User talk:Tony Sidaway/Archive 2004 11 22
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
deletion |
Template:User Tony Sidaway/User
Contents |
[edit] 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Support and opposition
Hi ! Sorry to start you talk page, but I though it'd be better to ask you directly rather than on Talk:2003_Invasion_of_Iraq, since debates can sometimes be a little bit unproductive there :p
So the question is about the "Support and opposition" section (quote) :
"Popular opposition to war on Iraq led to global protests, and in many Middle Eastern and Islamic countries, the protesters openly supported Saddam Hussein. The war was criticized by Canada, Belgium, Russia, France, the People's Republic of China, Germany, Switzerland, The Vatican, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, Mexico, the Arab League, the African Union and others."
OK, what seems so weird to me about the "by Canada, Belgium, ..." is that (for me), "by Canada" mean "by the Canadian government", rather than "by Canadian population". Now, most countries cited here had both their population (a majority thereof) and their government opposed to the war, but this is not the case of countries not cited here (Japan, United Kingdom, ...). We can argue about wether the second sentance refers to governments or populations, but since the paragraph starts with "Popular opposition to war...", I'd think it consistant (and fair) to mention the huge protests which took place in Tokyo, for instance (I was there at the time, it was worth seeing).
On the other hand, I am not an English native speaker, so it is very possible that I got the nuance wrong. Anyway, thank you for your time ! Rama 11:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- That particular sentence refers to the governments. For instance, if you check the change where I restored Canada, you'll see that Chretien is directly quoted as stating his opposition to the war.
- He is quoted as saying the following:
- "The diplomatic process was bringing positive results. That was the view of the Canadian government. It was not, obviously, the view of the American government. We can have a disagreement there. I still feel given a few more weeks disarmament would have been achieved."
- And:
- "If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?"
- The huge anti-war protests are mentioned elsewhere in the article, though the sheer size of them is not (to my recollection) adequately conveyed. If you have some reliable figures for the size of some of the demos, please add them to the relevant section.
- Oh, and thank you for making the first contribution to my talk page.
-
- Thank you, I have added a reference to the article you point to in the article, and I will wander around and see wether I can find some way to improve the popular protest part. Thanks again for the clarification ! Rama 13:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Comedy
Thanks for dircting me to the talk:Clitoris page. You're right, that is funny. which way d'you vote?--Crestville 01:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Glad you liked it. I voted against removing the picture and against a per-page disclaimer. --Minority Report 02:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Futurama
It's a standing practice that major characters of reasonably major works can have their own articles. If you think Philip J. Fry is excessively large, I suggest you take a look at James T. Kirk and other associated Star Trek stuff. There's far more of that floating around than Futurama stuff.-- Cyrius|✎ 17:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'm working on merging some of the minor characters in to the main entry. I should expect that we can agree a canon of, say, Fry, Bender, Leela, Zoidberg and the Professor as characters meriting separate entries. --Minority Report 18:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Medicine stubs
The hypen should not be in the category, just to note. --[[User:AllyUnion|AllyUnion (talk)]] 08:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I know, it was an error. I tried creating a new category and migrating topic there, but I found out that it wasn't so simple, so I'm resigned to keeping it the way it is. --Minority Report 10:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Thingamajig
Re. thingamajig: do it your way or you'll do it yourself? Now that's really an example of sound collaboration. Yes, the article gives the meaning of "thingamajig" just as an article on "bicycle" or "combustion chamber" gives the meaning of those words "A bicycle, or bike, is a pedal-driven land vehicle with two wheels arranged in line"). However, it also distinguishes between what a thingamajig is and what it is not, it provides examples of things which are thingamajigs and things which are not, and it provides an (albeit brief) etymology of the word.
I reiterate that a thingamajig is not a gadget, any more than a car is a truck. The two words are different in meaning, and the gadget entry is no less, by your terms, a dicdef. In MNSHO,thingamajig is the more comprehensive of the two articles, and if anything should be merged anywhere, gadget should be merged into thingamajig (though I would not sup[port that either.
Your explanation of how Wikipedia and Wiktionary can be linked is, of course, correct. However, I still contend they are, in practice, poorly linked. I have yet to see an article where the author has actually cross-referenced a word to Wiktionary. So even though there is a connection in theory, it does not exist in practice.
If you decide you want to have your own way, there's not much I can do to stop you except engage in some stupid edit war, and personally, I have better things to do with my time. I must admit that it gives me some concern that someone who apparently has been with Wikipedia for only a month or so (and I'm perfectly prepared to stand corrected) and has already racked up 500+ edits presumes to act unilaterally in the disposition of an article. Denni☯ 16:48, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
- I think your criticism has a lot of merit. Please accept my apologies for my poor witikette. I am new and am still learning.
- Apology accepted. We were all new here once, and I caught my share of knocks. <Denni offers to shake hands> Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
- Okay. Thanks for not leaping down the newbie's throat. --Minority Report 23:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. We were all new here once, and I caught my share of knocks. <Denni offers to shake hands> Denni☯ 23:21, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
[edit] Bias
I'd like your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Thanks. Chameleon 12:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The Clash
Please see my (self-admitted) rant at Talk:Punk Rock about your recent edit. Dialogue welcome, I'd like to get consensus (or even synthesis) here. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:45, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ameriocan mother on murder charge
Minority Report, I'm not sure I entirely disagree with the charge of murder against the mother. I'd have to know more about what the doctors advised her and what her situation was. But if they told her unequivocally that, if she did not have a Caesarean, her twins would die, and she still refused, and they died, then that would seem to amount to a prima facie intention to kill; or, at least, behavior that wilfully disregarded the likely outcome. If she were deliberately to withhold food from her twins two weeks after the birth, and they died as a direct result, she would risk facing a murder charge. So withholding something crucial from them two weeks before their birth shouldn't be the thing that makes the difference. (I'm not getting into when an embryo becomes a human being here. I'm saying that, two weeks before birth, there can be no argument that they're not human). Of course, there may be something in the mother's situation that would make me change my mind as I'm only judging this on the basis of that one newspaper article. But the principle is that the American justice system, as I understand it, regards foetuses of that age as "persons" in law, which means everyone has the same obligation toward them as they do toward any other person. Slim 01:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
