User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/März 2005

personal attacks?

It is inappropriate to accuse holders of another POV of being "ludicrous", and a sign of bad faith. Stirling Newberry 14:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I never ment to suggest that you are ludicrous, and I apologise if you thought that. Quite different, I feel that statements like "most scientists believe", particularly in reference to the Intelligent Design promoted by William A. Dembski are ludicrous. I don't know you, and I haven’t formed any opinion about yourself based on our minimal encounter. I see that you felt I have however, and I am glad for the opportunity to clarify that I have not. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:08, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pederasty

Hi Sam. Can you please review the relevant discussion on the pederasty article? I am in a dispute with the new moderator refdoc. And many brains are better than one. Any added input would be welcome. Thanks again. Apollomelos 16:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I know almost nothing about afgani pederasty, and tend to sympathize w refdoc's argument that such allegations are made around the world, often groundlessly (altho certainly almost always based on at least 1 incident). That said, the articles you point to do seem to feel that such is prevalant. My guess is that khandahar is something like san francisco in the USA? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is there a reason

Can you tell me why SimonP has deleted the external link to the Classical definition of republic on the republican site? Is there any Wikipedian rules for this? Can you get back to me, Thanks.WHEELER 20:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He feels he is obeying VfD rules. Obviously I don't agree. You'll have to ask him for specifics, but have a look @ Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put my page on the Undelete page. I got great confirmation of my article. It even says that a republic is defined "as no single class" that is dominant. This is great. And people are still refusing and voting to keep it deleted. This is not right at all.WHEELER 21:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The VfD process is a bad one, and allow POV pushers and majoritocracy to make important descisions. Its very unfortunate, and will eventually need to be changed. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rape!

Thanks for your support on placing an image there, no matter the result. Haiduc 14:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have to say the accusations of vandalism were in particularly poor taste, and that combined w the otherwise undiscussed revert was unfortunate. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Clarification on jewish ethnocentrism?

I'm just wondering if you have a response, WRT the undeletion vote on jewish ethnocentrism, to a few specific claims that have been made. As I understand, you claim that the VfD was invalid because:

The vote ended earlier than normal
Even regardless of the vote, the topic is real and it exists as a member of a group of related, similar articles on ethnocentrism

Some have claimed that the vote in fact did not end earlier than normal, having a full run on VfD. Is this, in your view, incorrect? How does it differ from other things that have run through VfD? The second point, if you are indeed making such a point with your reference to Larry, is interesting and bears consideration -- I have no opinion as of yet on it. --Improv 17:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The first I based on points made by others, I am personally unfamiliar with the intricacies of VfD. The second is the actual basis for my position; I feel there is alot to be said about Jewish Ethnocentrism, little having to do w Kevin MacDonalds unpopular views. Indeed I have said a few times any such article should be focused mainly on views within the Jewish community, the concept of Jews as a Chosen people, and so forth. The views of anti-semites should be a section, not the theme of the article. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:13, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At this point undeleting the article seems far less important than the majoritocratic elements of VfD and polls generally on the wiki, which seem to be allowing POV advocate groups to determine article content, especially when they maintain large lists of users they know will vote a certain way, and them either email them, or notify them by wiki-talk page in order to achieve their goals. I think this meta-issue is far more troubling. Even when there is not an organised POV campaign, the people who vote tend to be the people who are interested, and the people who are interested in a certain subject are infinitely more likely to possess a POV than those who are not. Polls and votes articulate wiki demographics, not NPOV. In summary, Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern -- it covers a lot of ground in plenty of areas and communities -- in fact wherever governance of any kind is required. However, the classic question which comes next is, "what then?". There are not many well-known perspectives besides that of the autocrat and that of the masses voting. There are, of course, bureaucracies set up in either system, with their own logic, and various attempts at meritocracy in various forms, with various means in place to attempt to keep power-hungry people from supplanting the meritorious, however that is defined. How would you like to see Wikipedia governed, and do you see starting an alternate Wikipedia, governed as you suggest, as an option? Not trying to mock you -- I'm actually rather interested in political philosophy. --Improv 22:12, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As am I. My suggestion is uncomplicated, and merely involves using/improving the processes we already have, citations and concensus. I feel very strongly that we should focus on the unanimous form of concensus, and the compromise it requires. If a user is unwilling to compromise, they are either right or wrong, but something should be done. Either a) they are right, but not presenting their case very well, or b) they are wrong, and unable to accept it. Either way, they should probably move on, and if they won't, they can be helped, by the arbitration commitee if need be.

As far as the anti-elitism Lang Sanger complains about, I think the solution is very easy. Users who are verifiable experts (and I'm not entirely sure how we ought to verify, but I am sure it can be done) should be able to be cited as expert witnesses on the subject of their expertise, and the no original research policy should be relaxed in their regards. That said, they shouldn't be some sort of trump card or page master, but rather one of the many citable references on a given subject. Experts should have no greater say (or not much more) than a random user with a solid reference to quote from.

So those are my ideas, thoughts?

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:05, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, taking it in the two parts,

I think unanimous consensus is unfortunately too high a burden for decisionmaking on Wikipedia, and would effectively default to being an adminless wiki because anyone who supports an adminless wiki would have no reason to comprimise at all if they can merely win by being a sole naysayer. I'm sure a number of people would be able to dance around the need for arbitration by being careful with their votes and positioning, and would just impede housekeeping, which is a big part of wikis. You also assume that compromise is always firstly possible (many problems have binary solutions), secondly always desirable (what if someone actually makes a counterproposal to move things the other way because that's what they've always wanted, but could accept the status quo and not the new proposal?) (and what makes us think that comprimise always leads to a better wikipedia? What if we, for example, were asked to comprimise on NPOV, and to give a lot of extra weight to stormfront folk? Perhaps we might just say .. yes, we'll comprimise! We'll give them a little extra weight in argument and otherwise be NPOV. Good comprimise?), and thirdly that there even is a right solution in all cases. In many areas, I don't think there's a right solution, nor that any are very preferable to others. In cases like these, there are just multiple different ways the wikipedia could go, and while each way is consistant, none are preferable to another and a comprimise is worse than any.
I agree that it would be good to give more weight to people we can mark as experts (witness is a silly word though). I don't think that "no original research" should be loosened though -- plenty of researchers have particular speculations about how things might work, and letting them put speculation on the encyclopedia isn't kosher. I agree that their statements of fact should be considered, barring contradiction by another marked expert on the topic or something really ludicrous, to be more trusted and more evidence should be required to contradict them in disputes on what is true in the world (e.g. a historical expert on the Civil War makes a statement that the 8th cavalry was in South Carolina in some date, and some random person argues that the date is different. We go with the historical expert unless the random person can find some really strong evidence to contradict). --Improv 08:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In sum, to me voting doesn't seem that bad, especially because I don't see anything else being clearly better. --Improv 08:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I happen to prefer unaminity, and defering to citations over voting, but I don't have a whole lot of snappy answers to your objections. I will say there is alot of potential for misuse of the voting system, and that majority demographics shouldn't be the final say in matters of factual accuracy or NPOV, but as far as whats better... its largely a matter of taste. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Communication?

I'm unsure as to the source ofyour puzzlement. All you have to do is read, think about, and respond to the arguments that I've laid out and the citations and examples that I've given. You don't have to agree with me, you don't have to accept any of what I say; honest and thoughtful disagreement is great — it's what I'm paid to engender, and what I enjoy, and it's the only route to possible eventual agreement. In fact, even if you'd done me the courtesy of pretending to respond to what I wrote, instead of simply repeating the same opinion again and again, it would probably have kept the temperature of the debate down a little. It's difficult to believe that you're not behaving in this way deliberately in order to wind me up, but I'm doing my best to assume good faith. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose a problem is that in not feeling your responses were applicable, I've ignored them and focused on the priority:Citations and verifiability. I agree that I was unwavering in that regard, and never for a moment considered your appeal to precedent. It wouldn't matter to me how many examples of errors you came up with, I would still insist that here on the wikipedia, contested statements require citations. If that policy is changed, I would not only depart from editing, I'd stop using the wikipedia entirely. The very point of a book of reference is its verifiability, and once that is removed, its value goes with it. You may be able to find errors elsewhere, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:44, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least you've admitted to ignoring my arguments and examples, which is something for future reference. Your claim is that comments of the sort with which you're concerned are unacceptable in a reputable refernce work. In what way are examples of reputable reference works including such comments irrelevant? You seem to mean: “I know what I think, don't confuse me with the facts.” That you brand them errors simply shows that you're dealing in prejudice rather than reason. Moreover, the point of a book of reference isn't its verifiablity; you might want that to be true of Wikipedia, but it's simply not true as a general statement. (I suppose you have citations and references for your general statements on this matter?) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See Reference, and Wikipedia:Cite your sources. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First, my examples included six citations of scientific agreement on the status of Dembski's work (not to intelligent design in general, but to Dembski). Some of those references included many more references, and summarised the general opinion. In what way do those not count as adequate sources for the general statement to which you refer? If you think that they belong in the article (which already has a number of such references), and that they can be inserted without making it unreadable, then why not do so? Instead you've simply edited out the statements that the references support. In what way exactly is that contrary to the Wikipedia citations that you give? I'll pass over in silence your failure to supply even one reference that would serve to counter-balance the many given in support of the claims. I'm still waiting, however, for your citations and references for the claim that reference works (not Wikipedia) that make such claims are in error, and that such claims are not acceptable in reputable works. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As usual in our unfortunate communications, the answer is disturbingly obvious. Thinking back, our respective communications have indeed been an excersize in futility. If you truely think that citations are not required when an assertion is disputed, it is hard to imagine what field you might specialize in. Perhaps rhetoric, or critical theory? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:09, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well I work in a field in which people don't 'dispute' statements for fun or out of blind prejudice, but for reasons which they're prepared to state (for example, by giving examples or counter-arguments). I work in a field where to respond to a complex and lengthy argument by saying 'It's obvious', and airily waving one's hand around, is considered boorish at best. I work in a field in which no-one would think of trying to intimidate me by pretending to a depth of knowledge and understanding that they patently lack (if only because they know damned well that I'd see through it).

Now, it may be that your tactics work on some editors; you might just as well forget it with me. Tutoring for twenty-odd years has taught me how to recognise a faker, if it's taught me nothing else (and I've had to deal with fakers who are a hell of a lot brighter and better trained at it than you are; the English Public-School system isn't particularly good at education, but it does turn out very well-polished and self-confident bull-shitters).

Still, I'm happy to go on with this exchange; it's providing a great deal of evidence of your approach and methods, both for me and for others. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The feeling is not mutual, you are the most fallacious person I can recollect having encountered, and I have no further time for you. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... what's a fallacious person? I can assure you that I exist; you don't have to worry about having your usual one-sided debates with an imaginary disputant (well, not on my account anyway) — though it's true that, looking at other encounters you've had, your disputants might as well be fallacious, given how little attention you pay to what they say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to review my talk page and its archives, and see if your experience is typical. I assure you it is not. I apologize for any misunderstandings you may have had. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It would indeed be rather difficult for someone to dig up examples of Sam paying no ignoring other editors and pressing on with the same tired old arguments on this talk page and its archives. But that is, in part, because Sam routinely deletes any such examples in an attempt to sanitize this page. It might be more beneficial, instead, to look through the history of the page and see just how often he engages in this pratice, but that would take a lot more time. Kev 04:42, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Process is starting

Look at the message that AndyL wrote me:

There is no such hint. Creating another article under a different name for deleted material would be an attempt to cirumvent the VfD and would result in the new article being deleted and possibly in you being banned. Also, I'm certain that editors would start examining your other articles and start putting them up for deletion. AndyL 15:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See, here is your cabal. They are going to gang up on me and start deleting my articles. Do you see these threats from editors. What Have I done? WHEELER 15:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, one thing you have done is aquired me as your advocate. I will do all I can to ensure you are not banned. These sorts of tactics are nothing new, and don't suprise me at all. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:55, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Israelism

Hi,

Anglo-Israelism by definition claims an ancestry back to the lost tribes of Israel. How can that not be a claim of racial heritage through bloodlines?

Find me an example...

-Chip

I'm not saying thats not the case, I just felt the phrase

"However, there is a difference between claiming a racial lineage, and endorsing naked bigotry."

was a bit POV, so I replaced it w something less "intense". The word "bigotry" has purely negative connentations. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, sounds fair. I swapped British Israelism and Anglo-Israelism. Most scholars use British Israelism as you pointed out.--Cberlet 04:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New Information

"Gordon S. Wood, and Joyce O. Appleby have since established a new paradigm which has restored the significance of Classical influence to the Revolutionary era. But Wood and Appleby add that the early national period witnessed a shift from Classical republicanism , which emphasized civic duty and social cohesion, to "liberalism" (or "modern republicanism") which stressed individual rights and the self-regulating marketplace." Founders and the Classics, Carl J. Richard, pg 3.
HERE IT IS MODERN SCHOLARY RESEARCH SHOWING THAT THERE ARE TWO FORMS OF REPUBLICANISM.

I humbly ask that you vote "undelete" and restore my article please at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#Classical definition of republic and for more information please see Talk:Republic#Locked. WHEELER 19:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What's the use

As to the knowledge and expertise of our infamous Dr. SimonP of Republican theory. Let me quote Machiavelli's TRUE definition:

Thus the sagacious legislators, knowing the vices of each of these systems of government, (i.e. speaking of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) by themselves, have chosen one that should partake of all of them, judging that to be the most stable and solid. In fact, when there is combined under the same constitution a prince, a nobility, and the power of the people, then these three powers will watch and keep each other reciprocally in check." "Discourses on Titus Livius" end of Book I chapter II, The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli, ed. by Robert M. Adams, pg 94.

"I think, then, that to found a republic which whould endure a long time it would be bewst to organize her internally like Sparta, or to locate her, like Venice, in some strong place". ibid, pg 97.WHEELER 16:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~~I quote from Machiavelli, and Mr. Simon P deletes this off the Talk:Republic page. I had to restore it. This information is so damaging to Mr. SimonP that he deleted it off the page.~~WHEELER 20:59, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That "Critical Theory Series" is a good article.WHEELER 19:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The games continue

Remember on Friday, I left you a message with more information and said they deleted it off the talk page. Keep that message!!! It seems that now someone has manipulated the page history of Talk:Republic to show otherwise. WHEELER 15:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think he's right, it was probably a bug or caching problem, rather than manipulation by a developer. Occoms razor and so forth. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your right I jumped the gun. I'll be more careful next time.WHEELER 19:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome message! I've got a question for you. I was checking out the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that anonymous user 69.113.41.234 has changed the birthdates by 1 to 3 years in a number of articles (Jackson Browne, Paul Williams, Otis Williams, Linda McCartney, Eddie Kendricks, and Richie Sambora). In the cases where I've been able to look up the dates somewhere else, the new dates have been wrong. This looks like it might be a campaign of subtle vandalism, but since I can't look up all the dates I can't really tell whether the user is purposefully messing up the articles or just has some better source of information. I don't really want to do the work to track down these birthdates, though. Is there a Wikipedia page for sharing these kinds of things so that someone else can look into them? --MechanicallySeparatedChicken 22:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you can say for sure its vandalism, WP:ViP is the place to go. Outside of that... he could be right.. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll leave it be, then, and if it actually is vandalism then someone else who knows more about musicians' birthdates will probably catch it sooner or later. --MechanicallySeparatedChicken 23:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

skinhead

hiya Sam, are you a skinhead? Your picture looks like one. And based on your edits you sure acts like one. We need more articulate and sensible people like you for our racialist cause and do away the stigma associated with it. 14!! 88!!

Actually no, I'm not. If your interested in my political opinions, see User:Sam Spade/Theoretical Biases, but I assure you I am not here to advocate any cause, other than factual accuracy and NPOV. In my personal experience, racism is inefficient, and racialism a poor method of determining the character of others. Additionally, as a Pantheist / panentheist, I see my immanant God within All, people, animals and objects of all sorts. Those who are nearer to God can be known by their fruits (as opposed to pigment or other racial features), such as the fruits of wisdom, altruism, and efficiency.

Because of my views, I will continue to insist upon NPOV here on the wikipedia, and strive to see all topics depicted in a fair and balanced manner, including those which are not Politically correct, as yours appear not to be. Would you like to form a user account? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The games continue

Remember on Friday, I left you a message with more information and said they deleted it off the talk page. Keep that message!!! It seems that now someone has manipulated the page history of Talk:Republic to show otherwise. WHEELER 15:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think he's right, it was probably a bug or caching problem, rather than manipulation by a developer. Occoms razor and so forth. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your right I jumped the gun. I'll be more careful next time.WHEELER 19:13, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't wory about it. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 20:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome message! I've got a question for you. I was checking out the Recent Changes page, and I noticed that anonymous user 69.113.41.234 has changed the birthdates by 1 to 3 years in a number of articles (Jackson Browne, Paul Williams, Otis Williams, Linda McCartney, Eddie Kendricks, and Richie Sambora). In the cases where I've been able to look up the dates somewhere else, the new dates have been wrong. This looks like it might be a campaign of subtle vandalism, but since I can't look up all the dates I can't really tell whether the user is purposefully messing up the articles or just has some better source of information. I don't really want to do the work to track down these birthdates, though. Is there a Wikipedia page for sharing these kinds of things so that someone else can look into them? --MechanicallySeparatedChicken 22:55, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you can say for sure its vandalism, WP:ViP is the place to go. Outside of that... he could be right.. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'll leave it be, then, and if it actually is vandalism then someone else who knows more about musicians' birthdates will probably catch it sooner or later. --MechanicallySeparatedChicken 23:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Add topic