your behaviour. Mocctur (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

2012 adorno award controversy

hi mocctur, i appreciate your notnews and soap, but it is news, and the award itself is the controversy, not just butler receiving it. there are three RS given, and i can find plenty more. (only chose three as i think it is sufficient). one of those outspoken was an official diplomat. other sources include: http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,16225396,00.html and wall street journal europe: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443921504577641351255227554.html - please self-revert, thanks. Soosim (talk) 12:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

You posted the exact same text in Butler's bio. We don't need to have the same text in both articles. Butler was awarded the Adorno prize specifically for her work on gender theory, as someone who is cited tens of thousands of times in Google Scholar. Her views on Israel (which are hardly controversial or particularly uncommon in Europe) have nothing to do with the prize. Flooding the article on the prize itself with the opinions of right-wing Israelis, i.e. not a widely held opinion, on a matter that is completely irrelevant for the prize for Butler's work on gender theory, is inappropriate. If there is any notable controversy relating to Butler it belongs in the Butler biography, not in articles on any prizes she might receive for unrelated reasons. Mocctur (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

to your points - if she is mentioned in both articles, then the criticism can be in both. her views of israel are very relevant since that is indeed part of the reason she received the prize (see the berlin jewish museum controversy, for example). and since both she and the prize are turning up day after day in RS with criticism, it belongs on both. Soosim (talk) 06:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)