subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
I think it would be good for wikipedia if we adopted
the six color hat system. A critical/pessimistic view
is black hat, and there are other hats for
emotional/gut feeling, creative, optomistic, but I
forget the rest.  The article could be entitled
China/black hat or China (black hat). This flies in
the face of NPOV, but if we explicitly explained that
this was from a critical point of view, it could work.
Encyclopedias tend to be very POV.  My school World
Book encyclopedia is highly McCarthyist and
Eurocentric.

--- Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> > I think the fundamental problem is that several
> parties to this
> > controversy essentially want an article written
> from a sympathetic
> > point of view. I suggest that they should have
> that freedom on
> > Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate
> article perhaps
> > entitled, China: A crititical view.
>
> I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_.  I
> think the idea of
> a website with critical essays written in
> wiki-fashion is an
> interesting one, but it isn't right for us.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


list: wikien-l

source: pipermail-mbox

from_name: Daniel Ehrenberg

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
"China is a controlling country" because that's an
opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
paragraph), "China is critisized for being
[[authoritarianism and
totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].

--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:

> I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
> to [[authoritarianism
> and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
> paragraph of the article.
> I think this is a fair characterization of the
> regime (regardless of what
> ever other adjective might describe it).

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Ray Saintonge

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
Jimmy Wales wrote:

>Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for
>dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the
>issue.  Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing
>list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
>
>How about this:
>
>>China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although
>>the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state.
>>Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and
>>calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
>>
>
>I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it
>could be refined quite easily.  But it eliminates a controversy by
>stating the controversy.  All parties can agree to it.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>p.s.  Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China
>is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place.
>Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist,
>even!  I don't really know anything about that other than what I read
>in the newspapers and magazines, though.
>
I have to agree that much of the situation in China is confused, but so
too is the loose way that people often use words.  The terms "communist
state" or "socialist state" or "capitalist state" tend to be used as
epthets more than as descriptions.  The range of images that these terms
evoke is often so broad as to be meaningless.  The criticism intended by
an anti-communist when he says "communist" can be taken as praise by one
who supports such a system.  Their usage frequently muddles the
distinction between economic systems and political systems, though these
terms are more properly applied to the former.  But even when the terms
are properly restrictively applied to the economic system that prevails
in a state I am often left wondering whether the user really knew
anything about economics.  Even if the Chinese Constitution says that
China is a socialist state, we always need to remember that the official
version is not in English, and strange things can happen in the course
of a translation.

Personally, I prefer to avoid these terms entirely.  I would prefer to
describe the system without attaching the label.  If the description
happens to co-incide with somebody's vision of the term so much the
better, but then it is up to the reader to supply the term in his own
mind.  By supplying descriptions we perform a better encyclopedic
service than by appealing to people's preconceptions.

As for "post-socialism" or "post-modernism" or "post-fooism", I know
that when someone uses that prefix his commitment to jargon is complete.
 All that he is telling me is that one system which he didn't understand
in the first place has evolved  into a different system that he doesn't
understand any better, and that they are somehow related in a way which
he also does not understand.

Eclecticology


from_name: Andrew Smith

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin status

body:
Oops, sorry to cause confusion. I did ask on the list a couple of weeks ago
but I think it got a little forgotten about. I emailed Ed yesterday just to
ask about it.

Andrew (Ams80)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Pilich" <pilich at btopenworld.com>
To: <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Admin status

> At 23:16 24/04/2003 +0100, Andrew wrote:
> >Hi All,
> >
> >Ed Poor has just made me a sysop (thanks Ed!) and asked me to inform the
list.
>
> I certainly don't have a problem with Ams80 being made a sysop, but I
> thought that the idea behind potential sysops asking on this list for
> adminship was so that any concerns about them having sysop powers could be
> aired before they had the potential to delete all the articles about
> Hinduism (or whatever). If we're not going to do this on the list any more
> (and I'm all for not doing it on the list any more), can we have
> [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] or something similar?
>
> Perhaps such a page already exists and I've missed it - if so, could
> somebody please point me to it? If it doesn't exist yet, then I'm happy to
> make it myself if there's agreement that that would be a better way of
> doing things.
>
> lp (camembert)
> WikiKarma: [[Babson task]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


list: wikipedia-l

from_name: Zoe

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anti-French sentiment

body:
Those articles are, indeed, POV, in that they are clearly biased against the United States. Zoe

Guillaume Blanchard <gblanchard at arcsy.co.jp> wrote:Imho, here is two very NPOV articles :
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation
I read english better I wrote it, so I can't correct myself, but I hope
someone will pov those articles.
Shame,

Aoineko

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030425/41ee1db5/attachment.htm


from_name: Lee Pilich

subject: [WikiEN-l] Admin status

body:
At 12:17 25/04/2003 +0100, Andrew (Ams80) wrote:
>Oops, sorry to cause confusion. I did ask on the list a couple of weeks ago

Oops myself - I must've missed it. Apologies.

I still think a page on the 'pedia to deal with requests for adminship is a
good idea, though. Barring any objections, I'll make it next week sometime.

lp (camembert)


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anti-French sentiment

body:
Actually, no, some Americans, myself included, think it bends over backwards to make the French feel good while making the Americans look bad, something that is done with great regularity on Wikipedia. Zoe

Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:

Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com> wrote:
"Anti-French sentiment in the United States" is a somewhat balanced
article, but is it _encyclopedic_? At the very least, it needs a
better title, one more closely matching the contents, which are
strongly linked to current events. Point is the americans think it balanced, when the french think it is not balanced. Hence, by definition, if some think this article is not fair, it is not NPOV.

I think there is a valid topic lurking here, but to be encyclopedic, I
think we need to place the current state of French-American relations
into the context of history. America and France have had a love-hate
relationship for a very long time, and the cultural friction between
us is not simply the product of current events.

--Jimbo
You are right. I forgot his name, but one person decided to start an *historical* [[anti-french sentiment in the United-States]]. It appears to me the point of replacing it in an historical context is a good move; much better than focusing on couple of months old (or even couple of years old) events. The current article will result in an article of a deceiving viability on the long term. Besides, replacing an article in historical context will attract more historians, who show integrity. However, as regards Chadolar (well, the person with this type of name, I really apologize for not remembering) is planning to do, I think we are heading directly in an article even more biaised than this one, and even more offending to french people. The fact is, it is not good for an article to be just a collection of facts poorly reflecting a more global feeling. For the ones hated can only watch being displayed in dismay a list of facts they can not reflect on. With such a list as the one currently provided, there is little that can be done to try to explain why it is so, and why now, and why perhaps hate is not justified sometimes, and the different patterns of love and hate. It is certainly interesting for french people to read such a list of reasons to hate us, a collection of proofs of hateful feeling, for as we already privately discussed it together, we are not aware really of the level of hate you currently feel for us.But, I wonder which interest this type of article has on american people, except for fondly recollecting their emotions, except of nourrishing their resentment with further facts they had not been aware of, except for having a good time writing it and having fun at our reaction reading it. In short, I don't think an encyclopedic article only dealing with one side of a relationship can be anything else than unbalanced. In particular because many people writing the article are *not* having any intention for it to be fair. It appears to me that if such a wider article was to be written, it should be more something like [[Relationship between France and United States]] or [[Americans-French relationships]]. Then, we can start communicating instead of bashing, reflecting instead of ruminating aggressive feelings, learning of both sides, and perhaps adding some water in the wine (well...americans need to stop pouring the french wine on french imported cars before, right ?). And also, seeing there are some hate feelings, as well as love feelings.I think it potentially more fruitful. And then, I will renew my son american passport.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030425/d53e75e1/attachment.htm


from_name: Anthere

subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
Could someone find a occupation for little fat budda
please ?

He is very bored, and since I had the absolute stupid
idea to dare oppose to him, he is on my back doing
quite irrelevant edits.

He is making me badly loose my time, which is one
thing, but he is also doing dozens of inappropriate
links which imho are damaging Wikipedia, as they are
very meaningless.

For example, he is redirecting biosphere III to
biosphere, when these two things have nothing to do.

He is redirecting post-consumer waste, which is a very
properly defined word in sustainable developement, to
recycling, which is completely stupid.

He is deleting links under the reason they have
nothing to do with the topic of the article, when if
fact they do

He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate
change on agriculture" which took me hours to write,
to redirect it to [[climate change]]

similarly, he deleted article on conservation
(biology) to redirect it to [[biology]]

In short, he is currently deleting hours of work, and
making totally destructible misdirection

I have no copy of what I wrote, and wikipedia is so
slow I will never be able to save what I have been
doing for more than a year

I ask that he be stopped immediately

If I am not welcome on wikipedia, I will just leave it
if necessary, but please, let me save my work, more
than a year of work before it deletes everything

please please please....

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
--- The Cunctator <cunctator at kband.com> wrote:
> ant--know that I'm on your side.
>
> BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?

I found the stupid hidden misdirection budda made
fortunately. I think nothing is lost, I just lost my
temper I guess. But I know I can lose everything, so I
will temporarely save them in meta, before securing
them somewhere else.

Which leave all the *very* unprofessional redirections
budda made, and which have to be fixed one by one.
These redirections are impairing the quality of the
encyclopedia. Better an empty link that to make
believe to someone the concept of post-consumer waste
is similar to the concept of recycling.

What sense does it have to delete gaia theories to
redirect them to gaia hypothesis ????

or to redirect sustainable agriculture to just
agriculture ???

who are we trying to convince here ???

If noone is disturbed by leaving someone ruining the
quality of an encyclopedia that way, I think there is
nothing else to say, and no point in doing anything

But for a professional in the agriculture field or
waste treatment field, these edits and redirection are
insulting, and very very very very much lowering any
interest in wikipedia

I am going to spent hours repairing all that mess,
probably to find every thing ruined tomorrow again. At
this point, I 'll give up unless someone help me

I don't really want to be sysop. I already have the
french wiki as a area to keep clean. Besides, being a
sysop on this issue will change nothing. I have no
possibility to stop somebody destroying the whole
sector of agriculture in this encyclopedia. Being a
sysop would not change this.

but thanks to your support tc

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: daniwo59 at aol.com

subject: [WikiEN-l] Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber back as new user

body:
I think we should be very careful about deciding whether a new user is ALVCSMDF (and B for Bridget). There should be more evidence than we don't like the way a newbee edits or even that it reminds us of past experiences. Otherwise we will be too quick to ban otherwise potentially valuable contributors. Having been here for quite a while already, I can safely say that people who started off here somewhat shakily have turned into some of our best contrributors. It is a good thing we did not scare them away. Let us not allow the Ghost of Lir to haunt us into making rash decisions.

Danny


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> > He has deleted my article on "Impact of global
> climate
> > change on agriculture" which took me hours to
> write,
> > to redirect it to [[climate change]]
>
> What do you mean, deleted? I'm not sure I
> understand. The article has no
> history except for BigFatBuddha's edit, and it is
> not in the archive of
> deleted pages. I also don't remember BigFatBuddha
> being made a sysop --
> he's not listed on Wikipedia:Administrators. If he
> is a sysop, and has
> bypassed the Votes for deletion page, his sysop
> status should be revoked
> immediately.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik

it was a mistake from me. Someone probably moved it
somewhere else, for I found it under another article.
I can't begin to figure why the change of redirection
is not referenced in the history of the initial page.
My mistake and apologies

Which changes nothing to the fact he did maybe 50
redirections to fix, and a couple of articles blanking
and redirection to others articles, ruining several
people careful contributions, and totally messing with
delicate nuances. I havenot checked all yet. Wiki is
too slow.

I stay with the conviction this is vandalism

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
--- Jens Frank <JeLuF at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700, Anthere
> wrote:
> >
> > He has deleted my article on "Impact of global
> climate
> > change on agriculture" which took me hours to
> write,
> > to redirect it to [[climate change]]
> >
> Hello Anthere,
>
> Looking at that pages history, I only see one
> version of
> the article, which is created by Budda. Since he is
> no
> Admin, I wonder how he could have deleted your
> article.
> Are you sure you saved it?
>
> Regards,
>
>  JeLuF

I found it at [[Global warming and agriculture]]
(which is a good title) moved by Martin

Budda probably picked up a wrong writing of "Impact of
global climate change on agriculture" (there was
probably a s initially - ok that was not a good title)

Budda redirect it to [[climate change]] (which is
clearly another topic, though related), without of
course taking the trouble to check whether there was
not an article on the topic

Similarly, he redirected [[intensive agriculture]] to
[[agriculture]], in spite of the existence of an
[[intensive farming]] article.

He run through a [[List of sustainable agriculture
topics]] which I create some days ago, as well as
through some of my last articles, picked up every
empty link (there were obviously a lot on the list,
since it was precisely the object of setting up the
list), and did stupid redirections.

That is a pure personnal attack

I am glad he is not sysop

Should he ask, I ask that he is not done.
Please

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com


from_name: Guillaume Blanchard

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anti-French sentiment

body:
Imho, here is two very NPOV articles :
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation
I read english better I wrote it, so I can't correct myself, but I hope
someone will pov those articles.
Shame,

Aoineko


from_name: Erik Moeller

subject: [Wikipedia-l] Simplified & generalized diff selection

body:
> Our current way of selectin diffs with (cur) and (last) is quite
> confusing and restrictive. Often when listing a page's history, I see a
> group of edits from a single user and would like to check the net
> effect of that group of edits, but the software doesn't let me do this.

Yes, I've already started working on this (using a two-column radiobutton
view). It's complicated a bit by having a multi-page history. I'll post to
the list as soon as it's finished.

Regards,

Erik


from_name: The Cunctator

subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
ant--know that I'm on your side.

BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?


from_name: james duffy

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
The trouble with this argument is that some people in it spent their time
discussing the political system of China. That wasn't the issue. What was
being discussed was the governmental classification, which is something
totally different entirely. The term 'Communist state' is a political
science term used to describe a system of government in a one-party left
wing state (in which the one party describes itself as communist) in which
the state and party become embedded in each other and operate as one.

Whether China is communist, socialist, post-communist or whatever is not the
point. That is relevant in a discussion of a political system in the section
on political system. But in terms of governmental structure, 'Communist
state' is the formal designation normally used by sourcebooks and
encyclop?dias. (It is one of those terms like 'constitutional monarchy',
'federal state' etc that is used in encyclop?dias to categorising a state's
governmental system) To try to clear up the confusion, a link was put from
that term to an article that explained EXACTLY what that term means and what
it does not mean. (Though Fred Bauder keeps POVing the link with stuff that
is so right wing that even Donald Rumsfeld would blush. And in doing so he
removes work from a number of other people that is intended to and largely
succeeds in, making it NPOV. His POVing of the piece constantly has to be
reverted.)

What type of political system China has can and should be debated. But no
other formal categorisation of the 'system of government' comes close to
describing a governmental system where in a one party state with a
self-proclaimed communist party, party offices in practice can be more
powerful than the formal state constitutional offices. (The General
Secretary of the USSR Communist Party was a classic example. Many GSs
weren't initially a holder of state office like president, but still such
was the party-state link that they were more central and more in control
than the supposed president or prime minister, a situation that does not
exist in modern liberal democracies.) THAT is what the debate was about, not
whether 'politically' the party was communist, post-communist,
neo-communist, socialist, neo-socialist, neo capitalist, etc which is a
'different' argument that belongs in a different section of the article.

JT

>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from www.wikipedia.org ([130.94.122.197]) by
>mc10-f31.bay6.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5600); Fri, 25
>Apr 2003 04:53:10 -0700
>Received: from www.wikipedia.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3PBj7o30262;Fri, 25 Apr
>2003 11:45:07 GMT
>Received: from joey.bomis.com (root at joey.bomis.com [130.94.122.196])by
>www.wikipedia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h3PBiPo30203for
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:44:25 GMT
>Received: from joey.bomis.com (jwales at localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h3PBpBq6026858for
><wikien-l at wikipedia.org>; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11 -0700
>Received: (from jwales at localhost)by joey.bomis.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit)
>id h3PBpBET026857for wikien-l at wikipedia.org; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:51:11
>-0700
>X-Message-Info: UZmYcfFpTCewzfqvyl1d15R59mlxBfYY
>Message-ID: <20030425045111.F26205 at joey.bomis.com>
>References: <20030425045151.28535.qmail at web14008.mail.yahoo.com>
>User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
>In-Reply-To: <20030425045151.28535.qmail at web14008.mail.yahoo.com>; from
>axelboldt at yahoo.com on Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 09:51:51PM -0700
>Sender: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>Errors-To: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>X-BeenThere: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion list for English-language Wikipedia
><wikien-l.wikipedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>,<mailto:wikien-l-request at wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/>
>Return-Path: wikien-l-admin at wikipedia.org
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Apr 2003 11:53:10.0452 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[3E5B8F40:01C30B21]
>
>Regarding the policy issue, I wonder if our "standard techniques" for
>dealing with a controversy are perfectly adequate to deal with the
>issue.  Ironically, the effort to clarify the issue for the mailing
>list may point the way to resolving the question on the page.
>
>How about this:
> >China has been traditionally considered a communist state, although
> >the Chinese Constitution states that China is a socialist state.
> >Western scholars are moving away from the label "communist" and
> >calling China "socialist", "[[late socialist]]", or "[[post socialist]]".
>
>I'm not saying that this is a really *good* formulation; I'm sure it
>could be refined quite easily.  But it eliminates a controversy by
>stating the controversy.  All parties can agree to it.
>
>--Jimbo
>
>p.s.  Regarding the content issue, it is my understanding that China
>is nowadays a confused and somewhat internally contradictory place.
>Shanghai in particular is often cited as being relatively capitalist,
>even!  I don't really know anything about that other than what I read
>in the newspapers and magazines, though.
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
Yes, but who sets those criteria? Even if there were some official body of definitions of terms for government classification, there would still be those who opposed it.-LittleDan
Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an authoritarian government.

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/7386037a/attachment.htm


body:
A growing number of people have reached the conclusion that a new user,
Shino Baku, is the multiple banned user Adam/Bridget/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan
Mason/Dietary Fiber. Shino's edit pattern is similar to Adam's. Shino's tone
(start reasonable, then become more extreme, making increasingly ludicrous
assertions) is the same. But when last night Shino put a message on 172's
talk page, it immediately rang worrying bells for users. Susan Mason used to
wait until a row had died down and was almost over. Then a message would be
sent to a user, always written in the first person singular, re-igniting the
row by stating categorically something which even the person who first made
the statement had backed off from or abandoned. Shino did EXACTLY THAT last
night, almost word for word in the way Susan Mason always did. Take out last
night's assertion from the sentence and you could slot in any of
Lir/VC/SM/DF's past arguments into the space in the sentence without
changing a thing. The whole thing is eerily reminiscent of past conflicts,
past approaches and past sentences used. A couple of people saw the message
on 172's talk page and immediately and independently reached the same
conclusion as to who had wrote it. And when it was mentioned around, a
number of people who had 'feelings' about Shino immediately said that
looking back on Shino's actions, it was blatently obvious who Shino really
is. Either he is 7th reincarnation of Adam, or he has an extraordinary
likeness that is spooky.

What is the policy towards MULTIPLE-banned users who keep coming back and
repeating the same behaviour over and over again? Those who remember Adam's
past antics know that while some of his identities behaved somewhat better
than others, each one in turn started OK, then became worse and worse every
day until each in turn had to be kicked out, only to be replaced by the next
member of the Adam Family. Should Jimbo leave a note on Shino's page warning
that if they are Adam, they had better behave differently to past versions
or else they will be banned. Or as a multiple banned user who has not
approached Jimbo to sort out the situation but just keeps coming back,
should they be banned immediately?

JT.

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus


from_name: Sean Barrett

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
the Spanish Inquisition?

Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.

It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.

Fred Bauder wrote:
| The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
| imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
party or
| a union, etc.
|
| Fred
|
|
|>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
|>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
|>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
|>
|>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
|>
|>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
|>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
|>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
|>>authoritarian government.
|>
|>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
|>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
|>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
|>truth.
|>
|>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
|>NPOV, which is our policy.
|>
|>
|>
|>>Fred
|>>
|>>
|>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
|>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
|>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
|>>>
|>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
|>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
|>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
|>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
|>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
|>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
|>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
|>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
|>>>[[authoritarianism and
|>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
|>>>
|>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
|>>>
|>>>
|>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
|>>>>to [[authoritarianism
|>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
|>>>>paragraph of the article.
|>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
|>>>>regime (regardless of what
|>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
|>
|>--
|>Vicki Rosenzweig
|>vr at redbird.org
|>http://www.redbird.org
|>
|>_______________________________________________
|>WikiEN-l mailing list
|>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|
|
| _______________________________________________
| WikiEN-l mailing list
| WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
| http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

- --
~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
=ErzZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Fred Bauder

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
authoritarian government.

Fred

> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
> country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
> "China is a controlling country" because that's an
> opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
> might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
> we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
> the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
> paragraph), "China is critisized for being
> [[authoritarianism and
> totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
>
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
>> to [[authoritarianism
>> and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
>> paragraph of the article.
>> I think this is a fair characterization of the
>> regime (regardless of what
>> ever other adjective might describe it).
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political party or
a union, etc.

Fred

> From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
>> example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
>> vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
>> authoritarian government.
>
> This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
> what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
> promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
> truth.
>
> The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
> NPOV, which is our policy.
>
>
>> Fred
>>
>>> From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>>
>>> You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
>>> country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
>>> "China is a controlling country" because that's an
>>> opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
>>> might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
>>> we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
>>> the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
>>> paragraph), "China is critisized for being
>>> [[authoritarianism and
>>> totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
>>>
>>> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
>>>> to [[authoritarianism
>>>> and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
>>>> paragraph of the article.
>>>> I think this is a fair characterization of the
>>>> regime (regardless of what
>>>> ever other adjective might describe it).
>
> --
> Vicki Rosenzweig
> vr at redbird.org
> http://www.redbird.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
No there is no official body of definition, there is simply what most of us
mean by "authoritarian" as the concept is used to refer to certain patterns
of behavior.

Fred

From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

Yes, but who sets those criteria? Even if there were some official body of
definitions of terms for government classification, there would still be
those who opposed it.
-LittleDan

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
authoritarian government.

Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/search/mailsig/*http://search.yahoo.com>  - Faster.
Easier. Bingo.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/98ad032b/attachment.htm


from_name: Stan Shebs

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally
well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party
and Libertarian Party.  And therein lies the problem with attempts
to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or
whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a
pattern of objectively observed behavior.  Even if 99% of people
believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is
"99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".

Stan

Fred Bauder wrote:

>No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
>example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all
>catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
>discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon.
>All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and
>the answer.
>
>Fred
>
>
>>From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
>>Organization: Boskonia
>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
>>authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
>>written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
>>published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
>>the Spanish Inquisition?
>>
>>Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
>>broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
>>
>>It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
>>
>>
>>
>>Fred Bauder wrote:
>>| The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
>>| imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
>>party or
>>| a union, etc.
>>|
>>| Fred
>>|
>>|
>>|>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
>>|>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
>>|>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>|>
>>|>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>|>
>>|>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
>>|>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
>>|>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
>>|>>authoritarian government.
>>|>
>>|>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
>>|>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
>>|>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
>>|>truth.
>>|>
>>|>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
>>|>NPOV, which is our policy.
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>>Fred
>>|>>
>>|>>
>>|>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
>>|>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>|>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>|>>>
>>|>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
>>|>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
>>|>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
>>|>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
>>|>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
>>|>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
>>|>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
>>|>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
>>|>>>[[authoritarianism and
>>|>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
>>|>>>
>>|>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>|>>>
>>|>>>
>>|>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
>>|>>>>to [[authoritarianism
>>|>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
>>|>>>>paragraph of the article.
>>|>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
>>|>>>>regime (regardless of what
>>|>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
>>|>
>>|>--
>>|>Vicki Rosenzweig
>>|>vr at redbird.org
>>|>http://www.redbird.org
>>|>
>>|>_______________________________________________
>>|>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>|>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>|
>>|
>>| _______________________________________________
>>| WikiEN-l mailing list
>>| WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>| http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>- --
>>~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
>>~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
>>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
>>38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
>>=ErzZ
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 05:22:53 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I think the fundamental problem is that several parties to this
>> controversy essentially want an article written from a sympathetic
>> point of view. I suggest that they should have that freedom on
>> Wikipedia with critical views in a seperate article perhaps
>> entitled, China: A crititical view.
>
> I think this is a very bad idea _for wikipedia_.  I think the idea of
> a website with critical essays written in wiki-fashion is an
> interesting one, but it isn't right for us.
>
>> The problem are not limited to this
>> particular question but extend to deletion of mention of the democracy
>> movement and of Tiananmen protests.
>
> Who deleted those things?  I would say that no article on China
> could be NPOV without discussing those things.

172, not really a new problem in his case.

Fred

>
> --Jimbo
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hell, '''Wikipedia''' is authoritarian under the Bauder definition!  One
person, Jimbo, has the power to issue edicts (and edits, for that
matter) binding upon all users of his system.  There is a hierarchical
(hierarchal?) structure of privileges, and official canon (NPOV), and if
you deviate from the canon, you are excommunicat- er, banned!

Stan Shebs wrote:
| You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally
| well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party
| and Libertarian Party.  And therein lies the problem with attempts
| to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or
| whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a
| pattern of objectively observed behavior.  Even if 99% of people
| believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is
| "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
|
| Stan
|
| Fred Bauder wrote:
|
|> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
|> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding
|> upon all
|> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
|> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the
|> canon.
|> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the
|> question and
|> the answer.
|>
|> Fred
|>
|>
|>> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
|>> Organization: Boskonia
|>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
|>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
|>>
|>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>> Hash: SHA1
|>>
|>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
|>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
|>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
|>> published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
|>> the Spanish Inquisition?
|>>
|>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
|>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
|>>
|>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
|>>
|>>
|>>
|>> Fred Bauder wrote:
|>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
|>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
|>> party or
|>> | a union, etc.
|>> |
|>> | Fred
|>> |
|>> |
|>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
|>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
|>> |>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
|>> |>
|>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
|>> |>
|>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
|>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the
|>> opinion of
|>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met
|>> constitute an
|>> |>>authoritarian government.
|>> |>
|>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
|>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
|>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
|>> |>truth.
|>> |>
|>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
|>> |>NPOV, which is our policy.
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |>>Fred
|>> |>>
|>> |>>
|>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
|>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
|>> |>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
|>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
|>> |>>>
|>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
|>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
|>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
|>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
|>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
|>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
|>> |>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
|>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
|>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and
|>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
|>> |>>>
|>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
|>> |>>>
|>> |>>>
|>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
|>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism
|>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
|>> |>>>>paragraph of the article.
|>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
|>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what
|>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
|>> |>
|>> |>--
|>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig
|>> |>vr at redbird.org
|>> |>http://www.redbird.org
|>> |>
|>> |>_______________________________________________
|>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list
|>> |>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|>> |
|>> |
|>> | _______________________________________________
|>> | WikiEN-l mailing list
|>> | WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
|>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
|>>
|>>
|>> - --
|>> ~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
|>> ~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
|>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
|>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
|>>
|>> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
|>> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
|>> =ErzZ
|>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+qd/Dv/8xpnvE6M8RAvxvAKCm6Q3BuD1hUIANL7q50VIFeJpQBACcDHXc
szRrZUPy30QXy8G4ONxelmg=
=l5lW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all
catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon.
All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and
the answer.

Fred

> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
> Organization: Boskonia
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
> authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
> published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
> the Spanish Inquisition?
>
> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
>
> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
>
>
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
> party or
> | a union, etc.
> |
> | Fred
> |
> |
> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
> |>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
> |>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> |>
> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> |>
> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
> |>>authoritarian government.
> |>
> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
> |>truth.
> |>
> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
> |>NPOV, which is our policy.
> |>
> |>
> |>
> |>>Fred
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
> |>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> |>>>
> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
> |>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
> |>>>[[authoritarianism and
> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
> |>>>
> |>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> |>>>
> |>>>
> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism
> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
> |>>>>paragraph of the article.
> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
> |>>>>regime (regardless of what
> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
> |>
> |>--
> |>Vicki Rosenzweig
> |>vr at redbird.org
> |>http://www.redbird.org
> |>
> |>_______________________________________________
> |>WikiEN-l mailing list
> |>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> |
> |
> | _______________________________________________
> | WikiEN-l mailing list
> | WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> - --
> ~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
> ~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
> =ErzZ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself will get you into
trouble."

So tell me again how is the Catholic Church authoritarian?

"There is a difference between one thing and another. No amount of word
play extinquishes that."

I entirely agree.  You are misusing the word "authoritarian" to mean
"that which Bauder dislikes."

Fred Bauder wrote:
| No, a near anarchy is hardly an authoritarian institution. The only real
| requirement here is that movement be made toward creation of an
| enclyclopedia. In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself
will get
| you into trouble. There is a difference between one thing and another. No
| amount of word play extinquishes that. Words and concepts do have
generally
| accepted meanings that are available for us to use to distinquish one
thing
| from another.
|
| Fred
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE+qevdv/8xpnvE6M8RAvZmAKCPcGTUEIkc7nHIHk/28sz2l4iu4QCgyEFU
i4xvb+lCw/wtlcvP6pF7oiU=
=WlD2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


from_name: Vicki Rosenzweig

subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
>authoritarian government.

This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
truth.

The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
NPOV, which is our policy.

>Fred
>
> > From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> > Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> >
> > You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
> > country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
> > "China is a controlling country" because that's an
> > opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
> > might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
> > we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
> > the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
> > paragraph), "China is critisized for being
> > [[authoritarianism and
> > totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
> >
> > --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
> >> to [[authoritarianism
> >> and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
> >> paragraph of the article.
> >> I think this is a fair characterization of the
> >> regime (regardless of what
> >> ever other adjective might describe it).

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anti-French sentiment

body:
Imho, here is two very NON-NPOV articles :
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation
I read english better I wrote it, so I can't correct myself, but I hope
someone will pov those articles.
Shame (on me too!),

Aoineko
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030425/dfe78f6b/attachment.htm


subject: [Wikipedia-l] Anti-French sentiment

body:
Oups, I have better to stop trying to write in english...
It is last one ;o)

Imho, here is two very NON-NPOV articles :
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-French_sentiment_in_the_United_States
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_manipulation
I read english better I wrote it, so I can't correct myself, but I hope
someone will NPOV those articles.
Cheer,

Aoineko (cheese-eater)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/attachments/20030425/7e7bdfa5/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church, and
while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on
certain points is soon in serious trouble. Whatever the defects of the
United States the situation differs markedly. Bottom line, words have
established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some
institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian
and may fairly be so described. No need to throw your mind out of gear.

Fred

> From: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:09:26 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally
> well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party
> and Libertarian Party.  And therein lies the problem with attempts
> to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or
> whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a
> pattern of objectively observed behavior.  Even if 99% of people
> believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is
> "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
>
> Stan
>
> Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
>> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all
>> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
>> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon.
>> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and
>> the answer.
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>
>>> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
>>> Organization: Boskonia
>>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
>>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
>>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
>>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
>>> published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
>>> the Spanish Inquisition?
>>>
>>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
>>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
>>>
>>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
>>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
>>> party or
>>> | a union, etc.
>>> |
>>> | Fred
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
>>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
>>> |>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>> |>
>>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> |>
>>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
>>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
>>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
>>> |>>authoritarian government.
>>> |>
>>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
>>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
>>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
>>> |>truth.
>>> |>
>>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
>>> |>NPOV, which is our policy.
>>> |>
>>> |>
>>> |>
>>> |>>Fred
>>> |>>
>>> |>>
>>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
>>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>> |>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
>>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
>>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
>>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
>>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
>>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
>>> |>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
>>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
>>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and
>>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>>
>>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
>>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism
>>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
>>> |>>>>paragraph of the article.
>>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
>>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what
>>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
>>> |>
>>> |>--
>>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig
>>> |>vr at redbird.org
>>> |>http://www.redbird.org
>>> |>
>>> |>_______________________________________________
>>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> |>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | _______________________________________________
>>> | WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> | WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>>
>>> - --
>>> ~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
>>> ~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>>
>>> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
>>> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
>>> =ErzZ
>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
No, a near anarchy is hardly an authoritarian institution. The only real
requirement here is that movement be made toward creation of an
enclyclopedia. In an authoritarian structure free discussion itself will get
you into trouble. There is a difference between one thing and another. No
amount of word play extinquishes that. Words and concepts do have generally
accepted meanings that are available for us to use to distinquish one thing
from another.

Fred

> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
> Organization: Boskonia
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:24:20 -0700
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hell, '''Wikipedia''' is authoritarian under the Bauder definition!  One
> person, Jimbo, has the power to issue edicts (and edits, for that
> matter) binding upon all users of his system.  There is a hierarchical
> (hierarchal?) structure of privileges, and official canon (NPOV), and if
> you deviate from the canon, you are excommunicat- er, banned!
>
> Stan Shebs wrote:
> | You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally
> | well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party
> | and Libertarian Party.  And therein lies the problem with attempts
> | to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or
> | whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a
> | pattern of objectively observed behavior.  Even if 99% of people
> | believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is
> | "99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".
> |
> | Stan
> |
> | Fred Bauder wrote:
> |
> |> No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
> |> example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding
> |> upon all
> |> catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
> |> discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the
> |> canon.
> |> All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the
> |> question and
> |> the answer.
> |>
> |> Fred
> |>
> |>
> |>> From: Sean Barrett <sean at epoptic.org>
> |>> Organization: Boskonia
> |>> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
> |>> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> |>>
> |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> |>> Hash: SHA1
> |>>
> |>> And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
> |>> authoritarian organization) does any of these things?  I can (I have)
> |>> written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
> |>> published -- without interference -- in the free press.  Should I fear
> |>> the Spanish Inquisition?
> |>>
> |>> Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
> |>> broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
> |>>
> |>> It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
> |>>
> |>>
> |>>
> |>> Fred Bauder wrote:
> |>> | The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
> |>> | imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
> |>> party or
> |>> | a union, etc.
> |>> |
> |>> | Fred
> |>> |
> |>> |
> |>> |>From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
> |>> |>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> |>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
> |>> |>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> |>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> |>> |>
> |>> |>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
> |>> |>
> |>> |>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
> |>> |>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the
> |>> opinion of
> |>> |>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met
> |>> constitute an
> |>> |>>authoritarian government.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
> |>> |>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
> |>> |>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
> |>> |>truth.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
> |>> |>NPOV, which is our policy.
> |>> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>
> |>> |>>Fred
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>>
> |>> |>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
> |>> |>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> |>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
> |>> |>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> |>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
> |>> |>>>
> |>> |>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
> |>> |>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
> |>> |>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
> |>> |>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
> |>> |>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
> |>> |>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
> |>> |>>>the comment POV.  You could say (in a later
> |>> |>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
> |>> |>>>[[authoritarianism and
> |>> |>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
> |>> |>>>
> |>> |>>>--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net> wrote:
> |>> |>>>
> |>> |>>>
> |>> |>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest  by inserting a link
> |>> |>>>>to [[authoritarianism
> |>> |>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
> |>> |>>>>paragraph of the article.
> |>> |>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
> |>> |>>>>regime (regardless of what
> |>> |>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
> |>> |>
> |>> |>--
> |>> |>Vicki Rosenzweig
> |>> |>vr at redbird.org
> |>> |>http://www.redbird.org
> |>> |>
> |>> |>_______________________________________________
> |>> |>WikiEN-l mailing list
> |>> |>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> |>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> |>> |
> |>> |
> |>> | _______________________________________________
> |>> | WikiEN-l mailing list
> |>> | WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> |>> | http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> |>>
> |>>
> |>> - --
> |>> ~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
> |>> ~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
> |>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> |>> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
> |>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> |>>
> |>> iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
> |>> 38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
> |>> =ErzZ
> |>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> - --
> ~ Sean Barrett     | John and Mary had never met. They were like
> ~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQE+qd/Dv/8xpnvE6M8RAvxvAKCm6Q3BuD1hUIANL7q50VIFeJpQBACcDHXc
> szRrZUPy30QXy8G4ONxelmg=
> =l5lW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


body:
Very likely Lir. I checked out his first edit:

http://www.wikipedia.org/w/
wiki.phtml?title=Preliminary_hearing&action=history

he continues directly where Vera Cruz left off. Other telltale signs for a
Lir incarnation:
- makes dozens of subsequent minor edits to the same article
- inserts way too many headlines into articles

Past Lir users also had a strong preference for military subjects.

If it's him, this time he has made a very obvious mistake, namely, he
claims to be from Japan. We have several Japanese users on the English
Wikipedia -- just ask one of them to test Lir's Japanese skills.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
> He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate
> change on agriculture" which took me hours to write,
> to redirect it to [[climate change]]

What do you mean, deleted? I'm not sure I understand. The article has no
history except for BigFatBuddha's edit, and it is not in the archive of
deleted pages. I also don't remember BigFatBuddha being made a sysop --
he's not listed on Wikipedia:Administrators. If he is a sysop, and has
bypassed the Votes for deletion page, his sysop status should be revoked
immediately.

Regards,

Erik


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
[Warning: the post below wanders into the organization of the
Catholic Church before returning to the subject at hand.]

At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church,

How did you think they select popes, then?

In the jargon of political science, the Roman Catholic Church (or, more
specifically for this purpose, the Vatican City) is an elective monarchy.

>and
>while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on
>certain points is soon in serious trouble.

For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose his
job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize that
this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to belong to
this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official
newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the
publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the
same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in
the bad old days [1].

>  Whatever the defects of the
>United States the situation differs markedly.

If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned
indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to the
Catholic
Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions.
Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're trying to
suggest.

>Bottom line, words have
>established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some
>institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively authorititarian
>and may fairly be so described.

And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that
describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan
to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on
that scale?

--
Vicki Rosenzweig
vr at redbird.org
http://www.redbird.org


from_name: Jens Frank

subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 12:59:38PM -0700, Anthere wrote:
>
> He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate
> change on agriculture" which took me hours to write,
> to redirect it to [[climate change]]
>
Hello Anthere,

Looking at that pages history, I only see one version of
the article, which is created by Budda. Since he is no
Admin, I wonder how he could have deleted your article.
Are you sure you saved it?

Regards,

	JeLuF


subject: [WikiEN-l] Mea culpa

body:
OK, I have to admit it.  Hephaestos and anthere have shown me the light.  I'm just a terrible person.  They are so right, I don't have anything positive to add to Wikipedia, I'm only here to cause trouble.  Darn, why haven't I seen this for so long? If you really think I'm nothing but a horrible person, please let me know, and I'll happily leave. Zoe

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/d3c0e2e0/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
I really disagree with this assessment, but since I appear to be nothing but a vandal and a useless appendage to Wikipedia, what do I know? Zoe

Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:Could someone find a occupation for little fat budda
please ?

He is very bored, and since I had the absolute stupid
idea to dare oppose to him, he is on my back doing
quite irrelevant edits.

He is making me badly loose my time, which is one
thing, but he is also doing dozens of inappropriate
links which imho are damaging Wikipedia, as they are
very meaningless.

For example, he is redirecting biosphere III to
biosphere, when these two things have nothing to do.

He is redirecting post-consumer waste, which is a very
properly defined word in sustainable developement, to
recycling, which is completely stupid.

He is deleting links under the reason they have
nothing to do with the topic of the article, when if
fact they do

He has deleted my article on "Impact of global climate
change on agriculture" which took me hours to write,
to redirect it to [[climate change]]

similarly, he deleted article on conservation
(biology) to redirect it to [[biology]]

In short, he is currently deleting hours of work, and
making totally destructible misdirection

I have no copy of what I wrote, and wikipedia is so
slow I will never be able to save what I have been
doing for more than a year

I ask that he be stopped immediately

If I am not welcome on wikipedia, I will just leave it
if necessary, but please, let me save my work, more
than a year of work before it deletes everything

please please please....

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/707f867b/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Little budda is a vandal

body:
Disagreements are not vandalism.  You are being to sound too much like Lir and his cast of thousands. Zoe

Anthere <anthere6 at yahoo.com> wrote:
--- The Cunctator wrote:
> ant--know that I'm on your side.
>
> BTW, have you been made a sysop yet?

I found the stupid hidden misdirection budda made
fortunately. I think nothing is lost, I just lost my
temper I guess. But I know I can lose everything, so I
will temporarely save them in meta, before securing
them somewhere else.

Which leave all the *very* unprofessional redirections
budda made, and which have to be fixed one by one.
These redirections are impairing the quality of the
encyclopedia. Better an empty link that to make
believe to someone the concept of post-consumer waste
is similar to the concept of recycling.

What sense does it have to delete gaia theories to
redirect them to gaia hypothesis ????

or to redirect sustainable agriculture to just
agriculture ???

who are we trying to convince here ???

If noone is disturbed by leaving someone ruining the
quality of an encyclopedia that way, I think there is
nothing else to say, and no point in doing anything

But for a professional in the agriculture field or
waste treatment field, these edits and redirection are
insulting, and very very very very much lowering any
interest in wikipedia

I am going to spent hours repairing all that mess,
probably to find every thing ruined tomorrow again. At
this point, I 'll give up unless someone help me

I don't really want to be sysop. I already have the
french wiki as a area to keep clean. Besides, being a
sysop on this issue will change nothing. I have no
possibility to stop somebody destroying the whole
sector of agriculture in this encyclopedia. Being a
sysop would not change this.

but thanks to your support tc

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
http://search.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/eaa3d54a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
Please explain what discipline is applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon in the United States government. Zoe, who is tired of being polite

Stan Shebs <shebs at apple.com> wrote:You'll have to do better than that! - your description applies equally
well to the United States government, and to both the Green Party
and Libertarian Party. And therein lies the problem with attempts
to say a government is or is not authoritarian, communist, or
whatever - those kinds of terms are editorial assessments of a
pattern of objectively observed behavior. Even if 99% of people
believe the assessment, the only truly NPOV thing you can say is
"99% of observers believe the government to be authoritarian".

Stan

Fred Bauder wrote:

>No, the Roman Catholic church is authoritarian in different ways, for
>example, one person, the Pope, has the power to issue edits binding upon all
>catholics. There is a hierarchal structure, an official canon, and
>discipline applied to those within the hierachy who deviate from the canon.
>All goes to show that if you change the subject, you change the question and
>the answer.
>
>Fred
>
>
>>From: Sean Barrett
>>Organization: Boskonia
>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:06:19 -0700
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>And the Catholic Church (for another example you used of an present-day
>>authoritarian organization) does any of these things? I can (I have)
>>written letters extremely critical of Cardinal Mahoney that were
>>published -- without interference -- in the free press. Should I fear
>>the Spanish Inquisition?
>>
>>Methinks your definition of "authoritarian organization" is remarkably
>>broad if it lumps the Catholic Church in with the Butchers of Beijing.
>>
>>It makes me wonder how fluid your definition of "truth" is.
>>
>>
>>
>>Fred Bauder wrote:
>>| The criteria are control of the press, repression of political speech,
>>| imprisonment of those who atempt to organize an opposing political
>>party or
>>| a union, etc.
>>|
>>| Fred
>>|
>>|
>>|>From: Vicki Rosenzweig
>>|>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 19:31:58 -0400
>>|>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>|>
>>|>At 05:16 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>|>
>>|>>I intend to speak truth. China (and the Catholic church, for another
>>|>>example) are authoritarian. \ It is not merely a matter of the opinion of
>>|>>vague critics. There are objective criteria which if met constitute an
>>|>>authoritarian government.
>>|>
>>|>This concerns me, not because I disagree, but because I don't know
>>|>what objective criteria Fred is using, and because almost anyone who
>>|>promotes a point of view sincerely believes that he or she is speaking
>>|>truth.
>>|>
>>|>The determination to speak truth, while admirable, is not the same as
>>|>NPOV, which is our policy.
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>
>>|>>Fred
>>|>>
>>|>>
>>|>>>From: Daniel Ehrenberg

>>|>>>Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>>>Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 09:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>|>>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?
>>|>>>
>>|>>>You can't just say "China is an evil totalitarian
>>|>>>country" (I know that's not what you said) or even
>>|>>>"China is a controlling country" because that's an
>>|>>>opinion, not a fact. The communist party in China
>>|>>>might think "We're not controlling or authoritarian,
>>|>>>we just want the best for our citizens", which makes
>>|>>>the comment POV. You could say (in a later
>>|>>>paragraph), "China is critisized for being
>>|>>>[[authoritarianism and
>>|>>>totalitarianism|authoritarianist]].
>>|>>>
>>|>>>--- Fred Bauder wrote:
>>|>>>
>>|>>>
>>|>>>>I stirred up this hornet's nest by inserting a link
>>|>>>>to [[authoritarianism
>>|>>>>and totalitarianism|authoritarian]] into the first
>>|>>>>paragraph of the article.
>>|>>>>I think this is a fair characterization of the
>>|>>>>regime (regardless of what
>>|>>>>ever other adjective might describe it).
>>|>
>>|>--
>>|>Vicki Rosenzweig
>>|>vr at redbird.org
>>|>http://www.redbird.org
>>|>
>>|>_______________________________________________
>>|>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>|>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>|>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>|
>>|
>>| _______________________________________________
>>| WikiEN-l mailing list
>>| WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>| http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>>
>>- --
>>~ Sean Barrett | John and Mary had never met. They were like
>>~ sean at epoptic.com | two hummingbirds who had also never met.
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
>>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>>
>>iD8DBQE+qc16v/8xpnvE6M8RAgzSAJwIu7RjTPanefl1Dhj2tpYHIVDL+QCbBPQg
>>38nIk0sB52iPC06Fw/0onlk=
>>=ErzZ
>>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
>http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/6b15357a/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] re: Little budda is a vandal

body:
I strongly disagree with this assessment. Zoe

Tony Wilson <list at redhill.net.au> wrote:Erik wrote:

> I also don't remember BigFatBuddha being made a sysop

No way! That would be a complete disaster for the 'pedia.

Even as an ordinary user he has is *very* difficult to work with. He
already wastes an inordinate amounts of good contributors' time, and
rarely conributes anything constructive (as opposed to destructrive and
disruptive). Someone needs to have a quiet word in his ear and tell him
to pull his head in and learn to cooperate with other users. The
thought of a user like that being given administrative powers makes me
shudder.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20030425/56b64ada/attachment.htm


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> At 07:56 PM 4/25/03 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> I don't think so, not a lot of elections held in the Catholic Church,
>
> How did you think they select popes, then?

The only electors are the red-robed "princes of the church".

>> while there is a lot of discussion, a priest or bishop who deviates on
>> certain points is soon in serious trouble.
>
>
> For values of "trouble" that, to a nonbeliever, translate as "may lose
> his
> job if he continues to disagree publicly with his employer." I realize
> that
> this is a serious matter to a believer--but nobody is required to
> belong to
> this organization, and the pope has no prisons. Yes, there's an official
> newspaper, but the church does not have the authority to stop the
> publication of dissenting publications: L'Osservatore Romano has the
> same status as Ari Fleischer's public statements, not as Pravda in
> the bad old days [1].

The church essentially lost effective temporal power in 1870.  There was
a dispute in the Vancouver area a few years ago when a Catholic school
fired a teacher because in her personal life she was living with somone
out of wedlock.  At least that much power continues to be wielded.  And
what could be more authoritarian than the church's attitude on abortion
rights where any criticism is seriously discouraged?.

In these declining years of the church the threat of excommunication
does not have the power that it once had.  Religions tend to maintain a
hold on people that is impervious to reason.  If a person has been a
true believer for many years, expulsion from the religious community can
be very traumatic.

>>  Whatever the defects of the
>> United States the situation differs markedly.
>
>
> If George Bush decides I am a threat to US security, I can be imprisoned
> indefinitely without trial. If Karol Wojtyla decides I am a threat to
> the Catholic
> Church, he can say so publicly, and I can go about my normal occasions.
> Yes, the situation differs markedly, but maybe not in the way you're
> trying to
> suggest.

"Democracy" is often nothing more than a thin veneer that power elites
suffer as a means of controlling the masses.

>> Bottom line, words have
>> established meanings to most of us. Everything isn't the same, some
>> institutions are relatively democratic, some are relatively
>> authorititarian
>> and may fairly be so described.
>
>
> And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that
> describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan
> to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on
> that scale?

To say that China is "relatively" authoritarian is an improvement for
Fred over simply saying "China is authoritarian"  It opens up the
possibility of comparison with some other state.  That's a small
positive step toward understanding just what "authoritarian" means.

 I do have more of a problem with his "words have established meanings
to most of us."   The "established meanings" that most of us have are
not the smae, and that gives us problems.  The thought that the meaning
of a word would somehow be established democraticly makes me shudder.
 Once such a democratic result has been achieved do we then apply de
Tocqueville's Tyranny of the Majority to enforce it.  Fred's view of
language does not appear to be very sophisticated.

Eclecticology


from_name: Daniel Mayer

subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: A plea for sanity in capitalisation from the coalface

body:
Tannin wrote:
>Over and over again, a small number of good,
>decent Wikipedia contributors are causing difficulties
>for those of us who are actually doing the hard yards
>in the fauna articles. All the major contributors to the
>bird entries, for example, have complained about this
>on the talk pages, but nothing is ever done. People keep
>claiming that, for example, the Common Raven should be
>written as "common raven". One need only reach to the
>bookshelf and pick up a reference work to discover
>that this just ain't so. All we ask is that we follow our
>own naming convention:

You mean a specialized publication that only covers birds. Pick up a
dictionary or another encyclopedia and you'll see those species names in the
lower case. As I have stated many times before ; specialists /almost always/
overcapitalize the terms they use but Wikipedia is not a specialist
publication. Also Ortolan has pointed out that style guides on this issue
state that when there is significant doubt in these matters we should use the
"downstyle."

>I quote: "Unless the term you wish to create a page for
>is a proper noun OR IS OTHERWISE ALMOST ALWAYS
>CAPITALISED." Species names for the higher orders (and
>possibly the lower ones too) are indeed "almost always
>capitalised" and rightly so, as to do anything else is to court
>ambiguity and lose clarity.

Perhaps I was rash when I changed:

 Unless the term you wish to create a page
 for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second
 and subsequent words

To your quote of the current convention (Hm - I could revert myself since I
didn't make that edit based on any consensus...). Nah - the caveat is a good
one but "almost always" to me means way more than a simple majority of usage.
I usually think of that term meaning "greater than 90%" of usage. I've
already stated that these terms are /very often/ not capitalized outside of
specialized publications.

>We, the people WHO ACTUALLY WRITE THE ENTRIES
>have had a gut full of it. Please stop before the real contributors
>in this area get sick of the whole damn thing and take their
>effort elswhere.

Nobody wants that but at the same time we cannot add spurious capitalization
to articles Or Else Sentences Begin To Look Very Odd When They Are Wikified -
not to mention grammatically wrong and inconsistent with longstanding
Wikipedia naming conventions.

Hopefully this will clarify the distinction between common and proper nouns:

Common noun (Gram.), the name of any one of a class of
      objects, as distinguished from a proper noun (the name of
      a particular person or thing).

 Proper noun (Gram.), a
      name belonging to an individual, by which it is
      distinguished from others of the same class; -- opposed to
      common noun; as, John, Boston, America.
     n : a noun that denotes a particular thing; usually capitalized

So we are only dealing with common nouns here which means the default style is
to /not/ capitalize unless the term is almost always capitalized for some
reason.

It is true that the specialist bird authorities are an excellent source of
information on this subject - but those bird publications are not a useful
source of information on English grammar as it relates to our unique
circumstances on Wikipedia or for encyclopedias in general for that matter.

These experts are experts in their respective fields whose subjects in this
particular case are birds, not grammar. So for our naming needs the
references we should use are dictionaries, style/grammar guides and other
encyclopedias. Encyclopedias have different naming conventions and needs than
do specialized publications. BTW, just because the top transportation
planners in the United States write Transit Village with caps does not mean
that that capitalization is correct in our context.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


body:
sannse wrote:
>I'm in agreement [with Tannin] here.  One of my own
>areas of interest, dog breeds, has a similar issue.
>So far the capitalised versions have (mostly) held
>here, but it would be nice to clarify the issue and be
>sure of a consensus.
>
>In the case of dog breeds, all my books on the subject
>(five) capitalise, as do the various kennel clubs.  I've been
>careful to check in each case - it's "Airedale Terrier" but
>"Maltese terrier" for example.  I would like to move
>"Chesapeake Bay retriever" back to "Chesapeake Bay
>Retriever" to follow this principle.

Dog breeds seem, as a rule, to be a special case. All the research I've done
has indicated that most dog breeds are /almost always/ capitalized whenever
they are written.

The only exceptions seem to be with the really well-known breeds. In fact I
spent an hour "fixing" the capitalization of the [[List of dog breeds]] page
only to find this out - it was darn difficult to find many sources that did
not capitalize the breeds. So I reverted myself.

But when you think about it the reason becomes fairly obvious ; dog breeds are
an invention of selective breeding with well-known pedigrees and historys
(almost like a family history). This is similar to the names scientists have
given to certain "breeds" of mice that have been selected for a specific
purpose.

That type of specificity turns what looks at first blush to be a common noun
into something that looks a lot like a proper noun.

Thus the capitalization.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)


subject: [WikiEN-l] Classification of China?

body:
> From: Vicki Rosenzweig <vr at redbird.org>
> And now you're saying "relatively"; are you proposing an article that
> describes China as "relatively authoritarian", and if so, do you plan
> to give a scale from 0 to 100, with notes of where other nations fall on
> that scale?
>

China can fairly be described as authoritarian. They have progressed there
from a situation that could be fairly described as totalitarian, and in some
ways still is. There is a range within which an objective description of the
situation justifies that description of the situation.  This situation is
properly discussed in the article [[authoritarianism and totalitarianism]]
which is the appropriate link from use of both the words authoritarian and
totalitarian.

We get all over those who would deny the holocaust; no reason not to not
adopt the same sort of disrespect and impose the same restraints upon those
who would deny the sins of Marxism-Leninism.

Wikipedia should simply be a resource that delivers balanced objective
information, however offensive it may be to partisan viewpoints.

Exclusion of unfavorable information is not a neutral point of view, but
bowing to what is essentially a demand that such information be censored.

Fred