Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 19 December 2005

Conspiracy theory

Hello Peter, I agree and could use your assistance on Talk:Conspiracy theory to help convince our fellow wikipedians that we need a definition that sufficiently disassociates and clearly explains how the phrase's discrediting works. Currently, I am pretty much the only one advocating radically changing the definition or signifying the foundation of the phrase's discrediting potential. zen master T 04:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that there was also a proposed project to change the names of articles that used "Conspiracy theories" in the title to a more neutral point of view. There are two ways of looking at this, and I think they should both be represented. One is that the current use of the term is almost always used in a derogatory sense and therefore cannot be NPOV. The other way to look at it is that terms should mean exactly what they say, even if they have been used in a derogatory sense to change their meanings. --Peter McConaughey 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but I think the phrase is perhaps tainted beyond repair given the genre/derogatory sense. If the "conspiracy theory" ostensibly dubious genre still exists it makes it way to easy to discredit something by structuring language to use it in a discrediting or de-advocating sense. Even though I think I know how "conspiracy theory"'s disrediting works I would read someone else saying "This theory is a conspiracy theory!" as implying dubiousness (though I could then fault that person for using confusing language apparently to trick people). I have done a first attempt at fixing the Conspiracy theory intro/definitions/meanings, let me know either way. Additionally, I think we should mention the possibility the "conspiracy theory" genre is disinformation in the intro somewhere with more details below. zen master T 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, the intro you came up with on Conspiracy theory is great and thanks for taking a look at it. I may be confused or misunderstand but I don't think "...and that it presents only the facts and factoids that support its case" is accurate, are people that use it pejoratively really arguing "theory X presents the issue one-sidedly", I interpret them to be subtly saying "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration". Also, did you catch my check in comment about the word "term" which seems to imply the phrase is an adjective or is descriptive (perhaps illegitimately)? I suppose "conspiracy theory" is a term but that just doesn't seem 100% neutral to me, but your version is still 100 times better than anything I came up with, thanks again. zen master T 05:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. Several people have tweaked it since and I agreed all of their updates except "sometimes" instead of "often." "Sometimes" is still within my tolerance level, but I honestly think that most people use the term pejoratively, thus making "often" more fit. However, I will consent to the will of the majority on that.

I don't think anyone is trying to say "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration." If someone said that to me, it would peak my interest in theory X. Whenever I ask someone why they consider something to be a "conspiracy theory," it boils down to arguments of POV or ignorance.

Your case against use of "conspiracy theory" as part of a title is a no-brainer. You don't have to argue that "conspiracy theory" is not a term in order to win your title argument. You merely have to appeal to common sense. Misplaced Pages must be NPOV in order to be credible. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" in the title is obviously making a biased statement about the subject. Nothing more needs to be said about it. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see that calling something untrue or doubtful where there is no proof either way, is POV. These editors aren't so stupid that they don't get it. You don't have to keep explaining it to them. They know very well that they are violating Misplaced Pages policy by placing POV in the title and they think they can get away with it. To get away with it, they merely have to get you so riled up that you break Misplaced Pages rules. Will their strategy work? That is entirely up to you. Patience and the assumption that most editors are here on good faith will win the day. --Peter McConaughey 20:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the current intro doesn't directly mention the "narrative genre" at all so it's kind of hard to disassociate things when an incomplete and needlessly commingled definition is present. My point is: discrediting usage of "conspiracy theory" is effectively saying "theory X is so ridiculous as to be unworthy of serious consideration" at a very subtle subconscious language level. If the counter critic of a theory is successful in getting you to unquestioningly accept their categorization of the theory as an "ostensibly dubious story" instead of as a scientific allegation it eases discrediting (you won't even examine the allegation expecting facts, evidence and a logical argument). Given the fact that numerous[REDACTED] articles titled with "conspiracy theory" currently exist are you saying[REDACTED] editors lack common sense, or they know they are POV pushers? I am afraid I don't buy your "them" vs "us" dichotomy, the new majority seems to think it knows exactly what it is doing and also seems to want to preserve the charade. Though, having said all that, I am open to any assumed-good-faith suggestions and assistance you have to offer for going about fixing "conspiracy theory" generally. zen master T 22:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears from your comments in Conspiracy theory talk that you adamantly believe that "Conspiracy theory" should not be added to the names of arguments in their title. Your adamancy on this topic leaves little doubt that you consider your stance to be an absolute truth. You are no longer considering other viewpoints because your mind is made up. At this point, your only objective seems to be of convincing others of the truth. Yet, other people can't seem to see it. Why is that? There are only four possible explanations:

1. You are incorrect. (Given the fairly obvious evidence, I don't think is the case.)
2. You haven't explained the evidence in enough detail. (Given that your explanation runs for volumes, I think it's safe to discount this possibility as well.)
3. The people you are explaining it to are dense. (Given the brilliance of their articles, this theory seems absurd.)
4. Those that oppose you are promoting interests contrary to what they belie. (Even though this explanation is hard to imagine, it's the only one left. If you discount the other options, you must allow that this small, powerful group is conspiring to discredit these articles.) --Peter McConaughey 00:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In number 4 do you mean "those that oppose you are intentionally using 'conspiracy theory' to cover up certain subjects"? I "imagine" that quite often and easily. What is odd then is why there are seemingly less and less people openly opposing those that do that. Though in an opposite way, it seems very odd that Slim, Willmcw, and Jayjg and others do not revert the current intro of "conspiracy theory" -- eventhough the definition is incomplete the current intro does a very good job of indicating how the phrase discredits (maybe they have yet to notice?). I remain skeptical and surprised by all this in equal measure. zen master T 00:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that most people stay out of it because claiming that there is a conspiracy theory over the definition of conspiracy theory sounds kind of silly. --Peter McConaughey 00:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't your #4 above a conspiracy theory to use "conspiracy theory" to discredit? If someone is consciously using the confusing language of "conspiracy theory" to discredit surely they would also want to defend and keep hidden the mechanics of that language confusion? zen master T 01:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Peter, it my interpretation the intro of Conspiracy theory has suffered a significant neutrality setback, but your interpretation is your own, please help us resolve this dispute. zen master T 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

American Terrorism

Please stop reverting this article. The American Terrorism article was not deleted; it was moved to Terrorism by United States of America. Please contribute to that article if you'd like. Restoring the American Terrorism article through cut-and-paste is actually a violation of the GFDL because the edit history no longer exists there. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Carbonite | Talk 15:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"American terrorism" is documented and cited as a widely used term. There was no consensus to delete, rename, or redirect that article. It is against Misplaced Pages policy to make up neologisms like Terrorism by United States of America. It is also against Misplaced Pages policy to delete, rename, and redirect articles without consensus. I will not give my "cooperation" to people who are violating Misplaced Pages policy. --Peter McConaughey 15:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The place to dicuss moving the article back would be Talk:Terrorism by United States of America. What absolutely can not be done is to have the old article exist at a location (American Terrorism) without edit history, because the GFDL requires us to attribute edits. Again, please note that the article was not deleted. Carbonite | Talk 15:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Talk:Terrorism by United States of America is a joke. You made up that neologism and I will not support it. You renamed "American Terrorism" to your made-up neologism and then changed the definition, essentially deleting the original article. You can claim that you didn't delete it, but the effect is the same. Do you think people are so dense that they can't see what you're doing? People like you who ignore consensus, force their will on others, and justify their actions through misdirection, are the reason that Misplaced Pages fails to live up to its potential. --Peter McConaughey 15:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down for a second. I didn't create the article or the talk page. I didn't rename the article. I didn't delete or move the article. I did remove the vast majority of POV and original research that made the previous version quite unacceptable. In fact, the previous version of the article was essentially created to prove a point. Before you start ranting, at least get your facts straight. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The straight fact is that you helped hijack an article without consensus. Politically correct or not, the term "American terrorism" is widely used to mean terrorism perpetrated by Americans. The "descriptive sentence" that you and your cohorts made up is not used by anyone to mean anything except as misdirection to hide the fact that Misplaced Pages rules were broken, that an article was effectively deleted without consensus. --Peter McConaughey 15:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Have to agree here -- this is all looking very high-handed. Was the article kept or not? Do I get to redirect any article that survives an AfD, literally minutes after the vote is concluded? What possible "consensus' could there be for such a move? Please clarify, Carbonite. BrandonYusufToropov 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not following you here, Brandon. This seems rather straightforward. The article wasn't deleted. A majority of editors favored outright deletion, but consensus wasn't reached. By default, the article was kept. The article was moved to a new title (not by me), with the history 100% intact. It was restarted as a stub (by me) and is looking like a real article now, only hours after the AfD closed. That's great progress as far as I'm concerned.

Do you think an article should be moved to a new title without consensus? --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I know it is annoying when they (admins) move articles suddenly. Still at least they did not delete it. It happened to me with a page i had just made and then he copyviod it, and i did not know that i had to give the url of the legitimate source do it got deleted.Dolive21 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Before joining, I read quite a lot about the setup of this website. According to what I read, the administrators are only here to make things go smoothly. They aren't our bosses, at least from what the policies say. I though that someone was just being heavy handed at "American terrorism," but you seem to be saying that this sort of thing happens all the time. If that's the case, I had better apply to be an administrator to keep people from taking advantage of me. --Peter McConaughey 21:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you disagree with the title change, you're certainly encouraged to discuss this at Talk:Terrorism by United States of America. However, I don't appreciate the tone taken by Peter and I'm quite surprised that you're agree with him. Carbonite | Talk 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Would a tone more respectful of your position be agreeable? --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Peter: Re: Chaosfeary, please e-mail me at your convenience at yusuf.toropov@gmail.com. BrandonYusufToropov 19:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I think everything should be above board and where people can see it. I don't agree with editors reaching conclusions about other editors behind closed doors. For that reason, I don't list my email and I don't write other editors. The paranoia is bad enough around here without also adding an element of secrecy. --Peter McConaughey 20:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I hear what you're saying, and certainly respect your position. Above board, then: Certain editors are best compared to a bad skin rash. Unfortunately, there's very little admins are actually willing to do to stop them, even when the sockpuppetry and vandalism are painfully obvious. People like you and me are left to deal with their duplicity on a practical level, and we are often targeted for expressing views forthrightly. Short message: Don't expect much to change, but do keep in touch. I'll file the 3RR thing if you want. BrandonYusufToropov 22:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your working with me on this. I don't consider Chaosfeary to be akin to a skin rash, but I do think it is all of our jobs to keep each other in line. Everybody wants to rule the world, but we don't want anyone else to rule it. Chaosfeary is testing his boundaries and it is our job to let him know that they aren't any bigger than that of anyone else. After he figures that out, I think he will be a positive force at Misplaced Pages. Thanks again for taking the time to help this process. --Peter McConaughey 22:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

K.D.

What a sad, romantic story. SlimVirgin 19:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. I didn't know if condensing thirteen volumes of journals down to a few paragraphs would get any of the feeling across. --Peter McConaughey 20:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

American or US terrorism

G'day Peter,

I've taken a look at the issues with the page names. It looks like the page was originally at American terrorism, then after just barely scraping through AfD it was renamed Terrorism by United States of America. At which point you objected to the new title, and started a duplicate article at the old location. Am I close?

Okay, there's two things to bear in mind. First of all, the article has not been deleted. It still exists. It's even possible to move it back, although a little more difficult and needing admin help. Secondly, any duplicate – or duplicate-sounding – content will be and should be merged into the original article; hence, the redirect. Rather than try to create a second article that attempts to say the same thing as the original, you're better off trying to convince people through rational and calm argument that the article should be moved back. Heck, if you can manage that, I'll move it myself. What's not a good idea is you and User:Chaosfeary constantly attempting to undo one-anothers' edits.

Happy editing, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. When a crime has been committed, the last thing you want is for the perpetrators to benefit from the crime. The most important action to be taken is that of restoring the damage that was done through the use of illegal activity. In a civil society, concerns of punishment are secondary to that of fixing the problem.

In this case, User:Chaosfeary has been punished with a 72 hour block that could become indefinite, but the damage he did has not been reversed. By punishing the user while allowing the crime to continue, we are telling editors that they can ignore the rules at Misplaced Pages in any heavy handed way they want and that, even if they are caught, the results of their criminal activity will remain.

In this case, we can undo the damage simply by restoring the "American terrorism" article. The article needs a great deal of work, of which I am happy to oblige, but the term "American terrorism" definitely exists in usage and has nothing to do with the made-up "umbrella term" "Terrorism by the United States of America" --Peter McConaughey 15:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, I don't know the details of this dispute, but I just read your post (I was the admin who blocked Chaosfeary, so I was interested to read what you were saying about it), and I think I have to take issue with your view that the term "American terrorism" exists in usage. I've been unable to find any neutral, reputable source who has used the term. If you google it, many of the references are to sentences like "American terrorism study," meaning a study of terrorism by America. The sources that use the term the way you want to use it are highly partisan. We can't start naming articles the way Fisk and Chomsky might prefer. Also, usage of the term "terrorism" is increasingly frowned upon, especially in titles. Palestinian terrorism was changed not long ago to Palestinian political violence in order to avoid the stigma and loaded nature of the word "terrorism." SlimVirgin 15:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Slim, you may have missed this on the AfD, but there are many many many references like those offered below. It is manifestly mainstream, and far better sourced on this front than many other comparable WP articles.

Examples of published mainstream use of this term, in this context

War on Terrorism and the Terror of God

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

by Lee Griffith - 2004 - 399 pages

Page 81 - ... Walzer's description of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as American terrorism cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a pacifist. ... ]

Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

HarperCollins

by Sean Hannity - 2004 - 352 pages

Page 166 - ... militarist leaning' in the US media, and what he described as the history of American terrorism in Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, ... ]

Race Matters

Beacon Press

by Cornel West - 2001 - 144 pages

Page vii - 'The unique combination of American terrorism—Jim Crow and lynching—as well as American barbarism—slave trade and slave labor—bears witness to the ... ]

Increasing use in news media too:. BrandonYusufToropov

Even if you are dead set against the existence of the article, I think you would agree that it should be deleted through an AfD, not through renaming and redirection without consensus, as was done by Chaosfeary. --Peter McConaughey 15:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey hey

Sorry, I got annoyed and left yesterday before you left that message. I think it's too late now to file a complaint. Sorry! --Irishpunktom\ 09:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. User:Chaosfeary has been blocked for 72 hours. Now we merely have to undo the damage. --Peter McConaughey 15:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

If that comment about becomin an admin was directed at me ... well, let's just say I pretty well shot down any chances of that long ago. This place is a bureaucracy like any other, and I'm too $%^&* blunt with bureaucrats about things to make nice to win any support for that job. (I lost a vote a while back, and things have only gotten more polarized since then.)

You, on the other hand, are direct and relatively polite when p****d off about manifest trollery, so I think I'd be more inclined to nominate you at a suitable time. Interested? (BTW, if you are, don't self-nom, it doesn't look great if things don't fly and you want to try again later.) BrandonYusufToropov 13:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not be interested in becoming an admin to balance the POV of the other side. However, I would be interested from the standpoint of maintaining neutrality of articles and fairness for all members.

Thank you for your generous offer. Let me know when you think the time is right. --Peter McConaughey 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should revisit this after final resolution of outstanding questions at American terrorism. And you're right, the whole point is to maintain neutrality and fairness. That's why I voted for User:Ramallite and it's why I would be proud to nominate and vote for you. Peace, BrandonYusufToropov 15:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

September 11th

I've restored the graf as clearly superior to the blatantly biased graf. Assertions that the graf is worse than the previous version display bad faith bording on outright dishonesty. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 22:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I added an NPOV section tag instead. Let's talk about this in the discussion area. Your points are correct, but your methods are not encyclopedic. --Peter McConaughey 22:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

No personal attacks please, and your accusations are complete garbage - I have stated facts - Bush claims the war in Iraq is part of the war on terrorism. The DoD tracks it separately and it was authorized under a separate vote from the congress. What people think of those facts is up to them, but, as noted, critics claim Bush's statements are ridiculous. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 17:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that my reversion of your contribution was a personal attack. I realize that it can feel that way. I agree with your information, but the format has to be different in order to be included in Misplaced Pages. An encyclopedia entry is stated as information, not as an argument. An encyclopedia entry is assertive, not aggressive. An opinion is considered only as strong as the source. Of course you consider yourself to be a strong source. In your mind, people only need to fact-check assertions by seeing that you said it, but those who don't know you might want to draw their own conclusions. They might want sources to the information that you used to draw your conclusions. I personally know that you are right because I have researched it extensively myself, but most people reading your conclusion will not have researched it. They want proof in the most concise form possible, not unsubstantiated assertions. --Peter McConaughey 18:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Misplaced Pages

In case you don't have it on your watchlist, I've removed the proposals section you've written, as I don't believe it should be part of the article. It could be part of something else, but not an encyclopedia article. (Followups to the the article talk page.) JRM · Talk 18:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you know as well as I that the entire article is against WP:Point. It was written to lead the reader to one conclusion: that Misplaced Pages should be run as a despotic system. Anything that gives a viable alternative to that extreme POV is deleted, but the WP:Point article itself remains. Welcome to the cabal. --Peter McConaughey 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it, in full unawareness of any past deletions that may have occurred (were there?). I'm not a cabal, I'm one person, and I'm happy to defend my own decisions, and reverse them when necessary. The section you added was deleted not on grounds of offending some cabal, but on grounds of being an essay.

I'd be the last person to claim that article is a bed of roses. It's got more problems than my dog has fleas. That said, buying your dog a collar is easier than editing an article that's mired in Misplaced Pages's own culture. Be that as it may, adding your own views to an essay-like piece to provide balance is still not encyclopedic.

This article is not disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. That's something else entirely. You can argue that this article violates NPOV, and you're free to raise the neutrality issues on the talk page. A lot of things in there are completely unsourced and may very well be impossible to source without running afoul of Misplaced Pages:Avoid self-references, but I won't say it's impossible.

I've been shouting for months now that we need to rewrite this thing, but the task looks big and terribly ungrateful, so I've been shirking away from it. If you want to help improve it, please. You're very welcome. Tear the thing apart on the talk page, demand sources for statements, whatever. But Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and two wrongs don't make a right. Do the right thing. Also see the comments I made on the deletion debate. JRM · Talk 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "this article is not disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point," is your contention that it is not disrupting Misplaced Pages, or that it is not illustrating a point? --Peter McConaughey 20:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Both. You want WP:WWIN and WP:NPOV for articles. WP:POINT applies to actions undertaken by individuals. JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There, I just changed it so that it applies to cabals as well. --Peter McConaughey 21:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Very helpful. I'll just wait for someone else to revert that, since I wouldn't want to look partial or anything. I'm sure anyone who comes across it will be able to exercise common sense and recognize it for what it is. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone using common sense would see how it fits, but I agree that the cabal is probably on the way. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ahh, right on schedule. Carbonite reverted it with the following comment: "groups are made up of individuals, thus if all individuals in a group follow the policy, the group follows it" --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say that "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, and two wrongs don't make a right," how did you make the choice about which self-referencing "wrong" to delete? --Peter McConaughey 20:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's easy. Delete that which is not verifiable, delete that which is written as an essay, reword and source that which is not neutral, and above all collaborate with others in doing it. I already said why I deleted your section. If you have problems with what remains, state them on the talk page. If you believe that what you wrote was not inappropriate per our article guidelines, also state that on the talk page. If you believe I was totally baseless in removing what you wrote and brighter minds should judge, reinsert it. I will not revert, per the 1RR. JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Delete that which is not verifiable, delete that which is written as an essay" - Thanks for the invitation. ...don't mind if I do. --Peter McConaughey 21:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I bet I forgot to mention that common sense, while not policy, is still a good idea as well, right? But I'm sure you wouldn't undertake anything too radical, like blanking the article. Oh, and don't forget that if it's not verifiable, a good idea is to move it to the talk page and demand sources, rather than outright removing it. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like someone should take his own advice. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Unverifiable statements and essays are different things. But, for the hundredth time, this is what we have talk pages for. You don't need to convince me what you wrote was not an essay and does belong in the article. I am no more an authority than anyone else. If you are want me to apologize because I ruthlessly removed what you wrote rather than trying harder to find some way to keep it in, no problem. I honestly wish I discussed it with your first, and I'm honestly sorry I didn't. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's mighty big of you, but unfortunately, I can't revert it because I'm a member of the WP:0RR. --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, a noble initiative indeed. I'm pretty certain that's irreconcilable with WP:BB, though. JRM · Talk 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

When you say, "I'm not a cabal, I'm one person," and "I deleted it," is that different than the way any member of a management cabal would delete things? --Peter McConaughey 20:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. Do the members of the management cabal generally engage in open discussion? Do non-members of the cabal delete things in a different way? JRM · Talk 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that the WP:1RR sounds like a very non-cabal thing to do. --Peter McConaughey 21:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

If you were hoping to get in a good old revert war, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. JRM · Talk 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You can always spot a cabal member by the way he preaches what he doesn't practice. --Peter McConaughey 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You're being antagonistic because you disagree with my actions and the way I justify them, which is your good right. This back-and-forth personal sniping serves no purpose, however.

Since you seem unwilling to engage in any editing to make this thing go anywhere, I'll start by reverting my removal and highlighting the problem with your addition on the talk page. I'd like to point out someone else expressed doubts before me. JRM · Talk 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JRM, I think it's best that we bring up solutions as well as problems. For instance, in this NYTimes article, not only are problems brought up, but Jimbo also has some interesting solutions that are worth talking about. --Peter McConaughey 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Solutions which have been very long in the making, at least as far as the idea of reviewing goes. Misplaced Pages 1.0 was the first conception of that, I believe. JRM · Talk 04:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

9/11

This belongs more on an individual talk page than on article talk. If you advocate NPOV terms I'd suggest substituting service members for servicemen. I joined the Navy because, as a woman, it was the branch that let me get closest to the action. I wore three rows of ribbons by the time I returned to civilian life. Durova 22:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll make the change. --Peter McConaughey 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

I abhor the barnstar thing but were you (and your cabal) to stop preserving NPOV here then WP would be a much worse place. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 09:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Image Vote

Image:BoycottWikipedia.jpg Please vote to keep my image on Misplaced Pages. You may voice your opinion on whether or not to have the image deleted at . I also wanted to let you know that it looks like my WBC personal subpage will remain on Misplaced Pages.--JuanMuslim 22:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Impressed

Hi Peter, I'm impressed by your remark about civilisations going down the drain because the meaning of words is messed with so that a term supposedly doesn't mean anymmore what it says. What was it based on, or were you just exaggerating to make a point? Harald88 22:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Every great civilization has a Noah Webster, who expanded American vocabulary by over 20,000 distinctly different terms, or Shakespeare, who used 29,066 different words in his plays. The works of Webster and Shakespeare give us terms to efficiently convey and combine complex ideas. The movie Writers on the Borders shows, first hand, what happens when ideas and concepts have no method of conveyance. In Palestine, language has been perverted to where each word means several different things and most of those meanings are pejorative or complimentary. Even terms that referred to distinct periods of history were confused with subjective connotations of good or evil. As a result, those who had a definitive language, who were able to coordinate and express ideas, were easily able to control and manipulate the much larger pre-1948 Palestinian population. While Muslims like to blame the effective exile of 84% of the Palestinian population on help by the United States, our arms sales have very little to do with it. The truth is that Palestinians enabled a physically weaker Israel to take over by failing to keep their language pure.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this "Hollywoodization" of language affect our ability to communicate in the United States as well. Thousands of words that used to convey distinct information are now nothing more than synonyms for "good" or "evil." We are actually fighting a war based on a term that means anything our president wants it to mean. "Terrorism" in the minds of most Americans means nothing more than "evil violence" because its definition has been so distorted. While wasting trillions fighting something we can't define is a tragedy, an even bigger catastrophe is that we have no method to discuss the real root of the problem. The concept that used to mean "terrorism" no longer has a word associated with it. We don't have a term that means, as Webster put it, "a mode of governing, or of opposing government, by intimidation." We can't discuss that concept as a distinct idea because we can no longer count on "terrorism" meaning Webster's definition in the minds of those with whom we are communicating.

If we could discuss the concept and ramifications of "Webster's terrorism," we could form working historical models and proofs of where such philosophy works, and where it doesn't. We could predict, beforehand, if a method of governing by intimidation would succeed in Iraq or if our efforts there would lead to our slinking home with our tails between our legs. We could look at why bin Laden's methods of opposing our external jurisdiction were so effect that they led to our wasting two trillion dollars since 9/11 and creating legislation that circumvents our most sacred Bill of Rights.

Why does terrorism work on us and not on them? We can't find the answer because we can't ask the question. And we can't ask the question because "terrorism" doesn't mean anything any more. Just like Palestine, the United States is ripe for a take-over from the inside. Our failure to keep our language pure is enabling a physically weaker force to control and manipulate us. --Peter McConaughey 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I have no opinion about your claim about what happened to the Palestinians, but I agree with the language problem: I don't mind if language is enriched, but I strongly oppose it when words are so much abused that people start to deny its true meaning for it's indeed very impractical -- stupid is what I call it.

Thanks, Harald88 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to the Kurds, the Shites and the marsh arabs who lived under the tyranny of Saddam. Tell that the Saddam's two son-in-laws, the dead Iranians from an agressive war he waged against them in the 1980's. Tell it to the Kuwaitis and his own poeple, at least 1 million of them gone, no trace left or heaped in a mass grave, one of 300 mass graves scattered all around Saddam's "eden".--MONGO 04:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about confusion of the language and how the same thing led to the downfall of Palestine. What are you talking about? --Peter McConaughey 05:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the rant above. What the heck are you talking about! Look out...Bush and the U.S. are going to lead us down a path of ultimate ruin!:-)--MONGO 05:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush is a politician. Politicians always try to make up rules, but just like the WP:0RR, those rules only have power over us if we buy into them. Otherwise, they are just words. We can't blame Sensenbrener and Bush for what's happening to our Bill of Rights. They are only two people. The USA PATRIOT Act, the War on Terrorism, and every other act of despotism created by our federal representatives only has power if we believe in it. If these things to destroy the United States, we have only ourselves to blame. --Peter McConaughey 14:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter...here's a revelation for you...you are NOT a conservative...name one instance in which the Patriot Act has adversely affected your life...--MONGO 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The USA PATRIOT Act circumvents the minimum civil guarantees that this country was founded upon. It is an attack against the most important part of our Constitution, the only part that was written by the people: our Bill of Rights. We become the greatest nation on Earth because we so jealously guarded our personal freedom. Tens of thousands of people have died protecting these liberties from enemies both foreign and domestic. We spit on their graves when we give our most sacred liberties away to the USA PATRIOT Act. Anyone who supports the destruction of our Constitution is a traitor to our country and a enemy of our people. Along with millions of others in the armed forces and higher levels of our government who have made similar vows, I promise to protect the Constitution of the United States of America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, with my fortunes, my life, and my sacred honor. --Peter McConaughey 22:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Where am I going to be suspended to?

and your edit summary "Restore to FT2. MONGO, you are clearly in violation of the WP:0RR. If you continue, I will be forced to "move the name of the violator to the 'Suspended' section." You have repeatedly violated this "rule" yourself as I can clearly demostrate through your edit history. I've been around here awhile so I'm interested in seeing what you think the "Suspended" section is...move the name of the violator? Violate what?--MONGO 04:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:Zero-revert rule clearly states that "Upon detecting a rule violation (i.e., reverting anything instead of discussing the revert), any member in good standing may move the name of the violator to the 'Suspended' section." Since I am a member in good standing and I have detected that you broke the 0RR, I can move your name to 'Suspended' section. Once you are there, you will not be considered a member in good standing by the 0RR, so you will not be able to suspend my name, unless of course, you make a preemptive strike in anticipation that I might suspend your name. But in that case, you would be in violation of the no-preemptive clause of the 0RR, which will state (after I add it) that a member who is preemptively suspended just to avoid suspending another member shall be free to take his name off of the suspended list. --Peter McConaughey 04:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

THAT is some funny stuff Peter...you actually made me laugh!:) Are the reverts you do over mine, in which you also have reverted without discussing why, place you automatically in the naughty corner? I mean, since you are a member and I am this POV edit warring thug, shouldn't you be held to a higher standard?--MONGO 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Peter, you have made numerous edits to the September 11, 2001 attacks and they are mostly close enough in the text to make your edits well in excess of the 3 revert rule. I never block anyone I am in disagreemnet with, but I do not hesitiate to report such violations. I politely ask you to refrain from editing the article in the same manner anymore for at least 24 hours. You can add or subtract from other sections of the same article if you feel that you must, but be careful not to engage in an edit war over sections.--MONGO 18:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You know as well as I that I am editing the article in good faith to find a compromise, MONGO. I haven't even violated the 1RR, let alone the 3RR. Please stop using your administrative power to intimidate other editors. (See also Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO/Evidence) --Peter McConaughey 18:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You need to read WP:3RR. I am NOT abusing admin powers...if I did block you, that would be abuse. Anyone can report another editor if they violate 3RR, yourself included. It is a resource designed to prevent edit wars, not as a form of punishment and my reminder was simply that...a reminder.--MONGO 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I recognize the WP:0RR as my rule set. I make every effort to never revert someone else's work. I recognize them as contributors and their contributions as valuable.

Now, when a heavy-handed member of the Cabal, like User:Carbonite, starts trying to enforce his POV on an article through reverts and aministrative threats, I have been known to restore the damage he causes, but undoing a revert supports the spirit of the WP:0RR, which is a much higher law than the WP:3RR and the one that I follow. --Peter McConaughey 19:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You certainly do have some eccentric views. Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the POV pushing isn't coming from the evil Cabal? Carbonite | Talk 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because I haven't discovered any other members of the Cabal yet, doesn't mean that they don't exist. It is technically possible that you're working alone, but that would be giving you much more credit than I care to bequeath at this juncture. --Peter McConaughey 19:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of the Cabal...but I guess since I have only heard of it, I must not be a member. I am pretty much a stand alone...sort of like good ole Peter.--MONGO 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All chess pieces are pawns in the sense that they are equally controlled by the outside player. zen master T 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:BITE

Regarding this. That was a snap judgement, sorry. Should have thought more carefully (I blocked the account for his username , but interaction has shown me that he is a good faith contributor). Anyways, I'll try to think a bit more carefully in the future, and thank you for pointing out my mistake. Cheers, Sean|Black 02:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Complaint

Due to your ongoing efforts to combat me...I have opened Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Peter McConaughey/Evidence.--MONGO 20:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

LMAO Good luck with that. --Peter McConaughey 20:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem with me?

You seem to have some sort of vendetta against me, to the point that it appears you've started Wikistalking me. It may come down to the fact that we have different views of Misplaced Pages. You seem to have a conspiracism worldview, while I think accusations of cabals and conspiracies go a bit too far. I also think your claims at RfD are some of the craziest I've seen. You get some points for imagination, but zero for accuracy.

Listen, you're certainly entitled to whatever opinions you wish. If you'd like to believe that I'm part of some cabal that runs Misplaced Pages, go right ahead. But the harassment and accusations need to stop. There's already numerous civility violations on your part, but I'm quite willing to put them in the past if you agree to stop this harassment campaign. Let's end this. OK? Carbonite | Talk 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You were doing pretty good until you got to the threats. Asking nicely works better. Want to try again? --Peter McConaughey 16:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats? I'm offering to put everything in the past, provided you stop your harassment. How is that a threat in any way? Carbonite | Talk 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Antisocial personality disorder is identified through a patient's inability to socialize with peers in a context outside of rewards and punishment. In extreme cases, the patient doesn't even realize that he threatens people. When I see people being treated as dogs, I try to stay as far away from the situation as possible. I certainly don't follow you around. Also, I never adopt vendettas against people I feel sorry for.

Carbonite, I want you to know that help is there if you want it. All you need to do is reach out.

We care. --Peter McConaughey 17:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)