User talk:69.193.232.137

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Your edits to Muammar al-Gaddafi

Your recent edits to Muammar_al-Gaddafi do not read as well as the previous version, and also seem to get off topic. It will also be seen as POV by many editors. Furthermore, you have not supplied a source for Gaddafi being "anti-colonial". I'm reverting it... again. Chovain 04:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That said, perhaps you would be interested in contributing to articles more relevant to Northern Ireland. Remember to keep avoid emotive language though, and always include references. Chovain 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please cease making POV changes to Muammar al-Gaddafi. Chovain 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Gadaffi POV

(Copy of discussion on my talk page)

Chovain, remove your preferred wording "involvement in terrorism" from the Gadaffi article. You have no basis for that. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Get off your pretentious high horse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.232.137 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The wording I keep reverting to is that which has been chosen by a large number of edits. Please see the IRA page for discussion of the IRA's categarisation as a terrorist organisation. I'd also like to remind you to sign your talk posts with four tildes (~), and avoid making personal attacks against editors (but feel free to openly discuss the edits). If you want to see your attempted change get into the article, feel free to discuss it on the Gadaffi talk page. Chovain 01:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Chovain: I respect your comments re. communication. New to this and took a bit to realize who was editing the edits. You must realize your insistence on using the word "terrorist" to marginalize and label the Republican Movement in Ireland during the 1980's is a naively generalist and ill-informed opinion. I encourage you to read up on the subject of Irish Nationalism and journey towards self-determination. I recommend you don't choose Wikipedia to educate yourself. Do not waste my and other reader's time to vainly suggest to me to "see Wikipedia for terrorist organizations" as your reason for ignorantly compartmentalizing the IRA. It is true that Gadaffi engaged in trade for procurement of military weapons with IRA leaders. During the 30 years between 1969-1999 a war was being waged between the British Army and the Irish Republican Army. According to your simplified definition, the British Army is clearly a terrorist organization. I don't see you writing that. It's funny how my last edit assuaged you, judging by your last comment. Please educate yourself and do not attempt to inflict your uneducated views through this forum. Good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.193.232.137 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have missed most of the points in my post:
  1. Again, please sign your posts by appending 4 tildes to the end. Read this link if you do not understand this.
  2. Again, do not make personal attacks. Suggesting that I am "inflicting" my "uneducated views" by reverting POV (see below) changes is uncivil. Read this link if you do not see the problem here.
  3. Two important tenets of Wikipedia are Neutral point of view, and verifiability. The NPOV policy prevents Wikipedia from being used to promote individual points of view. The verifiability policy prevents users from making false claims. The Provisional Irish Republican Army page has a section named "Categorisation" that discusses IRA's status as a terrorist organisation. If you disagree, discuss it on their talk page (and be ready to provide references!). I am not wasting anyone's time by posting links to articles where this kind of thing is and has been discussed already.
  4. No-one is suggesting that the Irish Republican Movement is a terrorist organisation. The article suggests that the international community viewed the IRA as a terrorist organisation at the time the article is discussing. This is not a controvertial claim.
  5. My reason for leaving your last edit alone is not because I believe it to be superior to the original version. While it is the better than the edits I reverted, I left it because I did not want to be blocked for the three revert rule (this is an important policy to know about if you wish to make changes that others are reverting - it will apply to you too). Assuming I have the support of other editors, I plan to revert your edit still, but want to make sure my reasoning is correct, and I wanted to give you a chance to explain why your edit wasn't attempting to promote a minority POV.
  6. I do not think "regime" means what you think it does. The IRA is certainly not a regime.
  7. I never gave a definition for a terrorist organisation as you claim. There are plenty of places that try to do that already. While not everyone agrees on the definition of terrorism, it is true that the 1980s IRA was seen as a terrorist organisation by the international community. Whether or not the British army counts as a terrorist organisation is irrelevant to the Gaddafi article.
Finally: The Gaddafi article is not the right place to discuss this. If you want to argue against the PIRA's terrorist status, I suggest you do so on the PIRA talk page.
Chovain 11:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest changes to Gaddafi

Your latest change to Gaddafi is excellent. For the record though, once it became apparent that there was a content dispute, the change really should have been discussed on the Gaddafi talk page. We could have got to this version much quicker, and with much less wasted effort on both sides. Chovain 11:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/9/2E/User_talk%7E69.193.232.137.html"