Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:54, 20 July 2007

Nishidani,

I know this may seem rude, but I think you should make a personal page containing your introduction as it seems a certain editor named Hermeneus considers your account a sock puppet created by me to bolster my argument with him on the Nihonjinron article's discussion page.--Jh.daniell 01:24, 28 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

Dekimasu et al. Re Robin Gill:-

I myself was worried that the article might seem like hype. I'm far more comfortable with the dead! I generated this in order to provide background for the Gill citations in the bibliography of the Nihonjinron article. I have taken the information from Gill's website, and from reading 7 books, some two thousand odd pages. Though he frequently alludes to his life in these books, the allusions are scattered all over the place, and it has taken a lot of time to draw them in. He doesn't even have an adequate curriculum posted on his own site, since he appears too busy to trouble himself about one. If the curriculum is fine, the problem remains of summing up what he is doing, without promoting him. One could just leave a bibliography, of course, but that is not informative, since it is hard to gather from the titles exactly what he is doing, which strikes me as important.

I have adjusted the text, but would ask Dekimasu or others for further precise indications on how to present the material. Biographical articles on contemporary authors vary from excessive, if carefully hidden hype (the most notorious example I know off is the wiki article on Ayn Rand, which is several pages of promotion for the institutions associated with her philosophy), to moderate synopses of works (Le Carré) to simple bibliographies after the CV (Donald Keene and Roy Andrew Miller). I suspect that part of the problem is that Gill, unlike many, is an unknown quantity for academics, save for a handful of specialists, so that merely mentioning him looks like hype. Some way round the impasse must be found, preferably with help from you guys out there, because it would be silly to wait round for an obituary to write up the fact that he is the most productive translator of Japanese haiku in the history of Western studies on Japan, as far as I, who have never met him, am aware.Nishidani 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Munich massacre

Hi! Regarding this edit to Munich massacre, do you have a published source supporting that striking analogy? I have no problem with the text being in there, as long as it can be sourced per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. Please do cite your source, as otherwise the analogy will almost certainly be removed. Thanks! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jonel.

Your remark 'otherwise the analogy will almost certainly be removed' is odd in its peremptory threatening. In the overwhelming number of cases I am familiar with, editors who query an edit that is unsourced post 'citation required' and leave it at that. Will you please explain why my single contribution is to be wiped out because it requires, according to you, a source? If you do go ahead and wipe it out, then you legitimate the application, by anyone, of this arbitrary critierion to every unsourced line in the article, which will only make a mess of it.

The verifiability of the factual content is in the links in the passage I posted, which will send the reader to the relevant facts. (2) The analogy is precise, in that the Munich Massacre consisted of the elimination by terrorist groups of athletes at a prestigious international competition, precisely what occurred with the Posada Carriles downing of the Cuban airline. In the text, nothing that is subjective is asserted, but only factual correlations, and therefore it cannot with any editorial justification be eliminated simply because it happens to be an analogy. I could overcome your objection by simply removing the word ‘analogy’, and rewriting, in perfect accord with the rules again, that the Munich massacre’s terrorist assault on athletes is only superceded by the Cubana airline downing. Would the slight word change alter anything? No. I might add that the quotation from Simon Reeves preceding it is sourced, but demonstrably untrue (nb. Wiki rules state:'Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.'. Reeves has made an exceptional claim, but he is not an exceptional source, since he has no technical qualification in the area he writes about). The Lod Airport Massacre of May that year was far more violent, and costly to Jewish lives. In the relevant Cubana Flight 455 article, that massacre is defined as ‘what was then the most deadly terrorist attack in the Western hemisphere.’

(3) A large part of this article lacks ‘publishing sources’ for each ‘fact’. There is much irrelevant information (that murdered athletes had children is not pertinent, to note but one example, and it is not sourced). I would suggest that if you wish to blue-pencil, go to these numerous passages first, before challenging the ‘analogy’, which you agree is striking. If I wished to annoy or damage contributions by others, I could apply wikipedia verifiability criteria to the article strictly and wipe half of it out. I do not do so because were those criteria applied with relentless mechanical efficiency, no article would ever be written. It is facile for individuals to erase, quite difficult to write consensually. I prefer the latter approach.

(4) Look at the Qibya Massacre and Deir Yassin massacre articles where numerous unsourced and tendentious assertions bury the historically verifiable record, and which is a disgrace to careful neutral historical writing in what it carefully omits. Since it deals with Arabs, these prior episodes can be fiddled down to a minor ‘incident’, understandable in context, though one could find many better scholars within Israel who take these 'incidents' (like El Burj in Gaza which has no article in Misplaced Pages), like Reeves does Munich, as a defining moment in modern terrorism and Arab-Israeli relations. In all cases of an Israeli massacre of Palestinians, the articles have a 'background' that contextualizes the massacre in a prior record of Arab provocations. In the Munich massacre, there is no such 'background'. Personally I am opposed to such 'background' contextualizing, which frames the obscenity, whoever commits it, in some form of retaliatory justification. Wiki articles on massacres are disturbingly partisan (5) To remove an analogy which, you yourself say, repeating my words, is ‘striking’ cannot but strike a neutral observer as aleatory, or make many wonder whether it is not an invasive and unscrupulous use of editorial niggling censoring details in order to maintain the semblance of ‘singularity’ which Reeves’s tendentious opinion has underlined.

Woah, calm down. I guess I wasn't clear: I wasn't saying that I would remove it. I agree with your analysis here of Misplaced Pages's articles on massacres. They tend towards partisanship, there are often major problems with sourcing, and so on. Editing them can be like stepping onto a battlefield. But that's exactly why I expected your addition to be removed (especially with your aggressive edit summary--that was just asking for someone to revert). I also note that my prediction was accurate (). The bottom line here is that no matter how blindingly obvious the comparison is, you'll probably need a source to make any addition stick when faced with those who disagree with you (which you'll find plenty of in any of these sorts of articles). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonel. I can assure you I am quite calm. And not, I think, aggressive. Stern, yes. It seems that when I am voluble in explaining what went on to make me form the judgements I do make, it is taken as intemperate. As you will appreciate, when someone writes 'it will be removed' the impersonal future form in English often functions as a threat or a warning of automatic penalty ('People who deface buildings will be fined' etc). As to people not agreeing with me, and therefore exercising the right of erasure, I fail to see how sourcing the point makes my contribution safer. There is a vast amount of material throughout wikipedia which is sourced, uselessly, because the opinion quoted is not really relevant to the article. In the Qibya article one datum is sourced to the New York Times 1954, with no link, and therefore unverifiable, unless you go to a public library. If you do, and check it out, it turns out that the article was based on reportage of what government spokesmen said at the time to cover up the scandal. But it sits there, unchallenged, as a 'source', a convenient one since it allows the poster to filter in misleading evidence that no historian, in retrospect, would now use.

Sourcing simply means 'I patched this bit in after reading it elsewhere', independently of whether it is appropriate, germane or insightful. The quote from Reeves is demonstrably wrong, since, as I have been now forced to add, the Munich massacre cannot be said to the a defining moment in modern terrorism by any competent student of the subject (I'm ethnically Irish, which gives me some personal feeling for the subject, as the IRA bombed its way through England in the same period). Whoever stuck that Reeves piece in, did so however in order to create the false impression that the Munich Massacre was different from so many other massacres. Since this is not the case, it requires balance. I'd much prefer that the Reeves quote be eliminated, since it is tendentious. If eliminated, then I would be happy to excise my own clarification. But if it stays, it requires a corrective that allows the reader to balance the tendentious perspective purveyed by Reeves with information on the public record which counters its subjective interpretation of the significance of that event. Sorry to be long-winded.

I'm sorry to hear you have so little faith in sourcing. And my initial comment was indeed meant as a warning, but more in the manner of "People who pour grease on fires will get burned" than anything else. A probabilistic expectation of result rather than a threat of penalty; my apologies if you took it otherwise. And now, since I am no student of terrorism and have little interest in getting embroiled in articles on that topic, and since you seem quite well equipped to argue your case, I guess there's not much left but to wish you the best of luck in future editing. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jonel, in response, closing the issue.

It is not that I have little faith in sourcing, but rather little faith in pseudo-sourcing. I could source the statement of analogy I made (Noam Chomsky, “Pirates and Emperors, Old and New: International Terrorism in the Real World,” South End Press, Cambridge Mass. rev.edition 2002 p.99 footnote 8) but I don't think it necessary, because an analogy of this kind does not need sourcing since the given, uncontrovertible facts speak for themselves. I.e. you do not need to, but may of course, source the obvious, put a link under 'is' and refer us to Parmenides, or 'fact' and refer us to the dictionary, as any academic knows. The Reeve quote was sourced, but was a misleading item in that page in so far as it was one of any number of subjective opinions immaterial to the article in question. Wiki cruisers should have spotted that before my intervention. In erasing both Reeve's exaggerated and strategically placed 'quote' I have also eliminated my counter-example. And I think the article's first paragraph gains in lucidity.

1929 Hebron massacre

i found you a clear explanation to the discrepancy, please stop reverting to include false material as if it were factual. Jaakobou 04:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Three-revert rule

You are in serious danger of violating Misplaced Pages's three-revert rule. I suggest you review the policy and self-revert. Tewfik 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me, I hadn't noticed. Mind you, I don't think I am the only one to have engaged in extensive reverting. I will 'self-revert' and then post my version tomorrow. Thanks

Between myself and Jayjg there are only three total reverts - you've reverted far more than both of us combined. The point of the rule is to signal that your position is against the consensus on the page (else yours would have stayed). The solution is not to simply revert back later, but to work things out on Talk, though if you hadn't realised it on your own, I can assure you that charging "censorship" will not end productively. Please self-revert soon (Hertz only repaired the mark-up that you inadvertently broke). Tewfik 18:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, then, I haven't checked, but I take your word for it that I am in violation. Moral. Never play by a 'game' without mastery of the rules. I was trained as a youth to take the scrupulous ascertainment of facts, textual or historical, as a moral obligation, in a community of scholars. Perhaps I fall short of the ideal inculcated into me, though I've never had that charge laid against my academic work. It only appears to function in wikipedia.

Pity, I would have liked to do this on a daily basis, collaboratively, but this is pointless. Without alluding to yourself or jayjg, obviously the rule which convicts me, can be rigged, like any system of rules. You only need 1 revert each by 3 people who agree in disagreeing with a single poster, to make him trip the wire, and have his record marked as a rule violator. Now that you have clarified this rule for me, I can see it militates against day by day work on wikipedia. I'll take it more casually. Indeed I'll drop it, and Sozomenos and the terebinth ritual, and so much else, to my gain - I much prefer reading up history in real books, that being sucked into the subtle politics of editing. Politics it is. What is remarkable about this and so many other sites, is the inability to be informed adequately. It's Orwell's memory hole, under daily revision. Thank goodness the Encyclopedia Britannica, and scholarly journals still exist.

I won't 'self-revert', because I'm too tired to check out how to do that (it's a new word to an old man like myself), so denounce me to the appropriate authorities. I won't resent it. It is the rule, and rules are there to be obeyed. The law does not admit of ignorance.Regards Nishidani 18:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Blaming this on 'politics' seems quite unfair to me, as very specific norms in play across Misplaced Pages are what I have been attempting to preserve. Imagine the mess if everyone could add whatever point they felt was relevant to whatever subject, or the same point to a dozen articles. It is natural human urge that many a contributor have felt, but the result is a mess. We all very much appreciate any new attributable and neutrally presented information you could add to broaden the coverage of this entry, but they must be just that. Cheers, Tewfik 19:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Tewfik

In my opinion, you both misuse the norms, and are incoherent in your application of those norms, often, in my view, abusing them. You never reply to the points raised by those who contrast your judgements, but simply repeat ostensible violations of rules. I am not to cite other wiki pages for evidence. Okay. I remove the link. I note that the remarks on 700 BC seals links to a wiki page, not to an independent archeological document, and, thinking to impose the policy I just learn about, remove it. It is immediately restored, in violation of the principle which I was accused of transgressing. No comment from Jayjg or Tewfik.I have no problem with the evidence. It seems fine to me. But it needs a specific non wiki-source, relating to reliable sources reporting the digs of 1998.

Hence what is not good for the goose is great for the gander. You are both obsessively strict on what you regard as anything that might upset the sensibilities of Kiryat Arba settlers. On this material, the pedantic scruples of pilpul are exercised. You both wasted time, with Jaacobou,dithering anxiously over the 59/67 figure, even though I had a source that fits wiki rules. The ref. at last, was kept, but the figure erased, so that the curious can not see it, but must tramp off to a library to consult the material book. It was suppressed, challenged, doubted, erased, reverted. I will note that in all cases where Arabs are the victims of a massacre,the pages allow at the beginning the issue of disputed figures (see Deir Yassin). In pages, like Hebron, where a dispute exits, this is disallowed. That is incoherent, and your dual failures to address the incongruity show most lucidly your parti pris.

All this finangling amused me, because I was waiting for a NPOV scruple to emerge about the loss of the number of wounded in that other Hebron massacre, Baruch Goldstein's. How many of those wounded, 125, died afterwards as a result? This interests no one. It passionately interests those who wish to confirm the figure of 67, maintaining the difference of 8 is due to fatalities following the 59 apparently killed on that day. The dead and wounded are meticulously defended in one context, the Jewish one, the details in the other disattended to. It doesn't interest you. Go to the Baruch Goldstein site and most of it is filled up with material saying what a decent guy he was to Arabs, testimony coming unilaterally from members of own community who praised his act as saintly, worthy of a martyr, on the day of his burial, and then testified before the Commission, of his respect for Arabs later on! Such are the indignities to truth enacted by a very well planned intent to play the pedant with adversary but reliably sourced information, and close an eye to whatever upsets native prejudice. The partisan POV is structural, in short, as much in what never catches your eyes on a page marked by unbalanced reportage, in the silences of a waved editorial posture, as much as in what you do censor, for no other word fits the behaviour.

Cheers Nishidani 13:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)