This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello TFD. I am surprised and disappointed that you have been making false disparaging remarks about me on this thread, here [1]. These comments are going to be read by Arbcom who have little prior knowledge of the AE articles and who will rely on the writings on the Arbcom case pages for facts and context with which to interpret evidence. I'd appreciate it if you would strike the statements you later acknowledged to be false. I view you as an editor who cares about policy on WP and certainly one of our most important policies is to be civil and not to misrepresent other editors' work here. If you think I've misunderstood what happened on that thread, please help me to understand better. Otherwise, please do the right thing and help dial down the personal tone of what should be a discussion of content and policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Santayana may be right. [2] Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You say that "Holocaust deniers explicitly deny the holocaust." Just to clarify: Are you saying that if a scholar were to write: "I am agnostic as to whether the Nazis intended to exterminate the jews", that this person would not be engaged in "Holocaust denial"? Steeletrap ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the overriding problem with these articles is the subjects are only marginally notable. If for example, an active politician or a media personality were a denier, there would be ample RS from which to cite that characterization. The problem is that for some articles a group of fans and followers come to WP and work on those articles. In many cases they lack a broader understanding of the subject or they lack the context with which to evaluate sources. They overestimate the notability of the subjects. They quote sources who are not really independent or they cling to unique sources which they locate with great difficulty (for example Sharon Presley's interview with a Milwaukee columnist before a talk Presley gave in Milwaukee years ago) and then there's no other source which uses the same words or which addresses exactly the same subject matter. The fans may earnestly believe that these one-offs are good sources. However, it's clear to me that with notable subjects and noteworthy events there would be many RS from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I am confident this review does not exist, based on library records I have access to. Can you please provide the link that you are referring to? Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw your sig on the Nazism talk page, which is why I bother you here now. I've proposed linking to the "Geopolitik" page as an addendum to the page, but not being a reg user, I can't edit. I'd be grateful for a thumbs up/down evaluation of the proposal. If down because not relevant enough, OK. If down because poorly written, OK; pls suggest (or undertake) improvements. If up, pls insert edit. A third option, btw, might be to include the link to Geopolitik under the "See also" heading. However, by working it into the text as proposed, the subject appears in its proper context, I think.
TiA!
T
85.166.162.202 ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a Talk:Soviet_Union#formatting on the Soviet union talk page that may be of interest to you. Anignome ( talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello TFD. I am surprised and disappointed that you have been making false disparaging remarks about me on this thread, here [1]. These comments are going to be read by Arbcom who have little prior knowledge of the AE articles and who will rely on the writings on the Arbcom case pages for facts and context with which to interpret evidence. I'd appreciate it if you would strike the statements you later acknowledged to be false. I view you as an editor who cares about policy on WP and certainly one of our most important policies is to be civil and not to misrepresent other editors' work here. If you think I've misunderstood what happened on that thread, please help me to understand better. Otherwise, please do the right thing and help dial down the personal tone of what should be a discussion of content and policy. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Santayana may be right. [2] Cheers. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
You say that "Holocaust deniers explicitly deny the holocaust." Just to clarify: Are you saying that if a scholar were to write: "I am agnostic as to whether the Nazis intended to exterminate the jews", that this person would not be engaged in "Holocaust denial"? Steeletrap ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I think that the overriding problem with these articles is the subjects are only marginally notable. If for example, an active politician or a media personality were a denier, there would be ample RS from which to cite that characterization. The problem is that for some articles a group of fans and followers come to WP and work on those articles. In many cases they lack a broader understanding of the subject or they lack the context with which to evaluate sources. They overestimate the notability of the subjects. They quote sources who are not really independent or they cling to unique sources which they locate with great difficulty (for example Sharon Presley's interview with a Milwaukee columnist before a talk Presley gave in Milwaukee years ago) and then there's no other source which uses the same words or which addresses exactly the same subject matter. The fans may earnestly believe that these one-offs are good sources. However, it's clear to me that with notable subjects and noteworthy events there would be many RS from which to choose. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I am confident this review does not exist, based on library records I have access to. Can you please provide the link that you are referring to? Thanks. Steeletrap ( talk) 02:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I saw your sig on the Nazism talk page, which is why I bother you here now. I've proposed linking to the "Geopolitik" page as an addendum to the page, but not being a reg user, I can't edit. I'd be grateful for a thumbs up/down evaluation of the proposal. If down because not relevant enough, OK. If down because poorly written, OK; pls suggest (or undertake) improvements. If up, pls insert edit. A third option, btw, might be to include the link to Geopolitik under the "See also" heading. However, by working it into the text as proposed, the subject appears in its proper context, I think.
TiA!
T
85.166.162.202 ( talk) 10:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a Talk:Soviet_Union#formatting on the Soviet union talk page that may be of interest to you. Anignome ( talk) 20:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)