User talk:GrahamN
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, as internet addictions go, Wikipedia has got to be the most productive of the whole bunch! **Give in to the 'pedia** Cheers! --maveric149
What a fantastic introductory paragraph on your user page! We should use that in an ad. — Toby 15:50 Jul 23, 2002 (PDT)
Hi, Graham. I am glad for your contribution to the Palestinian issue. We badly need people with a balanced view. Most people who have contributed so far are extremely pro-Israeli and think it is NPOV to say that Palestinians are a bunch of terrorists who are to blame for all problems. Note that these people constantly delete content that does not adhere to their "standards"; do not allow yourself to be bullied by them. Aloha
When you find yourself describing an amendment you've made to a page as "adding horrific details," you're probably not presenting an unbiased point of view anymore. On many topics it is hard, and I grant that. But look at the Israeli-Palestinian timeline and notice that the top-most entries and not reportage anymore, they are advocvacy. Marknau
All the horrific details are fact, but I take your point. I added them because I noticed that after I entered a coldly factual account of yesterday's events in Gaza, Uriyan went through some earlier incidents, adding heart-rending details about dead babies and so on, evidently in an attempt to justify this latest act of state terrorism by Israel. Why should only one side be allowed to play that game? GrahamN
If I had happened to notice his amendments, I would have said the same to him. It's an encyclopedia, not a debate forum. The fact that you felt compelled to try to sway people the other way is a decent indication that it will be hard for you to maintain a balanced tone when editing those pages. We are not advocating, we are presenting. And, as I said, I concede how hard that can be sometimes. Marknau
I'm watching your user page for a different reason but ... Although I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, I suspect that yours wasn't the best response to Uriyan's edits. (I can't be sure, however, since I don't know what page you're talking about, so interpret my comments with that in mind.) I suspect that it's best to try to keep everything coldly factual, removing Uriyan's heart-rending details rather than adding heart-rending detials of your own. Thus, only one side is not allowed to play that game, because neither side is. Of course, to show good faith, you'd leave in any coldly factual details; perhaps listing the ages of the dead but not stressing their youth. — Toby 12:50 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
Toby:
"I'm watching your user page for a different reason" sounds faintly sinister! What reason is that, then, just out of curiosity?
- I made a comment here that I thought that you might reply to. Look up.
The page we were discussing was Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I didn't start the item about the atrocity in Gaza. Another user entered a neutral description, but Uryan expanded on it in a highly PoV way. Rather than just delete his comments (which would have required me to justify myself in Talk, which would probably have started a long, pointless discussion) I added more factual detail. I seem to have started a war!
- I may not be the best judge, but FWIW I don't think that either of you (GrahamN and Uriyan) were being NPOV.
As I said in Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The subject is so current and controversial, that it is literally impossible to write a NPoV article about it. It is just not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. I think that page (and several other similar ones) should be deleted, so that Uryan, myself, and others who have strong opinions about it, can get on with writing genuine encyclopaedia articles. I had planned to draft an article about Sir George Cayley this evening, and I have a load of other things lined up, but while this nonsense is going on I can't think about anything else, and so I find myself adding to articles like this.
- Well, that article is better now for your and Ed's involvement, even if he convinced you to remove the allegedly inflammatory statement.
This is ruining Wikipedia for me, and I suspect for many others. I don't know if you have any influence over the administrators here, but I honestly think it would be good for the project if highly controversial subjects like this were banned. Do you agree?
- Nobody's in a position to ban subjects like this; we can formulate a policy against them, but everybody's on equal ground in a discussion about that (except perhaps as regards the differential respect that some people's opinions will be held in). I suppose that sysops could start deleting such things, but regularly deleting factual content, however biased, is a major shift in policy and I suspect that it would provoke a constitutional crisis if not agreed to beforehand by the broad community in a policy discussion. (For the record, I have recently become a sysop, but I refrain from deleting articles.)
- More general comments below. — Toby 12:33 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
Graham, Let me give you a personal example. I have very strong opinions as to what the Correct and Proper political and economic system should be. As a result, I am having to refrain from editing certain pages, because it's too close to me, and I'm unable to be objective. It is akin to a doctor not operating on family.
If you read my George McGovern article, I hope you can't tell what my political proclivities are. I believe I was able to maintain enough neutrality to write that initial draft, but I sure wouldn't want to get involved in an article on, say, Ronald Reagan.
Every time I see your edits to an Israel-related topic, and often on other political topics, I know what your personal opinions are. It comes across loud and clear. I think you can do a good job on items that you're not deeply invested in, but not ones that you're too close to. Marknau
- Thank you. Message received and understood. Must try harder! GrahamN 14:50 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
I see what you mean. But how can you allow others to write highly biased, and often factually incorrect things about a subject that is close to your heart, without stepping in to correct them? I'm f*cked if I am going to fiddle about with obscure details of the history of flight while others are perverting the spirit of this place, peddling blatant untruths and propaganda. GrahamN
- There's a difference between (a) letting wikipedia be used as a tool for propaganda and (b) describing the various points of view of major spokesmen. Simply put into the article that Mr. X says Y about Z. For example, Arafat says the violence will end after Israel pulls out; or, Israel said in July 2002 that it will withdraw its forces after the violence ends. Get it? Ed Poor 15:58 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
- Thanks, Ed, I see what you mean, and I accept your argument to some degree. But I have reservations. Surely "facts" that are demonstably false have no place in an enyclopaedia, even when qualified. Do you really think we should lend respectability to the opinions of holocaust-deniers or flat-earthers by quoting them here? GrahamN 14:50 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
Please don't go (especially on the account of anything I said) -- if anything we need more people like you who are critical of Israel to tone down the rhetoric of a few prolific Zionists we have here (I've tried several times and have been successful a time or two). I didn't mean to sound harsh when I quoted policy and I most certainly didn't intend to hurt your sensibilities. I am just an idiot sometimes when it comes to thinking about the feelings of others (believe me, I have improved). With that said, there are certain rules we do play by here and one of the basic ones is to not just delete things that are obviously decent attempts at writing encyclopedia articles without trying to fix it. I for one would completely refactor Israeli-Palestinian violence by deleting all of the less horrific attacks and summarize the more horrific ones while trying to provide balance by inserting more Palestinian arguments (the non-conspiracy ones of course). --mav 20:36 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)
- Mav, you are certainly no idiot. I'm sure I would beat you easily in a head-to-head tactlessness contest, any day. If I'm honest, the principal reason I stormed off in a huff, vowing never to return, was that I felt the onset of Wikipediholicism (work and social life were beginning to suffer), and I was trying to make a clean break. I thought I would be too embarrassed to show my face again after what I said. But the 'pedia has its teeth into me. I'm sorry for acting like a drama queen. And I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I plan to contribute in moderation only, like an occasional social drinker. I wonder if that is possible? GrahamN
- Thank you for the apology but you didn't hurt my feelings in the classic sense. I was very saddened by your departure - especially since it seemed to be directly related to something I said, however. Also the fact that you seem to be an especially good contributor made your departure all the more bitter. I think we are all very glad to see you return and we look forward to see your new crop of contributions! As you said, just remember to do all things in moderation (I should listen to my own advice sometimes, but I'm hopeless --- I am a slave to the Wiki :-). -- mav
More general comments:
First, do you read Wikipedia-L, the mailing list]]?
There has just been a suggestion for a convention to indicate that controversial articles are probably not NPOV.
Check it out on the archives.
Note that this mailing list is precisely where discussion of how to deal with these issues often begins.
Later a page appears in the [[Wikipedia:]] namespace to hash out the details, and that eventually morphs to a widely accepted policy page linked to from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that you can then cite to put down your opponents ^_^.
Anyway, I suspect that you'll contribute a lot more to Wikipedia if you work on other articles, where your work won't be removed as often ^_^. Since I want Wikipedia to thrive, well, then that's what I want you to do. If standing up for justice in the Middle East is more important to you (taking into account that you can have a much greater impact on Wikipedia than on Palestine), then I may have trouble convincing you. Nevertheless, pages get refactored (completely redesigned, often with vast amounts of new and changed text) often enough that I don't think an unbalanced presentation will both last long and be read often. Right now, the latter criterion seems most likely to fail; Israeli-Palestinian violence is almost an orphan, and I would encourage anybody that I can influence to ignore it. Keeping it nearly (but not quite) orphaned and out of Special:Recentchanges is almost as good as deleting it; it won't get read. — Toby 12:33 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)
- Thank you for your words, Toby. Sorry to be such a prat. GrahamN
Be not shame-faced, we're all Wikipediholics here. I for one welcome your return with much rejoicing, as it's always good to see good contributers, and I rate you as such. -- April
- Thank you for your kind words. I'm impressed with your own contibutions, too. GrahamN 14:50 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)
Graham, for your reading pleasure I have written a nice little stub for LAW -- I managed to figure out where the abbreviation came from, I think.
Also, I wonder if you might help me figure out something: in the apartheid article, should we mention Israel and/or any Arab nations as exemplars? Or might it not be better to put allegations of apartheid in the relevant nation articles? I'd like your input. --Ed Poor