User talk:John Callender
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia, John, and be glad that you ended up on one of the more civilized Creation/evolution pages.
POV advocacy is a major problem in some topics which is why I restrict myself to only a few of the more controversial ones and work on nice peaceful topics when I can. The editors on Creationism are being quite restrained (at least at the moment), believe it or not. If you look through the history, you can see when edit wars take off. At least its mostly on the Talk page now.
All you can really do to fight POV is be vigilant in challenging and quick in correcting/rewriting blatant POV statements and I would urge you to put your own version of "the ability to believe in both creation and science" paragraph into the article, revised if you want in the light of the comments on the Talk page. It may last if it doesn't offend either side too much. Glad to have some common sense around. Dabbler 21:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like your wording has been accepted by everyone (for now). Congratulations. Dabbler 18:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Hornblower vs. Aubrey-Maturin
I am definitely a Aubrey-Maturin reader, I started with Forester when I was a teenager, went through Alexander Kent's earlier books and then found O'Brian and have rarely looked back. I am a member of an Aubrey Maturing e-mail list and have been for nearly nine years! I know a number of people who have found the first book a bit slow. Because I first found them in a library I think I started with the second, Post Captain, or third, HMS Surprise. They are definitely easier to read than the first, Master and Commander. O'Brian writes more convoluted sentences, is less a direct narrative and less action oriented, and also he tends to be more into the friendship between Aubrey and Maturin. Historically O'Brian is much closer to the source materal. Some of his "plots" are direct rewriting of actual incidents. O'Brian also displays a wonderful sense of humour with some passgaes making me literally laugh out loud. I now find Hornblower just too introspective and self-doubting and even depressing. I would urge you to try O'Brian again and if you find M&C doesn't grab you try one of the next two. Can you tell I am a fan? Dabbler 01:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV tag on Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq?
"I'm curious what you'd consider necessary to change in ... hope we can continue to improve the article, to the point where you no longer think the NPOV-dispute flag is necessary. Thanks. -- John Callender 01:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)"
- As you may have noticed I don't have that much time lately. I'd consider it reasonable that the NPOV-dispute flag be considered "expired", and removed at the discretion of others, such as you.
- I'm pleased to find such a cooperative voice. :-) I'll take a look and discuss when I have time. Perhaps an RFC would be more fitting, if for no other reason than because an article of such central political importance deserves more attention from the community than it seems to be getting. Cheers! Kevin Baastalk: new 02:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Freud & Curtis
John, I replied to your concern about their marriage/nonmarriage at Talk:Emma Freud. Thanks -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:42, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 2003 invasion of Iraq
Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] National Enquirer citation
MONGO undid your reversion at George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. I re-reverted and posted my justification. anything you have to add (or change) would be welcome. I personally think MONGO is forcing POV into the article. I also don't know that he really cares about the article; he only got back into it, I think, because I pointed out that he, in an offhand comment, was wrong to confuse a celebrity tabloid with a monsters-from-outer-space one. Now he's just being stubborn. Turly-burly 03:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
You guys don't know a lot about me...I have 1,000 edits alone just to the article and discussion pages on the George W Bush article...so in all liklihood, I do have a POV. Though I didn't create the substance abuse article, it's creation was due to my fight to keep that slanderous nonsense off the main page. But since you insist in acting in tandem, I can't beat that and will bow to the concensus of silliness in article space. The only reason you want a non fact based opinion of GWB drinking again has nothing to do with article integrity and everything to do with silly innuendos that feed the pig troughs of the anti-Bush crowd. How childish can you get? I mean...did either of you bother to really look at that NE link?...it's hardly what I would call worthy of our efforts here to build a fact based reference source.--MONGO 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Neither John Callender nor I have politicized this, so I don't think it's fair to insinuate that we've teamed up to force our political opinions on the article. I think JCallender would agree that it doesn't matter which article this argument concerns. I personally would rather this have taken place over NE quotes in an article about pigeon-raising or red beans. What I have been trying to do is determine the role "rumor and speculation" should play in Wikipedia articles, which is why I posted as neutral a question as I could at the Village Pump. I think that clearly-labeled "rumor and speculation" should be allowable, at the very least because it contributes to the body of information an article provides. Whether or not this information is based in fact or fantasy is up to the reader to decide: if the rumor is clearly-labeled, he has been warned that the information may in fact be false. Knowing the fact that a certain rumor exists might open doors for further discovery, e.g. hearing that there may be a western passage from Europe to East Asia might prompt someone to look into it. As to the source of a rumor, I don't think it matters how reputable it is; anyone can hear rumors/make speculation. Capitol Hill Blue's speculation is every bit as valid as NE's, and both may be as reliable and rooted in fact as speculation anyone else has made or a rumor anyone else has heard. I'd rather give people the choice to believe -- as JCallender pointed out -- than presume to take it from them. If JCallender's grandfather wrote an article about how he heard that Coca-cola could power rocket ships, I could quote that in a rumors section, I think, without leading people to challenge the integrity of an article about rocket fuel. I think that reaching concensus about "rumor and speculation" would contribute to article integrity, much more than does picking and choosing whose rumors to believe and dismissing sources in charged language without due consideration. Turly-burly 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Of interest, I thought, from, Talk:Neil Patrick Harris:
- "Upon further review of Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Sources of Dubious Reliability":
- "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities. Sometimes a statement can only be found in a publication of dubious reliability, such as a tabloid newspaper. If the statement is relatively unimportant, remove it. If it is important enough to keep, attribute it to the source in question. For example: "According to the British tabloid newspaper The Sun ..."
- Note that in this example, a tabloid is cited, as its use is justified in that what it adds to the article is "relatively unimportant", i.e., what it adds is important. (...)
- And at Wikipedia:Weasel words:
- "The following is just as weaselly: "The president's critics have suggested that George W. Bush may be a functional illiterate." If we add a source for the opinion, the reader can decide for themselves how they feel about the source's reliability: "Author Michael Moore in his book Stupid White Men wrote an open letter to George Bush asking, 'George, are you able to read and write on an adult level?'" (My emphasis)
- In this example, a cited opinion is left intact in the article in order to let the reader decide what they will believe." Turly-burly 09:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mostafa article reference
Hi there, thanks for your message. I understand your reasoning - and here's an alternative reference: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=39026 (from the UCLA student newspaper). This source is actually already in the article under footnote 6. I think you can just add a reference to that footnote too rather than add the link in a new footnote. I'm not sure how that affects the ordering though (I'm not that experienced with footnote code... I generally just copy an existing footnote codestring and use that as a framework. hope that help, Bwithh 02:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
