Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 16 September 2008

Red links

Thanks for the message. No worries, OK? Bolivian Unicyclist 01:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Human rights

Hi Raggz, I see that you've started lots of very valid discussion points on the Human rights talk page some of which pertain to material I wrote in May 2006. At the time I did not satisfactorily reference my sources but will endeavour to track them down and add them to the page where relevant. Please be patient while I do this. thanks Andeggs 17:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

Hi Raggz,

I just wanted to thank you for your rational approach on the Gilad Shalit talk page, and apologize for undoing your description of the semantic argument. I do greatly appreciate your efforts there to come up with a reasoned approach (even though I don't think that was the best one); this controversy has been going on for too long already for something as minor as it is, and I regret having to report Pedro for 3RR. Hopefully we can come up with a good compromise after he's unblocked, and I hope to contribute to that with you. :) Daniel/_T+ 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For what it's worth

I've looked over your edits and you do seem to be trying to edit in good faith. Don't let the various wild accusations tossed your way get you down-- that 'allegations of terrorism by the US' article is long overdue for some pruning and cleanup. You may wish to consult WP:SYNT as it most definitely applies to that article. Jtrainor (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Raggz (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

United States of Europe article

If you have material to add to an article, please read the article first, then decide where it should go. Specifically, you should not just bung your material at the beginning of the article. --Red King (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz... I have left a defense.

Hey Raggz, as you are the editor of the highest degree of integrity that I have witnessed in my limited time here, and seeing as how a handfull of butt-mites have chosen to use me to attack you (relegating me to status of "non-person" I guess), I have left an honest defense in your name. I hope it serves you rather than hurts you... but in this topsy-turvey place, I really can't know if I hurt or helped. They may use it as proof positive that I am your sock, and not myself. "See! Your sock is now defending you! You knew nobody would ever be on your side, so you invented a defender!" I can hear the little voices screech.

You can find my defense here: Defense of Raggz

Today I was called a liar for saying to someone that it appeared to me that we were in agreement on one small point. What kind of screwed up place gets you called liar for citing agreement? My friend, if I may call you that, I have discovered that all I have been doing in this "freely editable" encyclopedia, is dealing with endless bs. Not sure if I have actually changed a single word. Oh, I take that back. I managed, with several billion words of argument, managed to get one word changed: "Results" was changed to "Status". This is my crowning achievement... for which you get credit, really, as everyone thinks I am you anyway :-)

This signals my departure. May it help you. I may peek in occasionally to see if you are still in hot water for inventing me. My suggestion is to call for a.... "CheckUser" I think it is. How you stomach all this crap is beyond me, but I respect your tireless efforts. Your work to improve the Wiki has great value in my view. This place could use a bunch more like you.

Be excellent.

Ryder

Ryder Spearmann (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Positive attitude

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions I wanted to leave you a note thanking you for your lovely spirit of collaboration, and for the lovely compliment you left regarding my contribution on Human rights. Phyesalis (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Response

Please read response on my talkpage.- Gilliam (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

hostages

I suggest you list down the GC notes on here: . Jaakobou 06:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, an editor has recommended asking about or recommending policy over to WP:IPCOLL. Good luck :) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

Hi Raggz,

A diff is a page that shows the difference between two versions of an article or discussion page. For example, this is the diff for the last message you left on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sideshow_Bob_Roberts&diff=186772467&oldid=186760006

There are two easy ways to link to a diff for a particular edit:

1. The first is by going into the "history" of the article or talk page involved. (The "history" is a list of all the old versions of a page.) Down the left-hand side, you'll see two columns of links: "cur" and "last". "last" shows the changes that were made in that particular edit. So to get the diff for your last edit to my talk page, I went to User talk:Sideshow Bob Roberts, clicked on the "history" tab at the top of the page, found the edit I was looking for, then clicked on the "last" link along the left hand side.
2. The other way you can find a diff is by going to a user's "contributions" page. (This is a list of all the edits a user has ever made. You can find this page by clicking on "contribs" after the user's name in the history page.) Again, there are two columns down the left-hand side: "hist" and "diff". Clicking on "diff" will give you the diff for the relevant edit.

You don't ever need to worry about radio buttons unless you want to use a single diff to summarise several edits.

Hope this helps. If you have any questions, see Help:Diff or leave me a message. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dishonesty

You asked what lie I want you to stop telling. I wasn't referring to any single lie in particular, but to your tendency, whenever we have a dispute, to make a bunch of false claims about me without ever citing any evidence. For example:

1. You've repeatedly claimed that "There are many examples of reportable misconduct by Sideshow Bob Roberts but I have not reported him". This is simply not true. When I asked you for evidence of "reportable misconduct", you said you weren't interested in listing evidence.
2. You've repeatedly claimed that I'm a "clandestine pov warrior", that I've been using a "citation strategy" to do my "pov warrior thing", and that I censor criticisms of the International Criminal Court. You've even suggested that I work for the ICC. This is all absolute nonsense. I've responded to this more than once by noting that I've added plenty of criticisms to the ICC article, but you've completely ignored my defense and you continue to make this false claim. I've repeatedly explained that I have no problem with criticisms of the ICC — the reason I've deleted so many of your claims is that they were wrong or blatantly inappropriate. (Even you must accept by now that many of your claims were completely untrue.) As I said before, when someone says you've got something wrong, you need to listen to what they're saying and seriously consider whether they have a point, instead of just immediately assuming that they're motivated by a political agenda.
3. You claimed that I've recently been following you to articles I hadn't edited before. This is not true. I asked you to cite one example of this but, as always, you ignored my request for evidence. (And this isn't the first time you've accused me of "wikistalking" without providing any evidence.)

You've made countless other false claims about me — for example, that I called the UN Charter "nonsense", that I disagree with the UN Security Council , and that I "revert without communicating". You inexplicably accused me of a "memory lapse". These claims are all completely untrue, and they're particularly frustrating because you never provide diffs, so other editors can't see whether you're telling the truth or not.

As I said before, you should never, ever make a negative claim about another editor without providing diffs so that everyone can see whether you're telling the truth. And if someone accuses you (as I frequently do) of lying about another editor, you should either provide evidence to back up your claim or apologise.

And any time you quote me or anyone else, you should always provide a link so that other editors can see whether you're accurately reporting what we've said.

If you can agree to this, maybe we can begin to work together productively. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

My initial response (I have not yet read your diffs) is that we have an initial agreement. "As I said before, you should never, ever make a negative claim about another editor without providing diffs so that everyone can see whether you're telling the truth. And if someone accuses you (as I frequently do) of lying about another editor, you should either provide evidence to back up your claim or apologise." We agree on this.

There is the problem that I have tried to produce diffs and have not yet managed this. I can however, cut and paste. :There is such a large amount of material now "under the bridge" that I would prefer not to go evidence hunting, but would prefer to summarize from memory. If this doesn't work for you, perhaps I will turn to archeology. You have deleted text that had a reliable source without consensus. If the text violated policy, then it was proper. At those times I did not believe there was a policy violation. In the case of the UN Charter I was incorrectly using a primary source and did not recognize the distinction, a point that you vigorously addressed. We both were frustrated. At times you stretched the limits of WP civility policy, which violated policy, but I recognized the difficulties to be partly my responsibility, (perhaps primarily) so I ignored this. In the end the vitriole reached an intolerable level. I felt and still feel that you arbitrarily deleted valid criticisms of the ICC that had reliable sources, and that this violated policy. If you doubt this, I will do some archeology work. Perhaps I'm in error. Does it really matter now?

I apologize for frequently inadvertantly inserting OR, occasionally inadvertantly misusing primary citations, and for inadvertantly not following WP:CON by using TALK before modifying the article. In all of these cases I didn't know these policies. I hope I never have to deal with an inexperienced editor with as much enthusiasm as I had. I apologize for calling you a pov warrior, because a pov warrior could not have written what you wrote above. A pov warrior engages and holds on, regardless. You do hold to a strong pov, and are a determined and persistant editor. When you decline all dialogue due to frustration, you do appear as I described. I have and do take primary responsibility for your frustration. You might note that I also fairly described you as one who follows the rules and holds yourself and others to high standards. Although I was honestly describing you as I saw you, I made a good-faith attempt to describe your fairly. If I were a "pathological liar" would I have done this? Would I have taken responsibility before the Administrators for my real errors as a new editor? You will note that I took a three month ICC break, in part because I recognized my errors were inducing serious frustration on your part.

I would prefer to discuss the ICC content there?

We are where we are primarily because of my initial errors and because I did not initially engage you in a good faith collaberative process. I then recognized my errors, changed my editing, took a three month break. I don't however recall a prior apology. I sincerely apologize. Raggz (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, you appear to have completely missed my point, since you continue to make false claims about me without citing any evidence.

You say I "hold to a strong pov" but, as I've pointed out many times, this is a misunderstanding. The reality is that you haven't the slightest fucking clue what my POV is. You think you do, because every time someone disagrees with one of your edits, you presume it's because of their POV. As I've explained many times, the reason I've reverted so many of your edits was because I thought — and still think — they violated our core policies.

Because I've deleted so many of your criticisms of the ICC, you keep saying that I don't like criticisms of the Court. This is patently untrue. I just don't like people inserting blatant lies into articles, like your claim that "there are no appeals" or that the ICC was ignoring war crimes by UN personnel.

Because I deleted your ridiculous theory that the Security Council had "definitively settled" the question of whether the Iraq war was illegal, you presumed that I opposed the war and you made all sorts of stupid accusations about me, like your claim that "the UNSC ruled against you" and "This issue was settled in 2003, your side lost. When one side loses in court, they rarely agree with the court, do they?" This is nonsense. I deleted your theory because it was totally false, and you refused to ever cite a single source that agreed with you. My opinion of the war had nothing to do with it.

Despite my repeated requests for you to stop lying about me, you continue to claim that I've violated policy and "arbitrarily deleted valid criticisms of the ICC that had reliable sources". This is not true, and it's quite dishonest of you to keep saying this without ever citing any specific examples.

You also claim that I sometimes "decline all dialogue due to frustration". This is completely untrue. I've wasted countless hours trying to explain incredibly basic things to you, only to have you completely ignore my comments, but I'm still here trying to engage with you. I've never refused to communicate with you.

I'll ask you again: please don't ever make another negative claim about me without providing a link to back up your claim. This is not a Misplaced Pages policy, it's just common decency and I really shouldn't have to keep asking this. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case

Hello, I just thought I'd let you know that I'm mediating the case you're having some difficulty getting consensus in. I also wanted to tell you that (this might be a beginner's mistake of my part, since this is my first case) I am having some difficulty figuring out what your views are about Universal Healthcare and all that. I ask you please to sort of "summarize" your views in one paragraph in your response to this message. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's just that I get lost because of the large amount of paragraphs that you have written. I actually understood it for a while, but when I tried to summarize it myself I realized that I forgot what your views were, or seemed somewhat vague in my mind. Thanks, --Slartibartfast1992 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for taking this on. The volume of material is (in my opinion) the result of a long and unsuccessful attempt for consensus.

• My view is that Universal Health Care is not a human right within the United States. There is a HUGE body of US and international law that health care is both an international human right and a US human right. I have challenged the section because it presumes that there is such a right to universal health care based upon the right to health care. All that would be needed would be a reliable source that a right to universal health care exists for the US. Absent this reliable source, I claim that the entire section violates WP:OR and WP:SYN.

• There are reliable sources that there is a DEBATE within the US about human rights to universal health care. I have no problem with these, except that they may not be used to persuade the Reader that there is such a right. In fact, a debate strongly implies that the right does not exist (at least not yet).

• There is a secondary debate about what is a reliable source to establish what a human right is - or is not. I have stated that there are two legal authorities that I know of that recognize human rights within the US. These are normally the US judiciary and (in theory) the UN Security Council (which by treaty may impose international law upon the US). If there is another authority that I don't know of that legally recognizes human rights, fine, it too is eligible. Raggz (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that really clarified things for me. So you believe that there is not a universal healthcare human right in the U.S. because, even though human rights would apply to all humans, the U.S. government doesn't recognize or apply that right in its borders. But then it just turns into U.S. POV vs. U.N. POV (where the U.N. says that all humans, regardless or country, have this right because it's a human right. And I guess we can't side with any of these because it wouldn't comply with NPOV (methinks). But, about there being a debate... are there reliable sources to assert that a debate is going on? --Slartibartfast1992 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

...even though human rights would apply to all humans... This is not my position. You are raising a different issue, that of universal human rights. I have no problem including universal human rights, but we have not managed what we already have in the article. The very short answer is that I am fine with a reliable source saying that the people in the US have a right to universal health care - if the text matches the source so that the reader knows what is meant, that someone is of the OPINION that the UDHR creates such a right.

"But then it just turns into U.S. POV vs. U.N. POV (where the U.N. says that all humans, regardless or country, have this right because it's a human right." The UN has no POV on US human rights, but if one exists, it can be cited. The ONLY UN agency that can express a pov for the UN (by article 39) is the Security Council. The General Assembly may also express legally non-binding opinions (that are irrelevant in court) but ONLY the UNSC may offer a legally binding opinion. I am fine with claims that the UNGA has an opinion, as long as the context is made clear that it was an opinion with moral authority and not legal authority.

• The US recognizes all applicable international law. You may go into any US court and make your case under any international law, and this happens. There are thousands of such cases, all are fair to cite.

• There is no international court where an American can go for human rights issues except US courts.

• Treaties are international law recognized by the US, and you can take them into US court for enforcement. There are thousands of such cases, all are fair to cite.

EXAMPLE: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a UN treaty signed by the US. This makes it both US and international law. It is an international law that assures the right to health care to all Americans. It is fair to say that Americans have a right to health care and cite this primary source. Since it does not say "universal" health care, we may not say that it does.

• You can go into a federal court and demand your right to health care as guaranteed by the UDHR and as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the court will recognize both. You may also go in and demand the right to UNIVERSAL health care, but the US Courts have never recognized that either the UN or US right to health care to be a right to UNIVERSAL health care.

• You may not go to the UN Security Council and demand your right to health care, only governments may do so. The only international judicial tribunal that can order the US to institute universal health care is the Security Council. The European Court of Human Rights will not hear your case, the International Criminal Court will not, nor will the International Court of Justice. The UNSC may enforce the UDHR any way that it wants within the US, but it never has and never will. This option is merely theoretical, for all practical purpose human rights within the US are legally recognized only by the federal and state judiciaries.

There are two forms of human rights: those that are recognized and those that are not recognized but exist due to philosophical recognition. Universal human rights exist, but only from a philosophical point of view. We can talk about human rights from a philosophical perspective IF we do not confuse the Reader into thinking that universal human rights can presently be enforced legally. Universal Human Rights is where new human rights come from, and this is important to know, but this topic can confuse the Reader easily. If I find a reliable source stating "there is a universal human right to own pets", I can cite this IF I do not suggest that you can take this right to court. Was this too long? Raggz (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

FROM WP:ANF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can."

NPOV PROPOSAL:

• Assert facts about what human rights are recognized, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. Some human rights are facts, we can look them up and no one disputes these, they can be enforced. These rights are for NPOV "facts". By "fact" we mean "a human right about which there is no serious dispute." We can easily make a list of these, there are numerous reliable sources that state what these are and what their limits are.

• Discuss opinions about what human rights (facts) should be recognized. When there is a dispute if a right exists, if it cannot be looked up in a book, if it cannot be enforced, it is not a fact.
• We can discuss opinions about human rights where there is serious dispute. These human rights lack a reliable source that they are recognized. They usually have reliable sources about opinions. Raggz (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, all I read from that is the NPOV proposal because, I have mentioned this, you write so much. Please consider how tedious it would be to read all that. And, I have mentioned an alternate version of that proposal already, in simple terms, only mention facts about only the debate (of which the debate would be between people saying that human rights apply everywhere and people who say that some don't in the U.S., e.g. universal healthcare). In the universal healthcare section, the debate and only the debate should be mentioned and any points made by wither side of the debate should be backed up by a reliable source. I am adamant on this, but if you believe you can convince me otherwise with a summary of whatever text may be included there, please do. Thanks, --Slartibartfast1992 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we use the NPOV policy, the one I pasted in. "... only mention facts about only the debate (of which the debate would be between people saying that human rights apply everywhere and people who say that some don't in the U.S., e.g. universal healthcare).

NPOV Policy requires that we identify the facts and that we fairly address opinions. Your proposal is not to identify any actual facts, but only to address opinions fairly? Do I understand? Raggz (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a fact that there is no worldwide human right to universal health care. It is also a fact that there is a human right to health care. These are facts, they can be looked up in UN and US law books. There is no debate at all if either the UN or the US actually recognize a right to universal health care. There is a debate if they should. By NPOV we need to discuss what the facts are and ALSO what the opinions are. This is what I propose, compliance with the NPOV policy for facts in this way. Your proposal is to only discuss opinion and to do this fairly. Raggz (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, thanks for summarizing. That really helps. Now, just to verify that I've understood so far (I get slightly confused); the U.S. doesn't recognize the right for universal health care and the U.N. does, right? --Slartibartfast1992 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm still adamant on discussing only opinion, backing it up by what you call facts. --Slartibartfast1992 02:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither the US or the UN recognize universal health care as a right. Both recognize health care as a right. Universal health care would provide a lower quality of health care for most people than does what we now have. Others say it would be better. If it would be better is a matter of OPINION, or POV. What is recognized is a question of fact that everyone agrees on.

I am adamant that we follow WP policy. WP policy defines how we handle facts and opinions. Mediation needs to follow WP policy. Do we agree that mediation needs to follow WP policy?

• Facts are what everyone (almost everyone) agrees on. Ask Silly rabbit if the UN or the US recognizes a right to universal health care and Silly rabbit will say that they do not. Silly rabbit will say that they both recognize a right to health care. Everyone agrees on this, that is why it is a fact.
• OPINIONS are about what the US and UN SHOULD recognize. Facts are about what they actually RECOGNIZE. Raggz (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. Believe it or not, I was misundertanding all along, thinking that the U.N. and the U.S. had opposite views. Maybe I got that idea from barely being able to read several paragraphs by yourself, you know, when they still weren't summarized. Now, one more question. What's the difference between a human right to health care and a human right to universal health care? Seems like human rights would apply to all humans, hence the name human right. Now have patience, I'm not a human rights specialist so no need to go all CAPS on me just because I don't get something, OK? --Slartibartfast1992 15:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, if you both agree that that the U.N. and the U.S. recognize it, why did these discussions with no concensus even happen? Why did you get mediation? --Slartibartfast1992 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We are not debating if health care is a right, we agree on this. We are debating if universal health care is a right.

Silly rabbit believes that universal health care is a right within the United States. I believe that universal health care is not a right. We cannot resolve this disagreement. Silly rabbit is not covering both sides of the debate because Silly rabbit believes that there is no debate to cover. (My summary of these beliefs may be incorrect.) I am claiming that there are two sides, and that both need to be addressed.

NPOV requires that we address both facts and opinions. There is no debate if health care is a right, so this is a fact, and we need to disclose this as a fact. There is a debate if universal health care is a right, so we need to handle this as a debate. My understanding of NPOV is that we call the facts the facts and we call the debates to be debates. Facts do not have two sides, (Mars is a planet). Debates have two sides.

• The first point of the mediation (in my opinion) is to get agreement as to (1) what are facts (where there is only one side) and (2) what issues are debates (where they have two sides).

• The second point (in my opinion) is to agree to cover both sides of all debates. We cannot do the second until we do the first. We are stuck in the second step because editors claim that their opinions are facts, so they do not need to cover both sides.

Someone else mentioned caps yesterday. I had not heard that these were "shouting" before yesterday, I used them for emphasise, sorry. Raggz (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK. If you used them for emphasis rather that to express your impatience with my misunderstanding mind (I couldn't blame you anyway) it's OK. So we are in complete agreement over the second step, that is, cover both sides of the debate equally (where we both recognize that the debate is on universal health care). Now, as to the facts, I believe that a fact would be indisputable should you have a reliable reference for it. Ergo, I think the simplest way to solve your facts concern is to find references for every questioned claim. --Slartibartfast1992 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I have a new proposal in the "mediator notes" section of the mediation page. Take a look at it and tell me what you think. --Slartibartfast1992 21:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things

I have no idea where you are getting the idea that I think there is no debate to cover, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of what I have said, and the edits I have made. If you recall, I am the one that framed the section in terms of a debate to begin with. And so far, I am the only one to produce a single reference for either side of the debate. And yes, I have provided references (however limited) for both sides. I have also never said (despite claim here and elsewhere) that universal health care is a human right in the United States. What I have said is that I am not even interested in establishing the existence of rights. I state facts, not opinions, Raggz. And establishing the "existence of rights" (by divine endowment, or whatever) is not something I think can be done factually.

What we can do is cite facts about relevant opinions: The opinions of courts, international bodies, human rights organizations, and so on. However, you have through rather contorted logic, come to the conclusion that the opinions of such bodies constitute Original Research (even if presented as opinions.) In my view, if one of these says "universal health care is a right", then that can be presented as one side of the debate. If one says otherwise, it can be presented on the other side. As long as the correct attribution is given, and the article doesn't pretend to be stating them as facts, there is no problem with OR.

On to more productive matters. Instead of continuing to complain and issue threats that you are going to delete huge sections of the article again, why not go and do what other editors do and find some reliable sources for the other side of the debate? I think that would save us all a lot of unnecessary debate. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in this dispute but I couldn't help but notice that pretty much everything Raggz has said so far is complete nonsense, and I don't want to let it all go unchallenged lest he start saying he has a consensus in support of his claims.

For example, he says "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a UN treaty signed by the US. This makes it both US and international law." This is a ridiculous claim. The UDHR is not a treaty, it's a declaration. (I hope this doesn't sound like I'm nit-picking, but the difference is fundamental.) The relevant treaty is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (to which the US is not a party). The notion that the UDHR is a part of United States law is crazy, and Raggz's claim that "You can go into a federal court and demand your right to health care as guaranteed by the UDHR and as guaranteed by the US Constitution and the court will recognize both" is astounding.

He also claims that "The only international judicial tribunal that can order the US to institute universal health care is the Security Council." I don't know where he got this idea. The United Nations Security Council's job is to maintain international peace and security. When it's acting to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council can compel member-states of the UN to take particular actions. But the Security Council has no authority to order any country to "institute universal health care" and the suggestion that it would ever do so is absurd.

He claims that "The ONLY UN agency that can express a pov for the UN (by article 39) is the Security Council." Article 39 of the UN Charter says nothing even remotely like that, and it's crazy to suggest that the Secretary-General, the General Assembly, and bodies like the Human Rights Council can't "express a pov for the UN" but the Security Council can.

As usual, Raggz is just making all this shit up as he goes along and, when challenged, he will never, ever cite a reliable source that explicitly agrees with any of his crazy claims.

It might be useful at this stage to ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Human rights or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Law, and bring in someone with a basic understanding of human rights theory or international law. Otherwise, there's a danger of the article being filled with complete fabrications, like so many other articles Raggz has edited. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG

Most of the problems we are having on the US State Terrorism page stem from differences over this policy. I have repeatedly asked you to address this issue directly but you do not. I've commented again here in an effort to talk this out. My comment is in the current last section of the talk page. Please reply and let's hammer out the differences over WP:REDFLAG. I don't see how we can make any progress until this happens.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have responded. See TALK. I have been working on another article, sorry. I agree, we disagree about policy. This is resolvable, and when resolved, I will abide by policy, as I know you will. Raggz (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, you have not responded to my specific comments about the policy and explained why you think they are incorrect. You are apparently back to the page so I'd appreciate if you could respond directly to my comment linked above next time you're over there. It's in the section "Philippines' Sandbox and Raggz' objections." Just explain how and why you think my interpretation of the policy is wrong. Engage with my argument - don't just repeat yours.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Be assured that I will address your questions as fairly and accurately as I can. I am logging off for a bit now, and will look there when I am back. Raggz (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Iraq War

Raggz, can you please explain why you posted this to my talk page? I am not the author of the material. —Viriditas | Talk 08:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then I apologize, unless (as I recall) that you reverted this text? Raggz (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Merely talked about it on the discussion page. Other editors (anonymous users) have worked with it in the body of the article itself. —Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

why do you persist in making questionable claims but ignore requests for you to support them?

For example, you keep mentioning there was a verdict from an international legal tribunal, "that rendered a verdict on this topic" of the atomic bombings of Japan. Can you please give me a source for this claim? I do know that the World Court did rule on the legal question of the use of atomic weapons and declared that their use would be unlawful. See http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm. Also, there is this international peoples legal tribunal that was held on the atomic bombings that found the US guilty of a war crime in its use: http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1155010108.shtml (although this tribunal was without real authority). However the ICC ruling is with full legal authority. The World Court ruled with a formal opinion on the legality of use of nuclear weapons, which to my knowledge was the first time (this is not just UN resolutions such as either. The United Nations GA asked the Court for an advisory legal opinion, and they delivered one, settling many questions of law, after taking two years to look at the question. Thus we have the world's pre-eminent judicial authority that considered the question of criminality vis-a-vis the use of a nuclear weapon, and, in doing so, it came to the conclusion that the use of a nuclear weapon is 'unlawful'. It is also the Court's view that even the threat of the use of a nuclear weapon is illegal--although there were differences concerning the implications of the right of self-defense provided by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, ten of the fourteen judges hearing the case found the use of threat to use a nuclear weapon to be illegal on the basis of the existing canon of humanitarian law which governs the conduct of armed conflict. The judges based their opinion on more than a century of treatise and conventions that are collectively known as the 'Hague' and 'Geneva' laws." Thus the Court ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal under the Hague and Geneva conventions , agreements which were in existence at the time of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. By this standard they were illegal then, as they are illegal now. Now I mention this not because I think the questions of legality are appropriate for the article you are talking about, because the concept of State Terrorism is a different issue not one constrained by legal questions or by War Crimes. They are related but not the same thing. I'd like to stick to the subject of this article and not stray off topic, unless the question of legality is tied in to State Terrorism by a source talking about it. That is why I proposed that we use the sources we find on the subject to guide us for content on the article. Think about our job as simply finding sources and reporting them in the article (provided they are relevant and encyclopedic), in a cogent manner. Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall the name of the tribunal, but I am certain that it was held. It was the Japanes counterpart to Nurumberg. Like with Nuremburg, it held all actions during WWII by the US and allies to be fully legal with international law. There is a WP article on it. Raggz (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If I hold an "international peoples legal tribunal" next Thursday, will you agree to include our verdict? Raggz (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If your hypothetical, next Thursday tribunal featured notable experts and generally passed our guidelines for reliable sources (and dealt with the topic at hand) then sure. But obviously that is not going to happen. You apparently could not answer Giovanni's question about a source. You have at other times alluded to sources but then failed to be specific when pressed and this is yet another example. It's very frustrating. If there is a WP article on this tribunal could you take a bit of time, find it, and then link to it? If this tribunal judged all American actions during WWII to be legal that would serve as a good counterpoint to the state terrorism charge. Take a bit of time to find this source Raggz - it could help to improve the article and I'm fairly certain I would support its inclusion based on the description you have provided.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This what what I had suspected: you don't remember. I request that before you make exceptional claims yourself, that you follow your own RedFlag standard and support your claims with a valid source. And, if you can't, then please stop repeating the claim elsewhere (as you did on the talk page and on ANI), until you look up what the facts are so you will not only know what you are talking about but be prepared to substantiate it.Giovanni33 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is not out of compliance with NPOV because I could not remember the name of the tribunal today. It is out of compliance because it was never included. This gets to the heart of the NPOV issue, editors who produce text without a shred of NPOV compliance on the theory that other editors may someday edit their contributions to bring them into compliance. It is my opinion that editors who edit to advance their pov and do not attempt NPOV compliance deny WP policies at many levels. Yes Bigtimepeace my "people's tribunal" is only hypothetical, I have too much integrity to attempt such a stunt, I don't believe in Kangaroo Courts. I could however convene a Kangaroo Court filled with notable people selected to render a pov "verdict", and I would oppose covering such a verdict, even if I agreed with it. We may decide to cover such verdicts, but if they are Kangaroo Court we need to say this. WP Weasle words includes "people's tribunal".

Yes, I will look now that you asked, but I had my lunch first. I need to run the dog, but I will look. Raggz (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"I request that before you make exceptional claims yourself, that you follow your own RedFlag standard and support your claims with a valid source." I do not agree that REDFLAG applies to the discussion page. What source have I added that you challenge? Be honest, if there is none, say so here. Raggz (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the talk page, most of your claims, upon examination, turn out to be false or unsubstantiated, this is just one example. The article is not out of compliance because it doesn't include your source because 1. the source deals with questions of legality which is a different topic (war crimes); 2. Because there is no such source that makes those claims (only you have claimed it.) There is no counter part to Nuremburg held by Japan on the question of the legality of the dropping of the atomic bombs, but rather on the question of war crimes committed by Japan (criticized as a victors justice because there was no mention what many regard as war crimes by the dropping of the bombs). The fact is that the question of its legality is still debated, but there is a consensus among historians that has formed, as historian Bruce Cumings has written, accepting Martin Sherwin's statement that it "was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst." Again, if you want to dispute factual matters, and advocate for their inclusion then you have to first begin by substantiating your claims with sources. Its a basic WP policy on Verifiability. You can't just make things up that you think are true and expect the world of knowledge to revolve around and be limited to what you happen to know or think (but can not offer verification for). To expect others to do this is rather absurd. This is not about POV, its about what valid, legitimate sources say, and to get all notable POVs from reputable sources on the subject/topic matter (which is terrorism by the US). Which part of this is not getting through?Giovanni33 (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you find anything yet that supports your claim? If you looked and can not find anything will you concede that you were wrong and retract those claims?Giovanni33 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in at an odd place. I believe the tribunal Raggz is seeking is the Tokyo tribunal. However, this had nothing to do with prosecuting the US for war crimes, but rather to try Japanese officials. There may have been other tribunals — perhaps some exonerating the US for the atomic bomb — but none that I have heard of. Silly rabbit (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the Tokyo Tribunals, and as I said above, while its the Japanese counterpart to the Nuremburg trials, they had nothing to do with rendering any verdict regarding the Atomic bombings, so I knew it could not be this that Raggz is referring to. Maybe some other tribunal? Or does it not exist? If so, will Raggz 1. stop making the claim, and 2. retract it?Giovanni33 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What about my questions? You seem to be active again, and I'm sure you finished walking your dog by now...heheGiovanni33 (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just got back from another dog run. I read about Neuremburg last night, where the US was exempted from any legal WWII in Europe. I recall reading this about Japan, but do not yet have the reference materials I need. This is on my list. Raggz (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Volunteer

I touched base with your MedCab volunteer to see what assistance I can lend. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I need assistance?

I couldn't help but read your message in User:Vassyana's talk page requesting his/her assistance. I couldn't help, also, but find it even slightly offensive that you don´t trust my abilities merely because this is my first case. And, also, my jaw dropped to find And he´s only in 10th grade or something of the sort. 9th, actually, and I see no (how should I put this) direct correlation between age and mental capacity. And, even supposing that I accept these views, why not talk to me about it, instead of going to another user yourself? --Slartibartfast1992 17:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take things so personally. You are a first-time mediator trying to mediate a discussion that you say you don't fully yet understand. It seems that you are now personally offended and are also uncertain of what the issues are. This concerns me. Is my summary accurate?

Read what I have said again, there is nothing personal about any of it. We have repeatedly comunicated about al of this. Do you need assistance or not? Raggz (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if you say that it wasn't personal, I believe you. To be honest, the thing that offended me was you mentioning my age as a sort of disability or handicap. And, as long as I'm being honest, the reason for the frustation shown earlier in the case was because I didn't understand most of what you were saying (don't worry, I understand now). And I admit I got a bit touchy. Hope you don't mind that I didn't accept the assistance. Call it pride or call it stubborness. --Slartibartfast1992 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back to the case. I communicated this to you already, but a modified proposal is available for you to read in the Mediator's Notes section. Tell me if you agree with it or if you think something should be modified. --Slartibartfast1992 02:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We all learn more every day. Is being young a disability? Yes, and no. All of our personal qualities are strengths and weaknesses. The old saying is that every coin has two sides? Being young means that you know less than you will know next year (this is true for all of us, hopefully). It is a strength as well, there is a clarity of youthful vision. In the end, we all are who we are. No problems here, now or before... Raggz (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Raggz. Being young is not a disability. One can cultivate beginner's mind without the physical attribute of youth, just as one can draw upon experience at any stage of life and share it like an elder. We don't expect infants to fly planes nor centenarians to run triathalons. In the end, we are not "who we are", but rather we constitute the pure potential to become something less and yet something more. We are, essentially, whatever we think we are, for good or for bad, true or false. Therefore, we are nothing more than prisoners of our beliefs and concepts. Change your mind and you change yourself. Biological age is irrelevant. —Viriditas | Talk 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those who have beginner's mind never seek beginner's mind. Those who are seperated from beginner's mind cannot properly lecture about it, nonetheless, I do. Was it incorrect to describe this "mind" as the "clarity of youthful vision"? Was it incorrect to suggest that it is a "strength"? Biological age is of course biologically relevant, and is quite important if the challenging discovery of beginner's mind is undertaken. Physical health greatly underlies much of what you discuss. However, there is nothing in your ideas that I disagree with. Raggz (talk) 07:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Being young is not a disability.- Viriditas." I say yes and no. We just discussed the no above. Not already knowing what you will learn tomorrow and next year is a present liability. As long as we have a future that we will learn from, in a sense we have a present disability. In another sense we have a present opportunity. Is one true, the other true, or are both true - Grasshopper? Raggz (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Think about what you are saying: Not already knowing what you will learn tomorrow and next year is a present liability. That makes no sense, nor is it unique to youth or age. You are saying that not knowing the future is a problem, but what you are really trying to communicate is the difference between the lack of experience in the present versus the acquiring of experience in the future. But really, none of that apples. If your mind is open to experience now, worrying about the future of experience is useless. There remains no disability. The mind of a beginner can be acquired through youth and thought. Thinking like a beginner, we act as one. Everything is a manifestation of thought, which is fleeting, ephemeral, and disappears as the future approaches. What I am now, I may not be tomorrow. This is not a disability; it is a universal constant. Nothing lasts, everything is in flux. To claim that one is "disabled" by reality is to appeal to absurdity. The experience of changing youth is real just as much as the world of the adult which conveniently forgets this change and pretends that their world has become static. The former cannot escape from their physical condition and rides the rough sea of change while the latter inhabits an illusion of control and stability where none exists. So then we see, the youth lives in the world by necessity while the adult lives in their mind. That is the difference. Now, which is truly disabled? —Viriditas | Talk 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And so we agree, again. Raggz (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But what do you truly mean by "as long as we have a future that we will learn from, in a sense we have a present disability"? We learn from our past, not from our future. You are attempting to say "as long as we have a future that we will gain experience from, we have a present disability", but is this true? Experience can be gained right now, now, now, now. A baby takes its first steps, a teenager has their first date and kiss, a woman becomes pregnant and has a child, a man gets a job and loses it - now. Why are you so concerned with the future when it is created from our experience in the present? The past and present is the cause and the future is the effect. The odds of someone bringing up the Everett many-worlds interpretation to throw a wrench in this are exceedingly high. —Viriditas | Talk 09:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas, you ask questions that one person may not answer for another, but I will try. Every coin has two sides, heads and tails. Every young person will become old (at best). Nothing is absolute, is it better to be young or old? The answer is always, both, or perhaps better expressed as all. Raggz (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It is better to be young, but you keep ignoring my point. Youth is not just biological. It is a state of mind. It is true that we cannot escape death - we begin physically dying the moment we are born. But if you have spent any time with older people, you see that at a certain point in their life, they begin to grow younger in their intellectual and physical development, such that youth returns, but runs backwards, not to birth but to death. This discussion began because you observed that your mediator was handling "his first case and he is only in the tenth grade" and you basically blamed his difficulty understanding you on these two factors. But the fact is, he is not the only person who has had difficulty understanding you, and I suggest that his admitted inexperience and age has nothing to do with the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 10:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sometimes difficult to understand and I have never blamed you for not understanding. I believe that the mediator has done well, and that he will be better off with a bit of support during his first case. The Mediator will learn a great deal in the next ten years, do we agree? He will also lose a bit of that certain clarity of youth, what you correctly call beginner's mind. What I write will become easier to understand and what I really mean might be occluded with maturity. When I found out that he is only in the ninth grade, I smiled and enjoyed knowing this, I really did. We are well past that now, what exactly are you and I discussing? Raggz (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ageism and a variation on WP:BITE relating to WP:DR. —Viriditas | Talk 11:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Getting back to the dispute...

Alright. User:Silly rabbit has expressed a concern that you may be feeling that some views are underrepresented in this dispute. If this is true, then, please, let me hear it. --Slartibartfast1992 14:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people in the US (a majority) believe that universal health care will decrease the quality of health care. Silly rabbit and a minority of Americans believe that health care would improve. If we discuss universal health care at all, both views require representation. It needs to say that the majority of Americans prefer not to have a universal system, but that support for this is growing.

The US has the best health care system in the world, and it is by far the most expensive. The poor is the US get better medical care than the affluent get in any nation. The US spends far more on medical care for the poor than any other nation spends on their citizens. Given these facts, I do not understand why health care is a human rights issue. It is a right and it is provided. Why are we putting details about medical care into a human rights article? Raggz (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want a new debate to spring up which is why I won't quote anything from Sicko. So, getting back on topic, I still don't know what it is you're proposing. A deletion of the universal healthcare section? Equal representation for both sides of the debate (which is something I've been in agreement with all along)? --Slartibartfast1992 20:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some people in the US (a majority) believe that universal health care will decrease the quality of health care. Silly rabbit and a minority of Americans believe that health care would improve.

Sorry, I call B.S. on this. —Viriditas | Talk 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If a majority of Americans want to change the health system, as with any democracy, the policy will change. Obviously Americans do not want to change to HillaryCare. There is of course real interest in an improved system, and all informed analysts agree that there are many valid perspectives.

B.S. "In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system." —Viriditas | Talk 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Creating a sandbox

Hi Raggz, a couple of people on the US state terrorism article have suggested that you create a sandbox. I know you're not familiar with this practice but it's actually quite easy to do. A sandbox is basically a subpage of your user page. For example it could be at User:Raggz/Sandbox (my sandbox is at User:Bigtimepeace/Sandbox - I recently used it to work on a new article). If you simply click on the redlink User:Raggz/Sandbox in the previous sentence, begin editing (as though it were a new article), and then save it you will have created a sandbox (it would be good to add this to your watchlist). Sandboxes can be very useful for resolving disputes (where you want to discuss material before moving it into an article and give multiple editors a chance to work on it) but also for working on a new article before you move it into the mainspace. Hope you find this useful, and if you want to work on some new stuff for the US state terrorism page it would probably be useful to place it in a sandbox first and then invite others to take a look/make some changes. Several users have done this in the past on this article and it seems to work fairly well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with this. Raggz (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article tag

On an article as contentious as the US State Terrorism one, where tags have been part of the dispute in the past, yes, in my opinion it is important to discuss placing a controversial tag before placing it. I think anything that could be considered even a little bit controversial should be discussed first.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removal of this tag, was there? Raggz (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That comment is incredibly, incredibly tendentious Raggz. One does not need consensus to revert an edit which had no consensus. If your logic applied, I could write 30 new sections for an article that had nothing to do with the topic and which all had OR violations. Then when someone reverted me saying "no consensus for this new, off topic material" I would say, "but there was no consensus for you to remove my new material either!" Come on, think of a better argument please.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not discuss tag removal, and obtain a consensus first? The tag is not a major issue, but I don't understand why we didn't first try for consensus if you didn't like it, or at least discuss it where I had discussed it. Raggz (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not discuss tag additions, and obtain a consensus first? The tag is not a major issue, but I don't understand why you didn't first try for consensus before adding it.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that some sections lack what I term an "anchor", a reliable source that alleges US state etrrorism. Operation Gladio is an example. There are many citations that support many claims, but none that suggest that the US engaged in state terrorism. There is one for "the west" and another for "NATO" but none for the US. We need a tag because many of our sections lack key primary supporting sources - even if the have many secondary sources for supporting points. Raggz (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The lack of Cold War context is also an issue. The WWII historical context for "customary" and statutory law was greatly transformed between 1945-1965. Opertion Gladio undoubtedly planned for military actions that would clearly be state terrorism today, but were unremarkable when practiced by the French Resistance. The international community moved this standard formally with the passage of Geneva Conventions III and IV as well as the United Nations Charter. Operation Gladio is interesting because it illustrates this evolution. We imply that the President Kennedy was sending out ultra-right death squads all over Europe, we imply that the US participation continued after GC III & IV passed, but we lack any source for this. We have sources that there was post WWII planning for a French Resistance type of military defense, but so what?

Right-wing terrorism was not a major issue in that era within Europe. Everyone knows that the Communists bombed the Bologna train station and that the public reaction was so negative that they blamed phantom facists for this. Any Communist in Bologna will smile over this, it is an Italian cultural thing that makes more sense when explained it Italian than in English. To understand it requires understanding that Communisim is incredibly diverse within Bologna (Red City), that almost every Communist has a distinct ideology and arguablly a distinct political culture. It is a major NPOV violation to only discuss the Communist version when there is a competing and well known alternative (that all of the Communists will vigorously deny). They deny it because although known to committed by Communists, it was done without consensus. Now my pov on this issue is irrelevant, this should not be in the article. My point is that simply echoing the Communists claims that are a minority view for that bombing and most "right-wing terrorism" within Europe requires NPOV balancing. Raggz (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I am just stopping by to make sure you see my comment at the bottom of Allegations of State...U.S.; you have already passed the 3RR mark. I am not interested in antagonizing you or forcing the issue, but if you insist upon continuing in this edit war i will report you.

I am very interested in your opinions regarding the article. My only request has ever been -- and remains -- that you introduce your suggestions in a sand-box or on the discussion page before making significant changes to the article. This is the obstacle impeding our cooperation.

As ever Stone put to sky (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. How can you tell? Is there some place to check how many reverts have been done? Raggz (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You check the pages history. Please read WP:RRR - 3 reverts is the HARD STOP auto-flagging of violation. Fewer reverts may also lead to blocks if the administrator sees edit war patterns. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but what do I check the page history for? Is it necessary to open all of the edits, or is there a quicker way? Raggz (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no automated 'tool' that will tell you 'this page has been reverted 3 times'. It requires human review and discretion- although, frequently notes from at least one of the reverting editors in the history can be used as a guide as to which versions to look at. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quit it

Raggz, QUIT MISREPRSENTING WHAT PEOPLE SAY - you have and continue to do this on such a regular basis that I am coming to the belief that you are either intentionally doing this or else have no capability of sustaining conversations without misrepresenting what others have said.

For exmaple, you have again recently made the statement that people have asked you to 'edit only on the bottom of the page'. Your statement is patently FALSE and you have been told so previously. What you have been asked to do over and over and over is to LIMIT the number of new threads that you start in discussions until previous threads that you have started have reach concensus. (And you have been told this previously, too.)

Start behaving like you actually want to work towards concensus instead of actively working in a disruptive manner. If your misrepresentions are purposeful STOP THE PRACTICE NOW. If you lack the ability to not misrepresent people, then I am sorry to suggest that you should leave Misplaced Pages. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean about misrepresenting what people say. I misunderstood what was said, someone else explained, now we can move on. If you believe there is a pattern, may I have another example?

Your suggestion to "LIMIT the number of new threads that you start in discussions until previous threads that you have started have reach concensus" is impractical because consensus is never attained and is not necessary anyway for text requiring deletion by policy. The new section on Europe was added without consensus, will you now delete it for this reason? I did limit the new threads for a time. No progress was made on consensus. Are you aware that none of my edits have attained consensus, not even once? Would you suggest that there has been zero merit in any of them? Should I double the amount of discussion in Talk, or triple it? You complain that I don't seek consensus and also claim that I discuss too often and in too many threads? Am I misrepresenting your views? If so, why do you want me to discuss more - but object to new sections? Do you see any progress towards consensus in any of the threads from last month?

This is an article with serious policy conflicts, where there is nearly a consensus to retain text that is ineligible for retention, by WP policy. If these concerns were about content and not policy, consensus would be required. Do you suggest that this article is even close to compliance with WP:NPOV or WP:VERIFY? My last edits were mostly the deletion of cites that WP:Verify required deletion. Do you want cites left that do not support the text, that are irrelevant to the article? One was about how the Freemasons were conspiring against the world, and never mentioned the US.

If you believe that consensus is required to delete the freemason conspiracy cites, here is the place and now is the time to engage in a discussion of that policy. Cite the appropriate policies, and I will edit in compliance with them. Cite them not, then we are exactly where we began. Raggz (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Show me one place, one little piece of evidence that could POSSIBLY be interpreted as someone telling you to 'make all your comments at the bottom of a talk page' and I may begin to believe you that you 'misinterpreted' (TWICE AND THREE TIMES and beyond) the numerous editors' requests.

And this is where all discussions with you have broken down. People ask you to provide evidence for you claims/additions/interpretations of policy, AND YOU LEAVE THE DISCUSSION so no 'concensus' can be reached because you have been attempting to promote unsustainable material / positions / interpretations.

And even that would be fine if you did not later return to re-open those same issues WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY NEW EVIDENCE.

I believe that if you really wanted to bring NPOV material that addresses some of your current concerns about the article, that you could work out a concensus with the other editors - if you had WP:RS reliable sources to back your arguments. But you continue to insist, instead, on Wikilawyering to try to get your way. (see your previous contentious misinterpretations of 'Tacit Concensus' 'Redflag' 'Fork' etc.) Bring reliable sources and we can move forward. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are always a good idea. Raggz (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. (Raggz comments not related to the original topic were moved to new section below) And back to the initial topic of this section: misrepresentation of other editors. Do I have your pledge that you will make every possible effort NOT to misrepresent what other editors have stated? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It is not in my nature to do so. Such methods have no possible positive outcome, do they?

I think I know how the misunderstanding occured. You said something like "please stick to one thread" which I took to mean stay in one section (at the page bottom). Sorry. Raggz (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources and Allegations of state terrorism

Reliable sources are always a good idea.

I'm not volunteering to "fix" all the NPOV problems. I will help, but every editor needs to make a good faith effort to comply with NPOV. None of us really do this alone, but we can try to comply. Much of the text needs to go live in a sandbox until it complies with NPOV policy.

I do not believe that I need to provide more evidence than I have provided that some citations do not comply with WP verification policy. No evidence is necessary to assert that every section of the article lack NPOV compliance. When someone attributes words to Churchill that the citation does not have in it, what should I then do? What evidence is needed? Twice this OR has been reverted, is that fine with you? Raggz (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In a case where the overwhelming consensus of available editors is that the page does, indeed, meet NPOV guidelines then you will require either:

• Evidence that gives contrasting perspectives on the issues covered by the article but which, for some reason, have not been provided -

-- or --

• Good arguments showing how the current sourcing and rhetoric of the article violate Misplaced Pages's NPOV guidelines.

You have attempted the latter and have been repeatedly shown to be guilty of a poor understanding of the NPOV guidelines and how it applies to that page's content.

That means you currently have only one recourse remaining: the first alternative.

We will be happy to discuss with you any new material you might suggest. Our only qualification is that you do us the honor of presenting some; up until now, it has appeared much as if you expect us to not only accept your arguments, but actually go out and do the research for you.

Unfortunately, we do not have the time. If you do not, either, then it is time for you to stop complaining and go find another page to work on. Stone put to sky (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There are two options: (1) edit and help bring text into policy compliance or (2) delete text that is out of compliance until we have time to bring it into compliance. When text is seriously out of compliance we need to immediately delete it - or edit it into compliance. This can be inserted later, when it complies with policy. When I can't fix it, I need to delete it. You of course may revert if you bring it into compliance or disagree with my editorial decision. As you know, WP:BOLD is a policy that I adhere to.

We have often debated what the responsibility is that each editor assumes under WP:NPOV. Can we resolve this policy dispute without dispute resolution?

Editors need to make their best effort to comply with NPOV, to present their own POV and to do their best to fairly all others. When editors only edit in their own POV, and battle all others, we can describe this as an edit war. It is not my job to do the primary work to ensure that all views are fairly presented, it is primarily the responsibility of the editor added text. We all have a secondary responsibility to assist each other. So, are we on the same page in regard to policy - or do we have a dispute? Raggz (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, the proper way to correct text that you find to be in violation of the "balance" clause of NPOV is to supply additional references and resources. Stone put to sky is correct on this point. From the policy page

The policy does not say that material some editors find to be unbalanced must be deleted on sight. Granted, it may be that deletion is the best way to go. But this is not a course of action that is directly supported by any reading of the WP:NPOV policy, no matter how draconian the reader may happen to be. Please see in addition the NPOV FAQ, to which I have directed you before over precisely this sort of thing. Silly rabbit (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Raggz, the proper way to correct text that you find to be in violation of the "balance" clause of NPOV is to supply additional references and resources." I suspect that we actually agree. Should every editor strive for NPOV balance (knowing that none of us will mange this all of the time)?

EXAMPLE: I find a source that claims "the ICC is evil and damages human rights", and I insert this quote into the LEAD. Are you know obligated to produce NPOV balance, or do you have a deletion option? The statement presents opinion as fact, and in my opinion should be deleted. What would you do? Raggz (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

Raggz, the only thing I put back into the text was the line regarding human rights criticisms pertaining to the criminal justice system and national security, and there was an ongoing thread on the talk page regarding precisely the content of this sentence. I had nothing to do with reverting your other edits. Silly rabbit (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was mistaken. Raggz (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Raggz - I reverted your edit regarding the ICC - if you read the source it clearly states that the US has undermined the ICC. Please have the decency to read sources before making changes. Pexise (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting directly from the source - which is incidentally, only a page long - the third paragraph reads:

"In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC." (my emphasis added) Pexise (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You may also like to look at this source: "U.S. Proposals to Undermine the International Criminal Court Through a U.N. Security Council Resolution, Human Rights Watch Statement, June 25, 2002. Pexise (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: "United States Efforts to Undermine the International Criminal Court Legal Analysis of Impunity Agreements" Pexise (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In all cases these relate to US efforts to properly ensure that Americans will not be subjected to a trial where their basic human right to a jury trial would be denied. The Constitution of the US and federal law requires that our government do this whenever human rights are threatened, and of course hostage rescue teams would be sent for their protection as Congress has authorized. The US asked that the Statute be written so that the US could sign the treaty, and there was a consensus not to. Then (as you provide above) the US tried to ensure that US peacekeeping forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina would not be under ICC jurisdiction, and that failed. If it had passed then HRW could be cited for its "undermining" the Statute claims. That was settled six years ago, the UNSC did not decide to "undermine" the Statute. The US then went to Option B, Article 98 agreements, or the Diplomatic Option. The 2002 cite offered has no real significance to present issues, because these are presently focused upon Article 98 agreements. The word "undermine" can be used if the source's context is communicated to the Reader.

You have reverted text that misrepresents a complex issue, fails to mention contrasting povs, and does not illuminate the key facts. This revert entirely denies WP:NPOV. I am of course fine with adding a section on the ICC (we already have an entire article on the US and the ICC), but we cannot just offer one misleading sentence. I believe that the WP article on this topic already does it well enough, and don't think we need to duplicate it. I am open to a sentence or three on this topic, as long as the key facts are reported and the differing views are addressed per NPOV.

"The Bush Administration is attempting to negotiate bilateral impunity agreements with numerous countries around the globe. The goal of these agreements is to exempt U.S. military and civilian personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC. The U.S. argues that such agreements are contemplated under Article 98(2) of the Rome Statute. Human Rights Watch disagrees. Such impunity agreements violate the Rome Statute and should be opposed. If State parties, as well as signatories of the Rome Statute, sign such agreements they would breach their legal obligations under the Rome Statute." HRW opposes diplomatic agreements relating to the ICC. This would be fine material to add - but only as one of several views. One other view would be that diplomacy is generally a good thing, and that bi-lateral diplomacy is exactly what Aricle 98 was put into the Statute for.

I expect to delete the single ICC reference that (1) should not be in the LEAD without support and (2) presents one view as fact and not opinion, and violates WP:NPOV. Does anyone object to deleting the present misleading statement than does not comply with policy? Raggz (talk)

I have provided three sources which back up the claim - there are hundreds more. The line is staying. If you have other sources, add them to the section later on in the article dealing in more detail with the US and the ICC. Pexise (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I quit

Raggz, I am no longer going to engage you on the talk page of Human rights and the United States. I have had it. I quit. Dealing with you is awful, and I refuse to continue to do so. You win. Defile the article however you want. Hell, delete the whole bloody thing, as was your original intention. Silly rabbit (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. You are a good editor. I just want to add some NPOV to a biased article. It would be a better article if you stayed. Raggz (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for barging in but I have read all of your talk page;I suggest you mend your ways on WP before you get blocked. User:Agent008 —Preceding comment was added at 20:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up on Allegations_of_state_terrorism_committed_by_the_United_States

Stone put to sky has been outed as a puppeteer; this makes a lot of his criticisms and reversions of you extremely questionable. Jtrainor (talk) 02:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Medcab Case: Human Rights etc...

So, are you back so we can finish the last bits of discussion and close this case? --Slartibartfast1992 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes

Human rights in the United States ‎

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Viriditas (talk)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not reverted anything in that article for six months. If you have some real issue, please be specific. If you have content or policy comments, please make them on the appropriate article Talk Page.

Be advised that I will revert text that violates WP policy, but not without appropriate discussion. To date you have opted to not discuss the policy violations at all, offered some irrelevant (to policy) content issues, and now here you are making totally unsupportable claims. Why not invest your time into answering the policy questions posed to you on the Talk Page? If we are engaged in a productive discussion, we might get somewhere? I cannot force you to discuss the questions posed, but if you opt out of the discussion, I will need to proceed with policy required deletions. Raggz (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you will go straight back to the mediation case you abandoned in February. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this necessary? How will it help make our article better? Raggz (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Has the mediation case that you left behind in February been resolved? Viriditas (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer to my question above. Cutting and running on mediation, disappearing for six months, and then coming back to the article like nothing has happened and engaging in the same behavior is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with any of the above Viriditas. Are these your personal issues or do any violate WP policy? I am a disabled person with intermittant chronic health issues, as I told you before. What behavior? I am well behaved and I always edit constructively, if somewhat boldly. Remember, I follow WP:Bold. I don't tolerate OR or NPOV edits either. If you will just avoid these, it is unlikely that we will have any conflicts at all. Raggz (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, I haven't been editing any of the articles, so I haven't a clue what you are talking about. My only interest is in resolving the mediation case you abandoned six months ago. I think I made this clear on the talk page and here, on your user page. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Viriditas, you have made this clear. Raggz (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

EU

What are you doing to the EU article? With more than lengthy talk page contributions you repeatedly proof that you have no clue about the subject whatsoever. Plenty of knowledgeable editors spend hours to explain you the matter. I envy them for their patience! And all that comes to your mind is to change the article according to your confused ideas, even though you had just experienced that your ideas are contested by everyone who talks to you. This is disruptive editing, because you know very well that you act against consensus.

Please, I need no reply to this. Just wanted to give you my candid feedback. Perhaps, it makes you reconsider your current behavior. If not, then please refrain from justifying it at my end. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert regarding the EU, and of course have deferred to those who are. Not being an expert actually permits me to help improve this article because there are areas that are unclear and are inaccurate that are more obvious to a non-expert.

Perhaps it would help if you were to give me an example of where I have damaged the article, or where other editors have spent hours explaining things? I am unaware of acting against consensus, perhaps a single example would be illustrative?

My perception is that this article is written by Europeans for Europeans, and that in certain areas it is unclear and/or innacurate. I feel that I am helping it and that at no point have I engaged in disruptive editing. Perhaps an example would help?

You don't want a reply? Sorry about that, but your points raise questions. If you won't answer my questions, how may I understand what you really mean? Raggz (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No sorry, I do not feel like wasting my time. Just see it as one opinion, an unqualified if you want so. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary rendition by the United States

Hi Raggz, i'm continueing to answer the points that you have raised, could you hold off adding more points until we have delt with the ones that you raise. Please understand that enthusiasm can be seen as disruption by editors if you raise a lot of points then use silence as aquiesance. 15:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you make excellent points. There is a lot of material and no need to fix it all this week. The priority in my view is to agree upon what is relevant to our topic and what is not. I suggest that we address what is and is not ER first? Getting Nickhh to participate on this topic seems a priority. 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be much of a problem, he just sounded exasperated, i'll post on his page and ask him to the table. 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The key unresolved issue (in my opinion) is the difference between "rendition" and "extraordinary rendition". One is legal and normal, and the other illegal everywhere and is universally condemed. Any proven or suspected CIA "rendition" flight is thus irrelevant. CIA Aircraft transiting Europe cannot be presumed to be engaged in crimes against humanity without a reliable source. Nickhh seems to believe that any aircraft that possibly could be CIA is relevant. Raggz (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that ER is a sub-category of Rendition, so it is right to say that a victim of ER is rended. The CIA flights were illegal because of the non-identification of state operation as they pretended to be a civilian flight. Those flights in question have been "presumed to be engaged in crimes against humanity" by three major democratic institutions; The CoE, the EU and a British Intelligence and Security Committee see here . 01:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Are all CIA flights into Europe relevant, or not? I have never claimed that when there is a reliable source for an ER claim, that CIA flights are irrelevant. I assert that CIA flights occur without involving ER. Do we presume that every CIA flight within Europe is a criminal flight, or do we need a source?

When the CIA call up 8 hours ahead and ASK for the right to land/fly in airspace they are fine, if not they break the Chicago Civil aviation Convention. Which CIA specific flights do you think we have misrepresented? 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the topic is not related to civil aviation nor the Chicago treaty. It is not about the CIA, their aircraft, Guantanamo Bay, or Siamese cats. Our topic is our topic. We may and should include CIA flights where ER is alleged. We can and should include cites about ER committed by CIA trained Siamese cats, if we have a reliable source. Without a reliable source that links Siamese cats or the CIA to ER, we should avoid both. Our topic is not the CIA or CIA flights. It is not Siamese cats.

"A specific? The German section had the plane spotting activity from four years ago, these planespotters observed about eighty suspected CIA flights daily. We covered this. They did not allege or observe any ER issues, they never really knew whom the planes were operated by, but a few Germans thought that they "might" be CIA. I deleted it because it was unrelated to ER, this was not even alleged.

Prison ships: Is it ER to put a prisoner on a ship? ER could occur on a ship, but proving that prisoners are on ships does not by itself prove ER. If ER is alleged on a ship, fine. If prisoners are put on ships, and ER is not alleged, why do we care? Raggz (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Our topic is Extraordinary rendition by the United States so that covers 1)WHO was rended! 2)HOW they were rended! 3)WHERE they were rended to and 4)What happened to them as a result of the Extraordinary rendition by the United States, ie TORTURE. 01:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. When any of these are asserted by a reliable source, we have relevance. Torture is relevant, very relevant.

CIA flights and prisons are not relevant, unless these have a link to our topic. The US is taking lots of prisoners and needs to conduct lots of legitimate rendition. CIA flights involving rendition are irrelevant, unless a reliable source links these to ER. If a Guantanamo prisoner is being sent home on a CIA flight, a rendition flight, is this flight relevant?

If we get rid of the junk, many more people will read what remains. Raggz (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I've started a section on the article talk page here, as it's probably the right place now for this broad discussion to take place, since other interested editors may have views. I'm hoping that's all I'm going to say further on the topic. To me it's quite simple - where reliable sources report secret transfers without legal process such as an extradition hearing, that is extraordinary rendition as defined. It's a bit of a red herring and borderline original research to start saying "but I think this transfer/rendition was legal", "the CIA say this transfer/rendition was legal" or "no court has ruled that this transfer/rendition was illegal", and we cannot exclude cases on that basis. Even if any of those claims are made, and even if it OK legally for the CIA to move people around from country to country at will (which is highly debatable anyway), the simple fact is that when they do it, in most cases reliable sources will call it as extraordinary rendition. --Nickhh (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Shannon Airport, Ireland, an example of OR an Irrelevancy

1. The government of the Republic of Ireland has come under internal and external pressure to inspect airplanes at Shannon Airport to investigate whether or not they contain extraordinary rendition captives.

Fine so far.

2. Police at Shannon have said that they have received political instruction not to approach, search or otherwise interfere with US aircraft suspected of being involved in extraordinary rendition flights.

Yes, the US has a SOFA treaty with the Ireland. Doing what they want to do would thus violate international law. This is legal and normal. The New York police would be told the same if an Irish diplomatic flight landed at JFK. If Ireland asked the US for permission to search, it would normally be granted. Local police need to ask their government for permission. What is the problem?

3. Ireland has been censured by the European Parliament for its role in facilitating extraordinary rendition and taking insufficient or no measures to uphold its obligations under the UN CAT.

Ireland has not been so censured. Ireland and most EU counties refuse to tell the EU what their SOFA treaties say. This really pisses off the EU. The EU cannot censure Ireland for treaties it cannot read. This is in large part why Ireland doesn't give these to the EU, and because they don't have to.

This bad info is a major OR violation. Ireland did not investigate, the EU did not investigate or search this aircraft. How did the EU determine that this flight was "facilitating extraordinary rendition" It couldn't. it didn't, and the EU did not censure Ireland over this flight.

This is an example of a SYN policy violation.Paragraph 2 and 3 have no linkage. This editor is trying to create OR and still use cites. Two unrelated reliable cites cannot be used to build a case. Did #2 cause #3 (if #3 were true)?

The situation is complicated at Shannon Airport because, (along with Dublin Airport, the only other airport in Europe to have such a facility), passengers flying to the USA are cleared for immigration to the USA by U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection before boarding the flights and are kept in a "sterile gate lounge"

What is this about? How does it relate to ER? If you were flying to the US and were on a list to be denied entry, why not learn of this in Ireland? Why end up in New York and fly back? So the Irish are trying to help theirb people a bit, this is ER? Raggz (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Craig Murray 2003 revelations

In 2003, the United Kingdom's Ambassador for Uzbekistan, Craig Murray made accusations that information was being extracted under extreme torture from dissidents in that country, and that the information was subsequently being used by the UK and other western, democratic countries which disapproved of torture.

Irrelevant. He does not cite the US.

In March 2003 he was informed in the London offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) by Sir Michael Wood, chief Legal Adviser, that it was not illegal under the UN Convention Against Torture for the UK to obtain or to use intelligence gained under torture, provided the British government itself did not use torture or request that a named individual be tortured.

Fine, put this into UK Extraordinary Rendition and Torture

The unanimous Law Lords judgment on 2005-12-08 confirmed this position. They ruled that, under English law tradition, "torture and its fruits" could not be used in court. But the information thus obtained could be used by the British police and security services as "it would be ludicrous for them to disregard information about a ticking bomb if it had been procured by torture." The Law Lords thus dismissed concerns about the validity of information obtained under torture, which have been expressed by various security agents and human rights activists.

Fine, put this into UK Extraordinary Rendition and Torture

Murray's accusations did not lead to any investigation by his employer, the FCO, and he resigned after disciplinary action was taken against him in 2004. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office itself is being investigated by the National Audit Office because of accusations that it has victimized, bullied and intimidated its own staff. Note the SYN policy violation? Do we have a reliable source or text linking the first and second sentences? If we did, fine - but we do not!

Murray later stated that he felt that he had unwittingly stumbled upon what has been called "torture by proxy". He thought that Western countries moved people to regimes and nations where it was known that information would be extracted by torture, and made available to them.

Fine, put this into UK Extraordinary Rendition and Torture

Murray states that he was aware from August 2002 "that the CIA were bringing in detainees to Tashkent from Bagram airport Afghanistan, who were handed over to the Uzbek security services (SNB). I presumed at the time that these were all Uzbek nationals — that may have been a false presumption. I knew that the CIA were obtaining intelligence from their subsequent interrogation by the SNB." He goes on to say that he did not know at the time that any non-Uzbek nationals were flown to Uzbekistan and although he has studied the reports by several journalists and finds their reports credible he is not a firsthand authority on this issue.

This is not a reliable source on ER, give the man credit for telling us he does not know what he suspects. The CIA can return nationals of a country that are captured in battle to that country. It can hold them at Guantanamo. In this case they sent them home. Is sending them home ER?

If an Uzbek is captured in battle, should he be flown to Guantanamo, or returned to his country?

In the end, why is this in the article? Raggz (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Raggz (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Article deletion

If you wish to see an article deleted, please use the proper process at WP:AFD --William Graham  07:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the OR. I waited a year, it seemed long enough. Article deletion is not an issue, just OR deletion. Raggz (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You blanked the entire page. That is not a constructive edit. I will go and nominate the article for deletion myself if you feel so strongly. --William Graham  16:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(cross-posting to the article talkpage) Raggz, there are thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages without any citations. This does not mean that it is acceptable to just go and blank them, as that is a violation of WP:POINT, especially on an article which has been on Misplaced Pages for several years. Instead, options are to add {{unref}} or {{fact}} tags; delete any implausible information; propose a merge; expand the article yourself; and so forth. If you truly believe that the entire article should be deleted, add a {{prod}} tag to it to propose a deletion. If no one objects in 5 days, the article will be deleted, with no muss and no fuss. If there is disagreement on whether or not to delete an article, you can file an article for deletion request. If there is consensus for the deletion, the article can be deleted that way as well. But please do not simply blank existing articles. Thanks, --Elonka 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of article deletion policies and have never nominated any. I am not interested in deleting this article and so have not nominated it for deletion. I would prefer that some editor take on the job of offering reliable sources. I don't however want to do this myself, but if there is an editor who wants to salvage ths article I would prefer this to deletion. If no one wants to, then I suppose I might nominate it. However, I am not involved in the article deletion discussion, just the OR deletion discussion.

A year ago I raised the lack of sources as an OR issue. No one on Talk responded. No one responded to the fact tags. My understanding of policy is that I may delete OR? In this case I challenged the OR on talk, waited a year, and then by wp:or and wp:bold deleted the challenged material. What am I misunderstanding here?

Does wp:consensus preclude the deletion of OR if there is no consensus? My understanding is that we may not deny WP policy, even if we reach a consensus to do so? For content issues, consensus applies - but not for policy issues. What do I misunderstand? wp:bold

"Raggz, there are thousands of articles on Misplaced Pages without any citations. This does not mean that it is acceptable to just go and blank them,[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?" You are correct by my understanding of wp:bold and wp:or. If no editor challenges the lack of sources, unsupported claims are fine and are often better. A year ago, this article was challenged on talk and with fact tags for being entirely OR. At this point, reliable sources were then required. Do I misunderstand policy?

Any editor who reverts material challenged as OR for lack of sources is responsible for offering the necessary sources? Do I correctly understand policy? If not, please explain? Raggz (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to remove a few unsourced statements, it's another to completely blank an article. If you genuinely feel that an article is 100% unsalvageable original research, then just tag it with {{prod}} and if no one challenges it, the article will disappear in a few days. However, in most of the cases where I have seen unsourced articles, the information is plausible, it's just poorly sourced. So the better option is to provide sources, rather than to just delete en masse. Sources can usually be found by a quick Google search, especially at places such as http://books.google.com and http://scholar.google.com . If, however, even Google can't provide any sources, then most people won't complain if you simply "prod" or AfD the article, and use a summary such as, "Article appears to be complete original research. I could find no sources via a Google search, and recommend deletion." --Elonka 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does wp:consensus preclude the deletion of OR if there is no consensus? Yes, consensus on Misplaced Pages is that articles are not blanked. They may be reduced to a non-controversial stub statement by removal of unsourced material or proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion, but simply blanking articles is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We appear to have fundamental disagreement as to policy interpretation. You outline how you would have edited the article and appear to be insisting that I adopt your editorial philosophy and style. I suggest that as long as editors comply with WP policies, they are free to develop their own editorial styles. I expect to take our disagreement on this point through the dispute resolution process unless you agree that each editor is at liberty to develop their own editorial style so long as this complies with WP policy.

If we were engaged in debating WP policy, that would be productive. We both might grow as editors. We are not doing this, when I raise issues you just open new and different issues. We need help to get to the point where we can discuss policy rather than editorial style issues Raggz (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Does wp:consensus preclude the deletion of OR if there is no consensus? Yes, consensus on Misplaced Pages is that articles are not blanked. They may be reduced to a non-controversial stub statement by removal of unsourced material or proposed for deletion or nominated for deletion, but simply blanking articles is not. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)" RPOD, please do this since I am uncertain about how to do this. Why did you wait a year to raise your point? We disagree about policy, I may and should blank OR challenged for a year without response. wp:bold wp:or wp:syn Please cite the policy that supports your claims? Raggz (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No page blanks-- The Red Pen of Doom 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing sources

Raggz, in this edit you removed large sections of an article that appeared to be well-sourced, saying only "NPOV violation". Other editors do not appear to be agreeing with your assessment of the situation. I recommend that you proceed more slowly, and work on one paragraph at a time. Also, please do not delete citations from reliable sources, unless you can make a good case that those citations have nothing to do with the topic of the article. Instead, you can modify the information from those citations, but please don't delete the citations entirely. Thanks, --Elonka 20:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the extensive discussion on this material. It was an error to only use an NPOV tag. This material had been challenged as OR, because there is no report from the European Parliment. There is a memo from Dick Marty. In his memo he states that the European Parliment committee (that he is on) decided not to issue any report and that he issued his memo because of this. For any editor to repeatedly revert to claim that Dick Marty and the European Parliment are the same, is tenditious and denies important WP policies. wp:or wp:syn wp:npov te.

The editors reverting this text know very well that it misrepresents that the European Parliment wrote what Dick Marty actually wrote. Is the Reader served by this intentional misrepresentation of fact? Raggz (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just remove information related to one report, you removed many citations to sources that are usually considered reliable, such as the Washington Post and BBC News. --Elonka 21:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My goal is to improve this article, and in this case norules and wp:bold apply. Why do I make this claim? Because leaving odd fragments of text that make no sense when the OR was removed did not serve the interests of the Reader. Please post the text that you would have kept, so that I may consider your point? Perhaps I was in error to believe that by itself it was unhelpful to the Reader? I will of course look at this. You may of course revert this supported material, if you believe that it helps.Raggz (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Its not a memo. 21:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I personally have no strong opinion on the content of the article. My participation here is as an uninvolved administrator, attempting to reduce disruption to the project. When someone deletes large well-sourced sections of an article for no reason except that they personally disagree with it, that is (usually) considered disruptive. It is also usually considered disruptive to remove a citation to a clearly reliable source, with a claim that the source is "original research". What you may wish to do instead, is create a draft version of the article on a subpage in your userspace, such as at User:Raggz/Draft. Then you can edit the draft as much as you like. When you're done, provide a link to your draft, at the talkpage of the "live" article, and state your intention to overhaul the article. If there is a consensus that your rewritten version is better, or if no one objects, copy your draft into the main article. If there are objections though (as there appear to be), then it may be better to proceed more slowly, and edit one section, paragraph, or even sentence at a time. But again, please avoid deleting citations to reliable sources. Instead, it is better to rework the information from those sources, or to reorganize things on the article. Please do your best to assume good faith from other editors. Most people are here to help the project, and not to hurt it. So try to see if you can find a compromise that is in adherence with Misplaced Pages policies. Thanks, --Elonka 21:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We diagree. You are telling me to change my editorial style, even though it apparently fully complies with WP policy. You seem unable to understand this. Must we seek the dispute resolution process? Your direction to me as an administrator directly violates wp:bold. I suggest that you get help from another administrator now and save us the waste of other peoples time later? Your implication regarding my motivation to delete OR violates wp policy, you are not permitted to slam other editors personally. Raggz (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, please take a lesson from all this. You really are out on your own here. Even at WP:ANI where you raised a complaint against User:Elonka, which was quickly closed, you would notice that editors who have recently been in the occasional dispute over other matters fell in against your argument. As I have suggested before, please edit and improve articles here, but do so within the limits of your knowledge and expertise, and according to what WP policies actually say, not according to your individual interpretation of them (as suggested below, mentorship may be an idea). For example even in your comments above you are way off-beam about some pretty basic and uncontroversial facts. Dick Marty is a Swiss politician who led an investigation by the Council of Europe into allegations about the extraordinary rendition programme being run by the US, with the apparent co-operation of some European governments. That body issued a report based on his investigations. He is not a member of the European Parliament or any committee beloning to the Parliament, a body which issued a separate report on the same subject matter. This is all quite simple to understand, has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions and is all described and referenced in the article itself. Or was until of course you decided unilaterally to remove whole chunks of it. --Nickhh (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mentor?

Raggz, given the significant time that you seem to spend arguing with other editors about your interpretation and application of Wikiipedia policies, perhaps it would be worth your while to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Mentorship program. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Note

I see that you are referring to a lot of policies in your argumentation. Note that policies on Misplaced Pages represent a written down version of an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules". Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering, which is usually frowned upon. Argue your case from the merits of your position, not by referring to a certain policy. And yes, before you ask, it is policy that you shouldn't argue based on policy. Ironic, isn't it? henrik•talk 22:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Example: The article cites the policy of the European Parliment, but the citation is not from the European Parliment. After extensive discussion, what should then be done? I cite the policies violated because they were violated. I am however open, what in your opinion should I have done about the misrepresentation (OR) within this article? Raggz (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hes talking about this;

Parliamentory Assembly AS/Jur (2006) 16 Part II 7 June 2006 ajdoc16 2006 Part II Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states Draft report – Part II (Explanatory memorandum) Rapporteur: Mr Dick Marty, Switzerland, ALDE

Which he claims is a "memo" as oppossed to a Committee report to the Parliament of Europe. 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On page 4 (#16) Dick Marty describes it as an "information memorandum". He went on to say "... the Assembly Bureau had decided, at its meeting on 9 January 2006, to suggest holding a current affairs debate, ie a debate without a report, which nevertheless leaves me free to submit this information memorandum to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights." Raggz (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Raggz, this is simply your own bizarre interpretation of one paragraph in a long and complex technical/legal document, which in turn is simply a preliminary paper in a series of such documents released on this subject matter. It is dated as being from January 2006. The full report from the Council of Europe was not issued as far as I can tell until June 2006. It then issued a second report in 2007. A committee from the European Parliament, a separate body from the Council of Europe, conducted its own investigation and issued its own report in 2007. The Parliament as a whole voted to endorse that report. This is really not very difficult. --Nickhh (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I will carefully review your claims and if I am in error, I will apologize. This informational memorandum was incorrectly cited by the article as the opinion of the Council of Europe (or the European Parliment), when it was neither. THAT is how we got to where we are. Raggz (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledged that there seemed to be a minor problem reconciling the citation chosen for the lead and the resulting text (although not necessarily with the fundamental point being described, which was set out in more detail in the main body of the article), oh, about a week ago. In addition there has long been a hidden text note in the lead querying this citation. Again, repeated deletion and endless talk page obfuscation about this and 101 other matters was not the appropriate response. Correcting the cite (or relying on the fact that a lead simply summarises material properly cited elsewhere) would have been. I shall remove it to avoid any further confusion. --Nickhh (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)