User talk:Everyking

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela . 00:18, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for editing page Ara Gaya. It looks a lot better. - Caffelice.

Regarding Robert Conquest

Re Robert Conquest: On what grounds do you dispute the accuracy or neutrality of the following statements?

That there have been many attacks on Conquest's integrity and reputation.
That the accuracy of Conquest's work on the purges has been vindicated by history.
That Conquest showed (not "claimed") that the trials and executions of the former Communist leaders were a minor detail of the purges.

Adam 04:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't dispute claim 1, but I felt that, if claim 2 was to be removed, it looked awkward left over in the introduction.

Claim 2 does not take into account the fact that many people believe Conquest's work seriously exaggerated and misrepresented some events in Soviet history. Given that this matter has not yet been settled to the satisfaction of many people, I feel it is best omitted for the sake of neutrality.

"Many people" also dispute that the Holocaust happened, or that evolution happened. Do we modify all our articles to take these views into account? Do we write that "some people say there was a Holocaust?" No, we make a historical judgement about what is true and what is not. I don't know of any reputable historian who disputes the general accuracy of Conquest's description of the purges. Adam 00:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nobody denies that the Purges happened. Many reasonable people, however, question the claims of Robert Conquest. There are several points of dispute: the purpose of the purges, the numbers of people executed or imprisoned during the purges, and the question of the organization of the purges and how they were generally carried out. These are big questions, and many people dispute Conquest's assertions on these matters, regardless of their political affliation (I, for instance, am not a communist, yet I believe that Conquest's work is largely Cold War propaganda with minimal academic merit). The widespread doubts among Russians alone as to the sorts of claims made by Conquest should be sufficient to warrant withholding final judgement on their veracity. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for unrestrained praise of one's personal heroes. Everyking 01:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"numbers of people executed or imprisoned during the purges" If anything, Conquest's estimates on these points have been shown to be conservative.
"the question of the organization of the purges and how they were generally carried out" I've never seen any disagreement on this question, which was in any case no great secret.
"Conquest's work is largely Cold War propaganda with minimal academic merit." No-one familiar with the post 1991 writings on the Stalin period could make such a statement.
"widespread doubts among Russians" Most Russians are still living in a state of denial and fantasy about their own history. They are the last people who can be cited on this debate. Adam 01:51, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Conquest, along with some other rather disreputable historians, was more interested in inflating death tolls under Stalin than in documenting what actually happened. That is what I think, anyway, and that is what a great number of people familiar with his work think.

I was under the impression I was debating with a reasonable person with some historical knowledge. But having read the above statement I see now that I was mistaken on both counts. I don't know why you have protected the article (if it was you), since I have been happily discussing the matter and not engaging in a revert war with you, but it can stay protected as far as I am concerned. Adam 07:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't protect the article. You can plainly see the page history yourself. And it's not protected now, anyway. Everyking 17:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you insist on making such unreserved and adulatory claims about him in the article, then you can expect to be perpetually reverting the edits of people like me who happen upon it. On the other hand, a relatively neutral perspective is easily defensible -- and is also the way an article is supposed to be written. (As for your hostile opinion of the Russian people, I think it raises questions about your ability or willingness to write an objective article on any subject pertaining to them.) Everyking 02:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Claim 3 is not at all factual. Even many people who accept a great deal of Conquest's work do not accept his ideas about the nature or purpose of the purges.

On this one I would settle for "he argued" rather than "he claimed." Adam 00:27, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Everyking 01:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Think about it like this: if enough people come on to Wikipedia and write or edit articles which treat claims 2 & 3 as something less than absolute historical fact (like the original article that you deemed "shameful"), then perhaps it should be written in such a way as to accomodate those people. It is not like we are talking about the spherical shape of the earth here; it is a point of real controversy.

Notice that I did not attempt to significantly rewrite the article, because I did not want to offend you. I would think that you could accept the minor NPOV revisions that I made, though. Everyking 18:53, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

First, thanks for dealing with the Lukashenko article -- Cantus has been really getting under my skin. Second, I'd invite you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places)#Transliteration_of_Russian_place_names. And (coincidentally? ironically?) I just asked Adam Carr to do the same (see his talk page for why).

Also, I'm going to bed now, but if you haven't already do so, please take a look through Cantus's contributions. Someone needs to watch this character.

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:25, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Help with Infobox of Haiti Rebellion

Check out the infobox, 2004 Haiti Rebellion. Need some help with the section of opposing parties. Some reference would be nice. --Maio 02:05, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

I do think a break would help. It'll still be there in a day or two ;-) -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:30, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have been on "break" for several days, BCorr. In fact, I have announced my intention to never substantially edit the article again. What are you up to? Everyking 23:03, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Warnings

I note you sent me a friendly warning but said nothing to the instigators of this dispute. What's that about? I'm the one who has stepped back from the editing to avoid an edit war, but I get the blame? I'm the one who has tried to resolve the issue and sought compromise, but I get attacked. This is rather ridiculous, BCorr. Everyking 23:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Everyking -- I'm sorry that it sounded like I was trying to give you a warning -- that was not my intent. I was only responding to your message on the Talk:Vladimir Zerjavic: Interesting for you to note that, BCorr, because I actually declared my intention to quit editing this article a few days ago, except for minor edits and cosmetic changes. I did that for the explicit purpose of not getting into an edit war. But as you can see, I am still having to defend myself against insults here on the talk page. Maybe I should just quit responding? Everyking 22:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And I intended my message on your talk page to sound friendly: I do think a break would help. It'll still be there in a day or two ;-) -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:30, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it sounded different out of context -- I just wasn't sure how other people editing that article might respond to a note that said "yes, it might help if you did," so I left it at your talk page.

I'll crosspost this message at your page too, and I'm sorry to have sounded like I was picking on you.

-- BCorr ¤ Брайен  00:15, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)