User talk:Alanscottwalker/archive2

Hi there. This seems minor, but we spent a lot of time trying to balance out the Brad Vice story after it was vandalized by Robert Clark Young, and I wonder whether it's fair to once again insert the controversy into the lede. I've brought this up on the talk page of the entry; you might want to weigh in. (I think the controversy should obviously be IN the article - it just shouldn't be one of the first things you encounter, or we're doing Young's work for him -- he's already essentially ruined this guy's life, from everything I've read.) NaymanNoland (talk) 07:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...drip...drip...drip...beer torture! Drmies (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at ani was COMPLETELY....funny lol. I hope he gets unblocked and I am sure you don't agree (didn't read your rationale so I'm assuming) but still I had a chuckle at that.

Re this comment

At first glance, I'd say

All that said, I want to make it clear that I'm not arguing Roy Cohn is or is not Jewish. Merely that WP ought not list him as such.

re What is meant by "relevant to the subjects notability"? - In most cases, this seems as though it would be self-evident. The fact Martin Luther King was African American is clearly relevant to his notability. If he wasn't African American, he probably would be notable for what he was notable for.

re "controversial"? - I'm using "contraversial" to mean "lacks consensus". If you have one group of editors saying John is catholic, while another group says he's not, then his "catholicness" is controversial. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about your personal standards, as they don't seem to be based in the discipline of biography. Someone who is raised in a Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life and is mentioned in their biography. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, your standard-less "controversial", smacks too much of a heckler's veto. We actually need agreed upon guidance and metrics to reach actual consensus. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish home by Jewish people would have some influence on their life" - Am I contesting that? My cousin's mom was a lapsed/non-observant Catholic. Catholicism had "some influence" on my cousin's upbringing. It would not be right to call my cousin Catholic. How is Roy different?

re "heckler's veto" - That's really what I want. You call for "metrics", but the problem is there are no metrics when it comes to race/ethnicity/religious affiliation etc etc. By what yardstick do I measure how black someone is? How catholic? How gay? What authority gets the final say on these matters? Answer - There is no yardstick. No final authority. The qualities are ultimately partially subjective.

Think of something else which is subjective (e.g. The Mona Lisa's beauty). If everyone (or an overwhelming majority of people) agrees the Mona Lisa is beautiful, it's OK to state unequivocally state "The Mona Lisa is beautiful". But as soon as you have a heckler who shouts "Hey, I don't think the Mona Lisa is beautiful", you can't really argue with that heckler, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the heckler is right..... NickCT (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic. The metrics are established by sourcing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "If RS biography of your cousin's mom discusses her cathlocity then it would be "right" to describe her as Catholic" - Oh sure. But that's not the case with Roy, right? With Roy, the only thing that was stated was that HIS parents were non-observant Jews. Then the article calls HIM a Jew.

re "The metrics are established by sourcing." - You can't really source something that's subjective though. If I found an RS that said "The Mona Lisa is beautiful.", does that mean I could assert on wikipedia "The Mona Lisa is a beautiful painting"? NickCT (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't conclude that in biography that bothers to tell us about his parentage that it is somehow irrelevant to his biography, to do so is OR. We reflect what the sources source, like religion and ethnicity and country and date and place of birth, and place of death, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "somehow irrelevant to his biography" - I don't understand. That's not the point I was making. Mentioning that HIS PARENTS were non-practicing jews is fine. But that's not what we're discussing. We are discussing whether it is appropriate to label him as Jewish.

You could say my cousin's Mom was a lapsed Catholic. You can't say my cousin is catholic. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing. I am just finishing reading a modern biography about

Catherine de'Medici that goes on at length about her personal beliefs and how she was not a Catholic in the sense that the Pope's of her day, or Philip II of Spain would define Catholic belief (more into superstition, culture, and political use) but we would still categorize her as a French Catholic as would this and any biographer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

re "When the issue has to do with his parentage, as "Jewish" does than that is what you are discussing" - Wait wait. I feel we are discussing too different things. We are discussing whether Roy should be categorized as Jewish, right? Not about whether his parents should be.

re Catherine de'Medici - Well, I don't know much about Catherine, so a little hard for me to comment there, but I will say that your assertion that "any biographer" would call her Catholic seems a little hyperbolic. If she held "non-Catholic" or unorthodox catholic beliefs, are you really saying that no biographer in the world would dispute whether she was really catholic? NickCT (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parentage is one of the ways Jewish is defined. As for Catherine, and what she illustrates, "opening windows" on souls is not the purpose of the categorization, it is the attribute that she has been given by the sources to illuminate her life, and others like her. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "Parentage is one of the ways Jewish is defined." - Ok. So you agree then that there are multiple definitions, which is good because by inference you agree there are other ways it can be defined (i.e. you agree it's subjective).

Regardless this entire discussion is irrelevant. The real point, and the point I've been trying to make for a while is that SOME PEOPLE (like you) might look at Roy and reasonably say, "Looks Jewish to me", and OTHER PEOPLE (like me) might look at Roy and reasonably say "Doesn't look Jewish".

Answer for me one simple "yes or no" question; do you think that two reasonable people can look at the same subject and reasonably come to different conclusions as to that subjects appropriate "religious/ethnic" categorization?

Not sure I understand what "opening windows" means, but again, you didn't really answer the question. Sure some sources may have applied the categorization. But that doesn't mean all sources would.

Similarly, some sources may call the Mona Lisa beautiful. That doesn't mean the Mona IS beautiful. NickCT (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple definitions do not make something subjective. It means you fit multiple things into the definition. And it's not a matter of personal opinion, it's a matter of faithfully reflecting the sources. That's what we do, sometimes its hard, but that's what we do. So, your question is irrelevant but in general NO, if people agree on the metrics, they should come by reason to the same conclusion, and that is the assumption on which the project's consensus model is based. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "if people agree on the metrics" - But people never agree on the metrics. Going back to what I said before; there is no widely agreed on yardstick/metric by which to measure catholicness or Jewishness or African Americanness or what have you. If you disagree, can you point to one?

re "faithfully reflecting the sources" - Listen. Clearly we want to faithfully reflect sources. But the point is that that only applies to OBJECTIVE things. So, again, I'll pose the same question to you; if I find 10 RSs that say "The Mona Lisa is beautiful", does that mean I can state in an unqualified manner on WP that "The Mona Lisa is beautiful". NickCT (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources. We do not treat religion or ethnicity like you or I want, we treat it like biographical sources, and in biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," it is treated like sociological or psychological or historical fact[or]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "There is agreeable metrics that work throughout the project, following relevant sources." - Those are the relevant metrics inside WP. I'm talking outside WP. Forgetting WP for a second, can you point to the yardsstick I mentioned?

re "biographical sources it is not treated like "beauty," - Disagree. It is treated like beauty. Some sources will call the Mona Lisa "beautiful", others won't state it outright recognizing that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, some sources may call Roy "Jewish", others will recognize that religious affiliation is in the eye of the beholder. Same thing. NickCT (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Well, if you find a source that goes into detail about Roy Kohn's lack of Jewishness, it is probably also a commentary on his Jewishness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not pointing to that yardstick, huh? Ok. Well anyway, your reply seems a little off point. You're not answering whether you think his Jewishness is subjective. You just seem to be reasserting that he is Jewish. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No more subjective per se than his genes, his family, his culture, his nation, his time period, or the myriad of factors, which make up a life. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, time period isn't subjective. I mean time can be measured with a clock, right? Time is an objective thing. Easy yardstick there. One's family isn't really subjective either, is it? Hard to argue with "John is Jim's dad". Either he is or he isn't. That's an objective thing. Don't really know what you mean by the word "genes". Culture and nationality can be sorta subjective. Hard to define how to measure cultural or national identity. You'll note that I included "national identity" as one of the attributes that we ought to be careful with.

So, go on. I've pointed to yardsticks for measuring objective things for you. You're unwilling to say that Catholicness/Jewishness is subjective. So point to the yardstick for me. NickCT (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein showed that time as subjective. And even father's cannot really know who is their son, unless we look to genes. But these things have accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and as long as they fit into the definitions they are what they are. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Einstein show that time was relative? But regardless......

re "these things have accepted definitions" - Eureka!!! And that's exactly the point. There are widely accepted definitions for things like time and parentage. They are objective. There is no scope, or very very little for personal viewpoints to influence those things........ Now, going back to the main question, once again! Do you accept that there are no accepted definition (exogenous to you or I) for things like Catholicness and Jewishness? Ergo those things are subjective? NickCT (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Those were obviously included in my "these things." All have widely accepted definitions (exogenous to you or I) and long before us, including religion and ethnicity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... Well, you seem to keep stating that they are easily defined and obvious, yet you seem very evasive when it comes pointing to obvious and widely accepted definitions. Listen, when I say "John lived during the 17th century" or "John is Jim's son" (objective statements), if those statements are reasonably sourced, they are almost never the source of much debate. Conversely, I can point to a slew of examples where I say "John is African American" or "John is Catholic", source it, and yet it still generates debate. Why do you think that is? NickCT (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because people get emotional or ideological about certain things, so they ignore or pick and choose among broad definitional categories and don't follow sources in the usual manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're using terms like "broad definitional categories" which seems like a way to avoid the term "subjective". Maybe if we change the terminology here we can find more common ground. Would you agree that "Catholic" is a broader "definitional category" than something like "born in the 17th century"?

Seems to me that people could easily get emotional or ideological about parentage. I mean, sure a person's parents have a huge emotional impact on people. Don't you think it could be possible that the reason folks don't argue about parentage is b/c it's easy to define what a parent is? NickCT (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something is easy, there is no dispute that many of these things are easy or difficult depending on the biographical persona being discussed and the proper use of sources -- made even more difficult when people don't know about the biographical subject at hand nor the sources, and still argue about it nonetheless because they choose to replace real work with their feelings or personal experiences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualify "many of these things". I mean, whether or not someone was born in the 17th century is never difficult right? It's hard to find much argument there. Someone's race/ethnicity/sexual persuasion/national identity is often difficult. You can't see that there is a fundamental difference (an objective/subjective difference) between the former and latter traits?

Additionally, I hope you recognize that "the sources" you keep referring can often disagree on subjective categorizations. For instance, there was some degree of debate around Meša Selimović was really Serbian. One could points to RSs which specifically said he was and others that pointed to the contrary.

You still haven't pointed to a yardstick for measuring Catholicness. NickCT (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since my position is it depends on the article and issue at hand, I won't be pretending that one size fits all. But I will not support policy that is based on individual feelings and ideology, and heckler's veto. I have tried to make clear what the proper things to consider are (rs definitions and sources). But as no one can feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology, then I am comfortable with saying that that is not the way to proceed. I also think, we have reached the useful limit of the present discussion, but I thank you for it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that you can't accept that things like race/ethnicity/national identity/sexual orientation are inherently more subjective/open to interpretation than things like parentage or time frame in which you've lived. Based on some of your comments (e.g. "broad definitional categories", "these things have accepted definitions") and your refusal to point to an ethnic/religous yardstick I largely suspect you get this point but are just too stubborn to give ground.

Instead of using the term heckler's veto, let's use the term "lack of broad consensus". The point I've made from the beginning is that you should require a higher than normal level of consensus over race/thnic/national identity/sexual orientation categorization. WP has many policies which highlight the need a "higher levels of consensus" on certain topics.

re "feel another's feelings, nor rely on thier ideology" - The point is, that with subjective matters, you are ALWAYS to some degree using feelings and ideology. By saying you think we can make race/ethnic/national identity etc attributions, you are in fact doing the very thing you say you're trying to avoid.

I too thank you for the discussion. It's OK we don't see eye-to-eye on this. It's a difficult point to get and one that requires some reflection. You have all my best.....

P.S. Told you this conversation would spiral out of controls. ;-) NickCT (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sure you will see editors argue over the things like when someone is born in this year and then died in this year in the next century, etc. But the important issue is to establish the gound rules (based in evidence and sources) and let it happen. We know ahead of time they will never come to agree on each other's feelings and ideology, but on sources and evidence the community can reach a consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned through 100's of debates on WP. I have never seen a heated dispute about the time frame in which a subject lived, or their parentage (i.e. the two examples of objective things). I've seen dozens relating to race/ethnicity/national identity/religious affiliation/sexual orientation. NickCT (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alanscottwalker! Thanks for participating in the World Digital Library-Wikimedia Partnership. Your contributions are important to improving Wikipedia! I wanted to share a few updates with you:

• We have an easy way to now cite WDL resources. You can learn more about it on our news page, here.
• Our to-do list is being expanded and features newly digitized and created resources from libraries and archives around the world, including content from Sweden, Qatar, the Library of Congress, and more! You can discover new content for dissemination here.
• WDL project has new userbox for you to post on your userpage and celebrate your involvement. Soffredo created it, so please be sure to thank them on their talk page. You can find the userbox and add it to your page here.
• Our first batch of WDL barnstars have been awarded! Congratulations to our first recipients: ProtoplasmaKid, ChrisGualtieri, TenthEagle, Rhyswynne, Luwii, Sosthenes12, Djembayz, Parkwells, Carl Francis, Yunshui, MrX, Pharaoh of the Wizards, and the prolific Yster76!! Thank you for your contributions and keep up the great work. Be sure to share your article expansions and successes here.

Keep up the great work, and please contact me if you need anything! Thank you for all you do for free knowledge! EdwardsBot (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alanscottwalker I noticed you edited a comment I made at Talk:Tom Waterhouse#Singleton. For my own education would you mind pointing me to the relevant guideline/policy that you are applied in this instance? best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP applies everywhere on the Pedia, including talk pages, as your comment there notes that edit is nonblp compliant, so just a link should be made if you need to refer to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Great that clarifies it for me. Thanks for taking the time to answer Flat Out let's discuss it 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion is disruptive. Yes, multiple editors are discussing the problem, but there is nothing actionable, no working solution, just a great deal of "I don't like it." This tagging is no longer appropriate.
Is the article perfect? No. Can it be improved with text brought from better sources? Of course. However, the notional "POV" aspect of the article name and of the article contents are contradicted by the great number of reliable sources discussing Detroit's phenomenal decline. Binksternet (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you reread what the tags say, and that you review your own edits in making such outlandish claims of disruption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

Thank you for clarifying Wikipedia:Verifiability[3]. The clarification helps answer a question I posted to the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#removing citations). --DavidCary (talk) 18:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. The other day, you added a box stating that part of the article has Undue Weight. Did you mean it gave undue weight to one exhibit to the detriment of the others, or some other reason? I usually add exhibit descriptions one at a time so I don't mean to give weight to the Small Mammal-Reptile House over others; I'm just adding new parts to articles when I feel like it. Takinzinnia (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article gives too much weight to one thing over others for things of like relevance, now. In the words of the policy and in my edit summary it is unbalanced. So, we tell our readers we know that (and that they should know that, too) by that tag, and we are working on it -- they can help if they like. And thanks for your work in progress, by the way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That information did come from Harpweek, at those links, but I'll admit I'm not sure if it still would have been a problem even were it given a proper reference as was my intention; I'm horrible when it comes to writing up the proper references, always forgetting a bit here or there, and so tend to leave hidden notes so that another can pick it up if need be. If need be that text can be ultimately be left out, but a lot of the information that was there SHOULD end up in the article in some capacity. --Ariostos (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest if you are using a website and you dont know how to cite just copy and paste the web address. Moreover, if the information should go in the article summarize it in your own words, and then copy paste the web address. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you go back to [4] and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- cyclopia^speak! 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... you′re right, of course. Thanks, cheers, Gott (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I award you the Socratic Barnstar for your participation in the Tammy Duckworth RfC. All of your insights were valuable to the discussion, especially your reference to the NPOV policy. Because of your novel approach, you prompted the rest of the discussion participants to assess the problem and its underlying policies from a different perspective. Thank you for your contributions! Edge3 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Alanscottwalker.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alanscottwalker. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 624 words and 0 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits;

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded in recognition of your contributions to building the evidence base for the Chelsea Manning move. Well done! Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the

Is your "Procedurally, this Move Request was discussed ..." comment intended to be a support vote? As it is currently formatted and placed, it is not numbered as a vote and breaks the numbering of any subsequent votes underneath it. Regards, -- ToE 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a second paragraph. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! I've reformatted it with a <p> to preserve the numbering. Cheers. -- ToE 12:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really puzzled by the vehemence of the opposition to the bright line rule, not from people who want a better or stronger rule (as I do), but from people who want no rule at all. These aren't wackos but respected, long-time contributors. I just can't make any sense of this. The reasoning seems to be that one must focus entirely on content, but it seems totally at variance with best practices at every other publication, print or web, in the western world. My feeling is that unless the WMF or Wales take some kind of action themselves, perhaps through a COI policy for all projects, nothing is likely to be done if one is to rely on the "community." In fact, I suspect that if anything is done at all, it will be to remove the weak COI guidelines that already exist. Thanks for listening. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible decision. I have responded at Fluffernutters talk page for the sake of the editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of

Harrias ^talk 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply