Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:45, 22 March 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Xenovatis, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Καλωσήρθες! NikoSilver 21:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

CrCulver (who is now banned forever)

I'm no anti-hellenist, I'm simply trying to ensure women and minorities are represented here. Since the Slavs and women were in an inferior position in the Greece of ca. AD 850, Sts Cyril and Methodius' Slavic identity inherited from their mother Maria should be emphasized here. And by the way, Lunt has written quite a bit over his career, but you should be able to tell from the accompanying references what exact book-length work of Lunt's I was pointing to. CRCulver 09:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your noble pretentions ring hollow when coupled with the abscence of facts that accompanies them. For their mother's descent you have only mentioned the Vitta but you have (1) not supplied any direct quote, (2) not anwsered my objections on it as a historical work detailed in the Cyril talk page, (3) not attempted to disprove the sources by actual historians explicitly stating that they were Greek, (4) not anwsered my argument that following your logic there can be no limit on the inflationary tendencies of multiple identification again detailed in the Cyril talk page. As for Lunt again you have (1) not cited book chapter and verse as I have done, instead vaguely asserted that he supports your position, (2) this as I have shown (by citing an exact passage) is false sinceLunt himself explicitly calls the brothers Greek. Further (3) Lunt, like the other OCS linguists you mention is not a historian and hence not the expert to be consulted in determining a historical fact such as the brothers' ethnicity. Finally please follow up this discussion on the Cyril talk page so that other users may follow the exchange of arguments as well as so that it is in context within the framework of the Cyril and Methodius discussion. I will be copy pasting this segment to Cyril Talk for completeness. Please respond there. Xenovatis 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Xenovatis, whatever your opinion of user Crculver, comments such as this are poor form. It is kicking him while he is down. He has already been blocked ... there is no need to provide further comment. Please try to remain civil. -- Pastordavid 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about the below comment. I, unlike CrCulver, never resort to adhominems and personal attacks, nor and this is important, do I ever use profane or innapropriate language, again unlike user Crculver. Please see below. Any further comments on your part on this subject are superflous. I would like to point out that I have faced such behaviour (mechanical edit warring without a single edit at the article's talk page) from user Crculver my self. I hope he will be sufficiently chastened this time not to engage in such antisocial behaviour in the future. If he doesn't it is at least good to know that he has been exposed as an antisocial element by other users as well. Xenovatis 19:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Xenovatis 10:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing personal

In the Pontic Greek Genocide article, I want to get it right, and avoid a massive amount of fighting. I have nothing personal against anyone- I try my best to keep all of the articles as bias-free and as neutral as possible. I know of many scholars who have certain tendencies and personal views who join various organizations that have an agenda, and I think if we stick to the facts, we can fix things. I fully support the existance of this article, and wish to see it succeed as I personally believe it did happen. However, my personal feelings have nothing to do with the actual sourced material. WP:OR here is just not permitted :) Monsieurdl 22:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Let's resolve this before it degenerates into revert war 1. Do newspaper articles constitute reliable sources per WK:RS? No. 2. Article is wrong on assertion since almost all EU countries have much higher book per capita book publication rates. 3. Article is also wrong on number of books in France (very doubtfull that '05 figure would be about 30% lower than '96 one, see trend in Unesco page). Additionaly the wording "published every year" just shows the person who wrote it is clueless. This is not a correct average (see Unesco statistics) and it's doubtfull it is even a correct figure for '05. 4. In light of the above I propose removing it completely per WK:RS. Xenovatis (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course newspapers are reliable sources. Haaretz is used all the time as a source. How do you know that almost all EU countries have higher book per capita rates?

Which article is wrong about France? SlimVirgin 06:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, this would be better on the article talk page. Moving it there. SlimVirgin 06:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyril

Thanks for your work to merge Cyril into Cyril and Methodius. -- Evertype·✆ 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind of you. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

PGG references

I suggest you add those references inside the article instead of the talkpage. Add all those that call it a "genocide" next to the ones that already exist there. You may also wish to expand the article Academic quotes on the Pontic Greek Genocide. NikoSilver 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do Niko. Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Xenovatis, you acknowledge there is a dispute over the title, therefore please do not unilaterally remove these tags, this achieves nothing as they will simply be reverted. Unfortunately I have barely had enough time to log on in the past few days and have not yet been able to make a proposal but will make one in the coming days. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Genocides in history

Please see Talk:Genocides in history#Ottoman Empire (Turkey) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Chameria, Chams, Cham issue:

Hellenic Institute of Strategic Studies (HEL.I.S.S.) On Chams. 1700 convictions as war criminals & the legal frame of the whole situtation,Chart of cham crimes & collaboration....By P.Laggaris major general of the antiterrorist service . Megistias (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think it passes WP:RS and it is in Greek not English. Do you happen to have any academic sources? Perhaps we could do something with those even if they are in Greek. I am particularly interested in Manta's new book that Kalyvas has written about, it is supposed to be quite good on the subject.Xenovatis (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Vaskania1.jpg source

Hi, it would really be helpful if you could provide a link as to where on the web you found the image. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Did so as per your request. Feel free to delete if still not compliant as I have removed it from articles in advance. If it stays I will reinsert into articles. Apologies about that and thanks for your time.Xenovatis (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

talk:Pontian Greek Genocide

With reference to your posting to my talk page Your refusal to compromise, it is not clear to me over which specific items you think I should compromise. Most of what we have talked about is part of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. To date other than adding back a template, over which edit warring got the page locked, I have never edited the page.

Your comment about "the matter of altering the lead to reflect only one reference" is not something I thought was needed. What I suggested is done is was that genocide is not used in the passive narrative voice -- this is similar to the idea behind the use of WP:TERRORIST -- but it also has the advantage that the events can be described using sources other than those that describe the events as genocide. You have not explained why you are opposed to not including genocide using the passive narrative voice, because if you try it you will find that you can still include all the information that you wish to include, but the article will not be seen as taking a specific stance on the term. I have given a number of style tips that other Wikipedians have found useful in this area. Like "writing for the enemy" and let the facts speak for themselves which should help you see the approach I am suggesting using.

I admire your tenacity in digging out lots of references claiming that "it was a genocide" but I think the time and energy would be more constructively used digging out facts about what happened and creating a section on the events and a timeline to go with it.

Xenovatis, please don't misunderstand me. I appreciate you engaging in this conversation because it shows good faith. I think it is a pity that some of the other editors of this article are not as willing to engage in a constructive discussion. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:

Philip, I will reply to your points in detail in a minute but for now a quick question if you please. Do you consider that the term genocide applies to the Armenian Genocide? You are intelligent enough to realize I am not being wilfull or obtuse here and that there is a good reason I am asking this question.

I am not qualified to judge and have no wish to do so. Neither I am not discussing the merits or otherwise of whether the Turks committed any other genocide. What I am discussing is presenting the arguments from a neutral point of view and letting the facts speak for themselves. You will see from my edit history that I have spent a lot of time working on various genocide articles, I have done this not because I am particularly interested in the subject, but because I think that many of the articles in this area are very badly written and that many editors would rather push a POV than write a balanced article.

I would point you to this ARBCOM ruling Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia. While this article does not fall directly under that remit -- because it is outside the Area of conflict -- it highlights the problems of that passionate nationalist feelings cause. These are by no means restricted to the countries at the eastern end of the Med. Similar problems also occur other regions as well -- just have a look at the talk pages of Liancourt Rocks in that case the comment in WP:LAME#Places and other things "Serious Wikipedians (of Japanese or Korean) may even choose to make these rocks their place of residence (living there not required!) to bolster their case." I would not be surprised if it is true! --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)