Tom harrison (talk | contribs) →You got mentioned by the New York Times: Ms. Abramson, call me. |
→You got mentioned by the New York Times: Please don't revert war |
||
Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
::The NYTimes usually gets their reporting half right...this time I give them a 66 percent for accuracy. The writer of that apparently doesn't understand our policies very well. And their portrayal of Rubin, what with such impeccable qualifications, that he would have been unable to force the "gatekeepers" to see it his way, indicates the Times is, to a degree questioning how an "expert" could be overrruled by well, they may assume amateurs...okie dokie.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
::The NYTimes usually gets their reporting half right...this time I give them a 66 percent for accuracy. The writer of that apparently doesn't understand our policies very well. And their portrayal of Rubin, what with such impeccable qualifications, that he would have been unable to force the "gatekeepers" to see it his way, indicates the Times is, to a degree questioning how an "expert" could be overrruled by well, they may assume amateurs...okie dokie.[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I guess the reporter didn't read the talk page archives. Not that I can blame him - the Times <s>couldn't pay me to do that either.</s> would have to pay me a lot to do that. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
:::I guess the reporter didn't read the talk page archives. Not that I can blame him - the Times <s>couldn't pay me to do that either.</s> would have to pay me a lot to do that. [[User:Tom harrison|Tom Harrison]] <sup>[[User talk:Tom harrison|Talk]]</sup> 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
==Revert warring== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:September_11_attacks&curid=17602297&diff=450281947&oldid=450254356] I assume that revert warring is included under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for this topic. Please don't do it. [[User:Cla68|Cla68]] ([[User talk:Cla68|talk]]) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:49, 13 September 2011
For new users
If you are new here, welcome. The page Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.
Archives
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.
Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Doom
Ok, we are about to get into an edit war, and seeing as we have very similar taste (I see you on my watchlist a lot), lets just knock it on the head here. I don't like "see also" sections per se, for reasons mentioned in hasty edit summaries and also becase they are so easy to add, and the link is often specious in the extreme. Thats not the case here of course, I'm acting on principal rather than, eh, against you if you know what I mean. I'll revert myself and call a truce, or we can write up a section if there are online sources (I dont see anything in the few books I have). Deal? Ceoil (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, we'll dismiss "Go away and write a paragraph" as an unfortunate result of the limitations of the edit summary. Clearly the link is relevent. I understand disliking 'see also' on principle, but when the links there add something useful to the article, the links should be kept until they are integrated into the article, as we would both prefer. I've added an attempt at that, which I hope satisfies both of us. Tom Harrison Talk 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
9/11
Tom...we'll get the article to FA level by 9/11....just roll with the punches at the FAC and address the issues...in a week to 10 days, the article will look a whole lot better, trust me.MONGO 17:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't doubt it. So far the comments have been (except one) useful suggestions for improvement. I'll have more time later today and tomorrow. Thanks for taking on those formatting issues. I don't really have a lot of experience with that, and we should get a more consistent result if one person does it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't track my edits...you'll see comments regarding the closing of the FAC after a day to be most unforgiving...this is your first FAC nomination if I am not mistaken? So they welcome you to their "club" by slamming the door in your face...so shall we press on and let you renominate it in a week to 10 days? I don't think it will pass before 9/11 since they closed the target page most helpful for getting feedback for improvement!!!!! Nevertheless, this has been a herculean effort, and one worth fighting for and I commend you.--MONGO 04:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my reply at WT:FAC#Closing of FAC after 1 day. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Don't track my edits...you'll see comments regarding the closing of the FAC after a day to be most unforgiving...this is your first FAC nomination if I am not mistaken? So they welcome you to their "club" by slamming the door in your face...so shall we press on and let you renominate it in a week to 10 days? I don't think it will pass before 9/11 since they closed the target page most helpful for getting feedback for improvement!!!!! Nevertheless, this has been a herculean effort, and one worth fighting for and I commend you.--MONGO 04:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
- Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
- To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
- If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
It's useless to say "Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard" exactly because experienced editors are discouraged from following and editing these things. The arbs say "we urge," but the editing environment discourages. Tom Harrison Talk 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
9/11 again
Tom, I am sorry we're in opposition on the 9/11 article and the direction it should take. I think you've done pretty well so far in the face of what must seem like a personal blow; I know how much hard work it is to improve an article, and how awful it can be to have your work criticized. Unfortunately this is the cost (but ultimately also the benefit) of collaborating with a wider group as you invited when you put this up for FA. I have the greatest respect for the calm and patience you have brought to the 9/11 page, and nothing but respect too for the work you have done on the article, even if we disagree about the proper scope it should have. I've already praised you for your willingness to collaborate and compromise over wording. Edits like this one remind me that you also have a good sense of humor and a good heart. I'm less happy with edits like this one; we all need to avoid snark, me included, if we are to make this article what it really ought to be. I wouldn't be posting at that article's talk if I wasn't arguing that it is necessary to add something of this matter at the article we are talking about. Andrew Brookes and David Gero thought these matters were worth discussing in the context of the attacks, and these are hardly fringe figures but very respectable authors on aviation, and, in Brookes' case, about military and defense matters in general. Their views should not automatically be discounted or shunted off to a "daughter article".
This question has genuinely gotten me stumped; where do you see that from me? --John (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's a result of summary style. We don't pack everything into the top-level article, we summarize the other articles. Surely there's some article where Torture and kidnapping carried out by US government using 9/11 as a pretext belongs, but it isn't this one, becuase it isn't about 9/11 - it's about torture and kidnaping carried out by the US governemnt. That's certainly a topic for the article on American terrorism as it used to be.
- I remember - mabye incorrectly - that you came to the talk page saying the prose was bad. I said 'so fix it'. You said it was too howlingly aweful to fix, and only a complete rewrite would do. I suggested you write something up in userspace so we could see it. You said that wouldn't do any good, because the active editors on the article wouldn't entertain changes. Finally, after this time-wasting dialogue, we came to the nub - you wanted to add a section on the conspiracy theories, torture and kidnapping, and tendentious essays on Entry of the US into two unwinnable wars as a response to the attacks, leading to far more deaths than the original attacks, and the billions wasted on airport security - nothing to do with prose quailty at all. So if you have proposals, I'll read them, but I'll view them more sceptically than I did at first. Tom Harrison Talk 11:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Now I get what you meant. There are two separate problems; one with NPOV by omission, and one with the prose quality. Multiple other editors besides me have raised this. It makes sense to deal with them in that order though I think, but they will both have to be dealt with. --John (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Will they both have to be dealt with? I no longer believe all generic criticism of the prose has been sincere, and the sources are against you on the question of due weight. But these are questions for the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Prose is important, but this article has a technical side to it that makes it tough to be too rosy with the prose...please look over my edit here Tom, when you can...I prefer this not be in the article but tried to show that air defense was done, that there had been an order to shoot down planes and that in retrospect, as history has shown, it may be better that we didn't.--MONGO 01:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Will they both have to be dealt with? I no longer believe all generic criticism of the prose has been sincere, and the sources are against you on the question of due weight. But these are questions for the article talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 00:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't for a moment accept that the sources are against me, obviously. Is this a part of the problem you are having?
Hah, I saw that discussion. I think conspiracy theorists are generally nutcases, but how is it that some people can be so against them that to even mention the fact they exist, and have been discussed in reliable sources, is inappropriate? It seems to me that some of those people think that to mention them is to validate them. Parrot of Doom 06:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon me for barging in, but I think that is a stupendous point PoD. To mention a topic is not to endorse it; we're a neutral resource and we don't take sides, just report what the sources say. When the BBC, respected aviation writers, or the US Government itself all discuss an aspect of a topic, it becomes notable. Indeed as I think HJM pointed out, to suppress (or appear to suppress) a particular POV may give more comfort to the supporters of the POV than to report on it dispassionately. Anyway, nice point; I may use it if I decide to stay involved with this exhausting and generally unrewarding subject area. Cheers. --John (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(copied over from User talk:Parrot of Doom, yet another uninvolved editor who thinks there are NPOV issues with suppressing any mention of the conspiracy theories.)
- I'm sorry for any difficulty you are having maintaining AGF in the face of folks with a different world-view to your own; but with this many dissenters from your position, I think you'd need some conspiracy theories of your own to explain an interpretation other than you and MONGO being in the wrong on this issue.
- As regards the prose quality, this is quite a straightforward one. Multiple editors have highlighted that there are problems of writing clarity and grammar. The section we were just talking about had quite a bad grammar error and is over-written; you acknowledged this when you fixed it yourself after my attempt to do so was reverted. In a good article, "the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct;...". Ergo, this article is not at Good Article quality in this regard either. Yet. --John (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
If there were so many dissenters, they'd form the consensus. Mongo and I could hardly by ourselves suppress the Truth about "torture and kidnapping carried out by US government" and the "Entry of the US into two unwinnable wars as a response to the attacks, leading to far more deaths than the original attacks" and the "billions wasted on airport security", if the community wanted it included.
And of course the material you cite wasn't in the article until September 4, so it can't have been one of the prose problems. Several editors have said the prose is bad - "memorably bad," you said in one edit summary, which is poor practice - but the critics rarely point to anything specific. To fix it only a complete rewrite will do; and they must be the ones to do it. There's always room for improvement, but I think "prose quality" has been used as a catch-all for "I don't like it."
And I have to say, I'm more interested in having a good article than a Good Article. Certainly we shouldn't violate due weight to court votes.
I'll read a reply to this if you care to leave one, but beyond that we should take it to the talk page; Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't realize that error was only recently added to the article. I'm disappointed you didn't answer the main point I made about covering minority beliefs not being the same as subscribing to them. Of course it is more than you and MONGO; there are a bunch of you fighting to keep the article US-government POV only, and you've done a great job. Nevertheless, an honest person looking at the GAR page wouldn't be maintaining that the article was "good" or "Good" at present, because that isn't what most neutral editors there have been saying. I note your capitalization of "truth", by the way; nice innuendo. It may well be that you and your friends will be allowed to keep the article the way you want it for a while longer, since you feel so strongly about it and are prepared to work so hard to keep it this way. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't capture the values of the project or the "community". So long. --John (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read
As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to BusterD for the kind words. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
You got mentioned by the New York Times
In case you didn't know, you were mentioned in an article by the New York Times.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, huh, how about that. Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- The NYTimes usually gets their reporting half right...this time I give them a 66 percent for accuracy. The writer of that apparently doesn't understand our policies very well. And their portrayal of Rubin, what with such impeccable qualifications, that he would have been unable to force the "gatekeepers" to see it his way, indicates the Times is, to a degree questioning how an "expert" could be overrruled by well, they may assume amateurs...okie dokie.MONGO 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the reporter didn't read the talk page archives. Not that I can blame him - the Times
couldn't pay me to do that either.would have to pay me a lot to do that. Tom Harrison Talk 16:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess the reporter didn't read the talk page archives. Not that I can blame him - the Times
- The NYTimes usually gets their reporting half right...this time I give them a 66 percent for accuracy. The writer of that apparently doesn't understand our policies very well. And their portrayal of Rubin, what with such impeccable qualifications, that he would have been unable to force the "gatekeepers" to see it his way, indicates the Times is, to a degree questioning how an "expert" could be overrruled by well, they may assume amateurs...okie dokie.MONGO 14:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Revert warring
[2] I assume that revert warring is included under the ArbCom discretionary sanctions for this topic. Please don't do it. Cla68 (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)