User talk:Djma12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Archived Discussions


[edit] Foreign Influence on CMA: My stance

Thanks to JFD and Freedom Skies for their input concerning this page. Though some of the citations used by Freedom Skies are not completely up to academic standard, many are quite strong. (Note that the wiki standard for citation is not the same as the academic standard for citation.) My suggestion for JFD, then, would be to come up with a list of citations he feels are of poor rigour and I will review those with him. If that is the case, we may then request that Freedom Skies remove those citations/statements from the article (after discussion, of course.)

If the issue is that JFD feels like the article violates WP:NOT (specifically SOAP), then that is something outside of my ken. Personally, I feel that there is enough lay literature out there to at least justify an article/counter-article format. If you feel strongly enough about this, JFD, wiki is an open format. Feel free to nominate the article (and its sister article) for deletion per WP:AFD. Please know, though, that I feel that the header on the top of the page is sufficient, and will probably speak against deletion if the page is offered to AFD.

Best regards,

Djma12 16:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


Rather than Afd, a {disputed} tag may be more appropriate on both pages, at least until we have WP:Rfc on the issue. Djma12 16:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of an RFC and I'll get back to you on the most dubious of Freedom skies' sources. —JFD 22:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, I would hold off on doing so for a week. Let's give Freedom Skies an opportunity to take his exams and a full chance to rebut. Djma12 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for understanding and accomadating the constraints on my schedule, I appreciate it immensely. A review has already been done at Wikiproject:China. I won't want to get tied down with a gruelling RfC, especially between my exams or just after then when I probably would want to rush off to a much needed vacation to Dharamshala and Laddakh.

I have a couple of ideas which might save us more time, and definitely will serve to cut down on the exertions. The ideas are mentioned as follows:-

1. I can always procure more sources since this is a mainstream view. You should just go ahead and remove those that do not belong in the article according to your impartial assessment. In my opinion, balancing approaches such as yours will (and already have) lead to the elevation in the overall status and credibility of the article itself.
JFD has business and he is tied up in Zen as well, we waited for mediation there but I'm going to propose to him that we both work it out ourselves since we seem to be on the most civil of terms, and I have to finish all unfinished projects before I take a vacation. Since we seem to almost always disagree I'm going to propose that once we're done with Zen, we stay away from articles the other may find contentious; I, unilaterally will.
2. If you allot me two days then I'll be in a situation to replace the citations for other, more stronger ones myself; I have been meaning to add citations from National Geographic, Lawrance Galante, Heinrich Duomlin etc. but I had to put that off due to time constraints. My opinion still is that this action is unnessasary as we have a wealth of good citations already present in the article.
I have many, many issues with the sister article as well and working on just one article will not solve any issues since we are dealing with sister articles, but I won't bring them up. I don't want to be tied up in any lengthy cases spilling over two articles and involving weeks (or days) of exertion at all.
Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  01:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I sent a message to JFD requesting him to help me not make any new commitments that I cannot keep due to constraints of time. I do have a wealth of material that I would like to add to the article but I honestly cannot see any inclination for disturbing the status quo; the articles are fine as is. If JFD accomadates me then we should be able to leave the articles alone and finish our prior commitments at the earliest. Freedom skies| talk  03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I edited my post to make it clearer. I realize that in it's previous version it was oddly written and was probably confusing. I have been under some pressure in real life and I guess it's begining to show. Freedom skies| talk  06:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do want to deal with these articles at some point. But on further thought, it would probably be better to deal with it after Meir Shahar's book comes out later this year.

In the meantime, I raise my concerns about Freedom skies' sources with you in dribs and drabs, which will probably be easier on both our schedules. Let's start with the low-hanging fruit first: the children's books which I have already mentioned. —JFD 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Those books were "additional references." Once the article had dozens of strong citations lined up for confirming the claim I put in the two books in question. One of the two books spoke about it's purpose as that of making the Chinese youth more familiar with it's glorious heritage. I wanted to demonstrate the extent of this POV by having the books additionally put in; I've removed that and I added a couple of new sources (my time did not allow me a major overhaul) to the article. One is a novel printed by the University of Cambridge press ( the novel Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth By Richard L. Gawthrop. Published 1996.' traces the Mudras of India to Egypt) and the other is "Military Combative Masters of the 20th Century" by the famed combatives expert Tank Todd. I have Hirokazu Kanazawa's book, Lawrence Galante, National Geographic etc. waiting to be added to the article but I'll prefer to wait till the exertion is absolutely called for. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  21:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I think it's important to entertain a conversation about what is an appropriate reference. I think Freedom Skies and I both agree that the standard of academic citation is a bit high for a wiki article. However, this does not mean everything is notable. Children's books are not, even though I understand how they might be used to demonstrate the prevelance of a POV. Historians, even if not academically published, I feel are also appropriate.

I do, however, have reservations about quoting websites and martial arts authorities, especially if his/her expertise is outside the scope of Shaolin. For example, Royce Gracie may be very knowledgeable on the history BJJ, but his opinion on Shaolin is probably second hand and I bet you he can't quote the source of his opinion. Likewise, websites should not be quoted, but the underlying citation used by the website can.

I think Freedom Skies has enough citations on hand to backup the article without using sources that are 2nd/3rd hand at best. However, I feel that the section where he quotes martial arts authorities to demonstrate the prevelance of the POV is appropriate. (i.e "Lots of people believe in this." citations.) In the interests of article readability, though, can this be streamlined a bit? It seems to be a distracting list at the moment.

Just my thoughts,

Djma12 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a close look at Freedom skies' "academic authors" and ask yourself how accurate that description is with respect to martial arts. —JFD 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have provided the qualifications of the academic authors in my previous reply.

Regarding Royce Gracie, the martial art was bought to Brazil by Mitsuyo Maeda from Japan. Maeda played an important role in making the Gracie family "the first family of fighting." This art has been influenced by Japanese arts, which were influenced by Chinese arts. Gracies, such as Rickson Gracie, are perhaps the most important people to have noted the foreign influence. They might not have been associated with the Shaolin; they chart the birth of their own martial art through countries. I just wanted to add prominent, recognizable figures to the list. I have a text pad full of more citations such as these but the article reached saturation point a while ago. The list is ,admittedly, both large and distracting. If I created a subsection in external links and shifted content there would that serve the purpose adequately ?

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  05:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

But should they be described as "academic" authors when only one of them has ever been a professor (whose professional work, on political science, has no bearing on martial arts), and none of their work on martial arts is peer-reviewed.

If a professor of literature decides to write on the subject of astrophysics, isn't it misleading to describe him as an "academic author" on the subject?

Isn't it misleading to describe journalists, who are not professors of relevant subjects, as "academic authors"? Or documentarians?

It is one thing to say that the standard of academic citation is high for a wiki article, and quite another to characterize sources as "academic" when they are clearly not. —JFD 13:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re. Scorpions

Djma12, I appreciate your attempts at finding a middle way (that's what I assume that your edit was) regarding the statement about the Scorpions in introductin of the Srebrenica massacre article. However, I have a couple of comments

  • your text states that the Scorpions "allegedly participated in the massacre" when in fact that is not disputed by anyone.
  • however state that the Scorpions were "from Serbia". This implies and will be understood by the majority of readers to mean "controlled by Serbia" or simply that they were "Serbian". In fact the ICJ has found that they were neither de jure nor de facto controlled by or instruments of Serbia.

According to the logic you seem to be suggesting that we use, we could label the entire Srebrenica massacre as "alleged" although the ICTY has found that did indeed take place. Regards Osli73 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So noted. Thanks! Djma12 02:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Djma12, I see that you have changed the text regarding the Scorpions. However,

  1. it still states that the Scorpions were "from Serbia", implying that they were under Serbian control, when the ICJ has found that they were not.
  2. you claim that the "Dispute is over whether they are are state-sponsored proxy grouop". Yes, this is what the Bosnian government has claimed and which the ICJ has found was not the case. End of story as I see it.
  3. your choice of words "However, the Internation Court of Justice was unable to find sufficient evidence linking them as agents of Serbia" implies that they were, just that the ICJ hasn't been able to prove it.

If you absolutely want to include a mention of the Scorpions, then I suggest a text saying that "a paramilitary unit called the Scorpions also participated in the massacre". Regards Osli73 02:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Osli73 Please keep in mind that I am trying to satisfy multiple parties here. In the spirit of NPOV:

  1. My word choice on "insufficient evidence" is near verbatim from the link that you had supplied. I do not believe that quoting to ICJ somehow implicates Serbian involvement.
  2. Yes, the ICJ made a specific finding, but this was a judicial statement, not a claim towards truth. As you stated, the Bosnian government still contests this finding, and there are multiple credible sources (which were provided by some previous editor) that substantiate this. Therefore, I can legitimately say that it is still disputed.
  3. My issue with the provided statement is that it glosses over the fact there are disputes concerning the issue. However, I think the ICJ statement is strong enough that it provides a very credible counterpoint to the argument. Again, it only takes two sentences, and readers can decide for themselves.

Best regards, Djma12 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Djma12, I appreciate that you are trying to satisfy multiple parties here. However, you are probably aware that the Srebrenica massacre article is a very disputed and conflict ridden article. Things have been alleged by all sides. In view of this, I believe that using the ICTY and ICJ findings on the massacre are the absolutely best way to avoid POV. As to your points:

  1. the wording you propose does indeed suggest that although the Scorpions were Serbian the ICJ simply hasn't been able to find enough evidence to show it. That is not a NPOV wording.
  2. I agree that there is a difference between history and judicial findings, however, the article is currently written based on the assumption that ICTY and ICJ findings are the truth. I agree with this, since it avoids the problems of POV in such a contentious subject. That the Bosnian government still contests the findings may well be the case, however, the ICJ finding is final and there is no appeal.
  3. Yes, as a lot of other fact bits in the article, the bit about the Scorpions is disputed. I agree. However, if we are to allow all issues disputed by one side or another in the Bosnian War to be trated in a similar way as you propose we treat the Scorpions matter, then we will be opening a Pandora's box of troubles.

Assuming that ICTY and ICJ findings are truths (unless they are overturned) is the best way to avoid contstant and neverending POV fights regarding this article. Cheers Osli73 09:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Influence on CMA: Suggested improvements

Alright, finally have the time to sit down with the article. Freedom, I know that you're a bit busy right now so there is no rush. Also, all these items are, of course, up for discussion.

1. The use of the Gracies is appropriate in the current context. (i.e to establish prevelance of the claim.) However, the "Views" section should be streamlined and some less known practioners (such as Tank Todd) can probably be excluded. I think your suggestion of putting the items into external links is a good one.

2. Along this note, "Historian" should be reserved for academic historians who research some form of asian affairs at reputable universities. Journalists, authors, and martial arts practioners are appropriate for citation, but should not be identified as a historian.

Now to go through the article section by section

3. Centres for Foreign Influence

  • This section needs some work. It starts by listing a wide variety of martial arts/dance forms (everything from Mudras to Babylonian wrestling), but then only provides citation on how GREEK forms influences Chinese martial arts (i.e. Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama.)
  • It is not enough simply to mention how martial arts existed before, and then cite that trade existed between China and her neighbors. Rather, a firm argument would provide a direct citation on how EACH of the centres mentioned directly influenced Chinese martial arts. Otherwise, the evidence is circumstantial.
  • Tatsuo Suzuki, Hirokazu Kanazawa, and Masutasu Oyama are not historians and should not be listed as such.
  • Cites 11-13 do not fit CITE qualifications. Therefore the statement it supports should be removed until a more solid citation is found.

4. Establishment of the Shaolin Temple

  • This section is good. However, it does bring up a points. For one thing, it takes up more than half the article. Also, I think part of this ongoing conflict between Freedom and JFD is an ambiguity between which sources cite for foreign influence in general, and which sources site for Bodhidharma specifically. Since I think Freedom has enough citations within this section to make another article, it might be clearer to include a synposis of your argument plus a link to the new article here. This is a well established wiki precedent.

5. Similarities

  • A sentence should be included in the beginning stating that similarity does not imply causation (as the section currently implies.) The process may have been convergent evolution, or the flow of ideas could have been reversed. Similarity in of itself is notable, but is not proof.
  • The first few sentences noting similarities in culture and mythology should be removed. No one disputes the cultural exchange between China and her neighbors and the addition of the sentences only provides circumstantial evidence for the thesis. (i.e. you can't say "B/c Chinese mythology shares similarities with XYZ, therefore Chinese martial arts resembles XYZ.")
  • Citation 42 does not fit CITE standards and the sentence it supports should be removed.
  • Citation 53-55 do not fit CITE standards. 52 is fine though, and is sufficient for the statement.
  • This sentence: "The pavillion named after Bodhidharma is in the main building..." belongs in the prior section.

6. Views (see above discussion)

So a lot to chew on for the time being. As always, these points are up for discussion. Furthermore, there's no rush, so good luck on your exams, Freedom Skies.

Djma12 18:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for the thorough inspection and the excellent recommendations! I also suggest an expansion of the Mongolian, (possible) Tibetian, Middle Eastern, African and European influences complete with their own subheadings (=== ===). I basically do not have any problems with the above and will be able to craft a specific reply in a just a few hours. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion should actually belong on the page itself, not on your talkpage. I suggest we move it there... I do not know if you have had time to look at my statement on this but i placed it in the discussion area in january after I read your request for discussion.... The gist of it is this...

the origins of martial arts within each culture are murky, however it is highly unlikely that one person or group "invented" the idea of self defense and then it spread throughout the world... Freedom skies has taken one approach to it and states that it originated in one place and then spread. This is disputed by historians because you see forms of wrestling and self defense in every culture and society on earth since antiquity. Further, the connection between Greek, Indian, and Chinese Martial arts is tenous given the fact that each of the three cultures had prior existing self defense forms. Historians (real academic ones) do not believe in this theory of migration.

Although Freedom skies uses Gracie's website as a source (in relation to the bodhidharma legend, india and chinese martial arts,) if you read the book by Renzo Gracie (another BJJ practioner,) he disputes the bodidharma connection.[1] This Gracie questions that theory.

Further, if you read various lay authors, they either state the bodhidharma legend as a legend, state is as a fact, or state some other legend on martial arts origins in China as fact (such as the Yellow Emperor Legend). Lay authors are not historians. If you read websites and various books on the history of chinese martial arts or any martial arts by lay people, you get different versions of how they started. The historians have already placed their theories on what the origins of martial arts in china are and they have already discussed the bodhidharma claims and the claims with Buddhist Monks (and they state that the bodhidharma story is a legend.) He also tries to suggest that historians are in disagreement with each other on the historicity of the Yi Jin Jing. This is an untrue argument. It is true that they are in disagreement with each other on the particulars, but they are in general agreement that the Yi Jin JIng is a document that cannot be trusted for its authenticity. He also tries to state that the historians are in disagreement on bodhdiharma's existence. It might be true that they are in disagreement on this, but ALL agree that Bodhidharma's association with martial arts is considered part of legend.

He also seems to state that the whole of the martial arts community and lay authors support his views, which is not true. There are various views of this within the lay community as you can see with the Two versions of BJJ history by the two Gracies.

Kennethtennyson 21:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So noted, conversation moved. Djma12 21:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely I'm not the only one whom it strikes as exceedingly unlikely that

  1. a book entitled Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth deals with the transmission of mudras from Egypt to India
  2. such a book is a novel — and if it is, why is a work of fiction being cited as a reliable source?

—JFD 22:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for the delayed reply.

---

the origins of martial arts within each culture are murky, however it is highly unlikely that one person or group "invented" the idea of self defense and then it spread throughout the world

Kenny, You have called me a nationalist. If I am one then it would be pertinent to presume that I would try my hardest to resist any influence on the Indian arts? I should find the theories of Babylon, Egypt, Greece etc. influencing the arts of India unacceptable then. Yet I persist in accomadating this point of view as well for the simple reason that it exists and the article is about the foreign influences. I will expand these sections.

I don't claim that any one person "invented" all martial arts. The martial arts of several countries were influenced by the several other ones (India and China included). Martial arts such as Capoiera and Sambo are not covered in this article and I'm begining to think that you take martial arts to be just Kung Fu.

---

Kenny, Renzo Gracie has mentioned the Shared Conditions theory and other theories.

Oh, on Page 4 there is also an interesting mention of "purported influence of the Shaolin temple on the Japanese fighting styles." Something which should be interesting to note in the context of a certain "Disputed Indian origins of East Asian martial arts" article.

Something to think about.

---


The other points Kenny makes are covered in a somewhat malicious fashion in the "Bodhidharma ." article. Now does he want them to be covered in here as well ?

---

such a book is a novel — and if it is, why is a work of fiction being cited as a reliable source?

[2]

A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan. Subjects discussed include new religions in postwar Japan, beliefs about fox-possession in the Heian period, and the religious life of the first shogunate in the late twelfth century. The essays offer fresh insights into the rich religious traditions of Japan, many of which have been previously neglected in the English-language writing on Japan.

---

Djma12, In any event, I have the festival of Holi, my practical exams and my vacations to attend to as well. The opposition will not agree with this article and I will not agree with the opoosition's article. I have chosen to leave their article alone though your involvement would have certainly rid it of some mailce. I will edit to a new version which will take into account the earlier discussion. This should take three days. If you feel that enough has been done to have a WP article that can be left alone for now then the matter will be closed. If you feel otherwise then I'll edit till you feel that the article is good enough and can do for now. I'll let this message remain on your talk page and I'll request a future thorough inspection from you soon so I can get back to my taxing routine in real life without having to worry about here.

My apologies for the hasty, unrefined message. Many regrads,

Freedom skies| talk  08:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that some substantial edits need to made on the page, but I also think that the issue is not pressing. I am willing to go through the article with you at your leisure so that we can arrive at a consensus on what to change. Djma12 02:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Made minor corrections to my earlier post specifying which section was directed to whom. Freedom skies| talk  21:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Iran's foreign relations

I can translate from French but you would need to proof-read it.69.116.234.208 22:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

  • Modified the intro as the article covers elements of CMA outside of the Shaolin (Mongolian and Manchurian influences).
  • Created a section for Mongolian and Manchurian influences using existing sources.
  • Created a section for possible greek influence using existing source.
  • Removed portions from "Similarities."
  • Changed "academic authors" to "Authors."
  • Added Nat Geo cite. I wanted to add a whole lot of material but in the present scenario, I can't find time to type up from multiple sources.

Kindly consider:-

  • The involved parties do not interfere with the other's article.
  • The suggestions and improvements have been made by the opposing parties for one single article only. We're dealing with sister articles. I'm steadfastly honoring my stance of not touching or asking you to touch the other article. Allow the articles to exist in all their strength instead of one article existing untouched unlike the other one.
  • The citations of Steve Richards etc, are gone. I could have made a case for them but I did not. Given my schedule I have to add them even to the external links section.
  • I have not added any new material from newer citations; Yet given your concerns I removed from the existing version. The opposition will always have concerns about this article and I will always have concerns about the oppositions article. This review is about your impartial judgement.

Judge the article on your opinion. The involved parties must not interfere with the other's article. Kindly inspect the article and let your opinion be known on the article's talk page. Given a month's time, I will introduce new material to the article and have it inspected by you again. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message. Even through the Holi break I could not take my mind off this. Best Regards, Freedom skies| talk  03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 civil unrest in Uzbekistan

Indeed, I agree that discussion and consensus are preferred to unilateral action. Please respond to my last few posts on Talk:2005 civil unrest in Uzbekistan. KazakhPol 04:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I agree

I agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bosniak#Dr._Mitov Bosniak 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

I modified the "Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts" article. The new changes do not include anything drastic at all. I'll provide a list of changes below:-

  • I made the sources more verifiable by providing Publishers, ISBN etc. for them. [3]
  • Added a line:- "Indian Buddhist infusion was vital in the development Asian fighting systems. It is possible to trace the history of Buddhist influence on martial arts from India to Japan."
  • Further reading :- Added a This_article's_sources section and Related info section. I have yet to interfere with the other article (even though the opposition sometimes seems to violate the norm) but it accuses the sources of this article to be "lay." This should actually let the reader judge for himself.

That's about it. I was about to leave the article for a long time and thought it best to edit it to WP standards in representation. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  09:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] forward to discussion page

I've copied and pasted what was discussed here onto the discussion page for the above article. I'm sure Djma12 would rather us not clutter up his box. Kennethtennyson 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andijan massacre

I'm trying to understand how your last edit to Andijan massacre can be considered anything other than vandalism... perhaps you could explain on the talkpage. KazakhPol 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


Please review WP:VANDAL first. Well-cited edits that go against your opinion are not considered vandalism. Djma12 21:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice try with the false WP:3RR report, but most administrators check the accuracy on these things. In the future I suggest you not file frivolous complaints. They are likely to be seen as WP:POINT violations. KazakhPol 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Your constant gaming of the system will get you caught eventually again, KazakhPol. Like it has FIVE times in the past. Djma12 03:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] F. Scott Fitty

Hey Djma12, just wanted to let you know that an edit you made to F. Scott Fitzgerald accidentally added the word POOP![4] instead of deleted it. I'm sure it was not deliberate, just wanted to bring it to your attention. --JayHenry 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa! With all the removing of schoo-children vandalism on the page, I must have slipped up on this one. Djma12 17:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iran size reduction

Hi. I am also in favor of size reduction at Iran, but it seems the proposal to reduce size has met with a lot of rather blind 'objects', and I cannot help but think about your comment about it being people's "pet article". With this in mind, I want to get a good variety of NON-Iranian or Iran-affiliated editors at the page to generalize the vote & counteract possible skew. Do you know what venue is most appropriate for this kind of request? The Behnam 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll look into it and notify you when I start the RFC. It'll be a bit later in my day; gotta do some other stuff for awhile. Thanks. The Behnam 17:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I started an RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I'm not sure if it'll do anything but it doesn't hurt to try. The Behnam 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nero and the Great Fire

You make some good points, but I would counter-

- Suetonius does admit that Nero wanted room and pretended to be making room. He claims there was a city renovation, but it was a cover. The true motive, as Suetonius claims, was malice.

- Tacitus claims there was infamy from his exploitation of the situation, but does not claim Nero truly had that motivation.

Its pretty clear what really happened. A fire broke out, Nero exploited the situation too much for the people's liking, the public began to suspect Nero did it for the Domus Aurea. Oddly, though it is clear that there was a rumour that Nero did it for the space, no historian reports that as a motive. Instead, Tacitus admits it was mistake and Suetonius and Dio claims he was crazy.

Space for the Domus Aurea was a logical motive that was probably really circulating as a rumour, but no historian claims it to be true. Its kind of funny, really.

-I think the issue is what is "major". Fires happened every day, so they were common. Major fires (the kind that burned the whole city down) happened once a generation.

Fun stuff.Hoshidoshi 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when you have time

consider adding a few lines to register your opinion. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol cs 23:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Note

Thank you for the barnstar you gave me, as well as for the compliments with which it was accompanied. I appreciate it immensely.

The changes are most welcome as they achieve their goal without either copying the portions from the other article into this one or damaging this article's strength. I especially appreciate the excellent introduction to the similarities section.

I have my reservations in moving this section though. It will simply result in one side having two articles compared to the opposition's single article. This would also undermine the "origins of Bodhidharma" section in the main Bodhidharma article. The current state also keeps my addition of new material in check as I won't add too much above the saturation level. This should go some way in placating the opposition as well, who seem to sometimes initiate edit wars without any rationale just because I put a new line in. The new page would also have additional accounts from Classical Chinese texts, like the Epitaph for Fărú, which support this point of view in a very formidable fashion and I don't think the opposition would welcome the mention of those texts. Having said that, the final decision in this matter is up to you.

Your involvement has rid the article of many sources that would not have stood the cite criteria. Complete formatting of sources has been done according to verifiability guidelines and objectionable portions removed since the article was under your scrutiny. This is in addition to your most recent edits. The article has, once again, benefitted immensely under your guidance.

Kindly forgive the hastily written note. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I truly do not know. I am going to do some research. I started that page because he started one on me which backfired and got deleted. I think his RfC could turn into an official arbitration case to ban him for long term, if more and more people complain. He messes with half a dozen editors on a given day. Thanks for adding your voice. cs 08:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The Editor's Barnstar
Thank you for all the hard work you put to Iran-related articles. Specially Iran article itself Arad 02:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good idea

We do need some neutral (non-Iranian perhaps) editors to vote. --Arad 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waco

I commented twice on the Talk:List of massacres both in the Waco section and at the bottom. --Knulclunk 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of Bodhidharma

Since none of the articles touch the later accounts on Bodhidharma the limitation to Daoxuan 's account should be good enough. The quotation boxes are distracting and I can try merging them into the main article or using the blockquotes (an example). I'll provide an example of both meshing the statements in the section and doing without the classical Chinese texts in a few hours.

The material I try to put in has met with very strange reactions. In this revision Kennethtennyson removed a citation from the Cambridge University. He reverted back as soon as he found out that the article was under your scrutiny. There was a new user by the name of LionheartX who joined on March 6; his first actions on Wp were to go to the admins noticeboards and edit this article. Kindly take a look in here. You'll see me trying to explain my actions to him, the admins finding his actions (unrelated to the article) strange and Kennethtennyson thanking him for his efforts.

The proposal of adding new content after a review sounds great. I'll be heading out in a couple of days and it should last about two weeks. During this period, I'll have internet access and will maintain the article but won't be able to add from the new citations from my bookmarks or wordpad documents. I also feel that the article can do without new material for now. In the future, I'll run major changes through you and will provide you with quotations, links (when possible) and page numbers etc. for verification when I do.

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat my question, why does the citation from Cambridge University, "A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan," have the title Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia?

The answer is that it doesn't, and what this demonstrates is that Freedom skies' "research" amounts to little more plugging keywords into Google and citing whatever pops up.

Someone more knowledgable about the subject matter would have immediately noticed how improbable it is that a book entitled Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia would address the ancient Egyptian origin of the mudra and its transmission to India.

And since Freedom skies has once again dragged this discussion down to the level of the ad hominem, I no longer have reservations about directing you to Request for comment:Indian_Mathematics.

Freedom_skies consistently pushes his own POV, does not respect guidelines, loses his temper frequently, and vandalizes Wikipedia with some regularity.
....
I had never even heard of either of these gentlemen until this morning, about 14½ hours ago.
....
I formed my opinion by reviewing the available evidence carefully.
....
I characterized FS' behavior based on the solid hour I spent reading his talk page, reviewing the many times he has recently been blocked from editing, and reading the incredible exchanges recorded on this talk page, above.

This article is the center of a general pattern that I see in which the genuine accomplishments of ancient Indian mathematicians are artificially inflated so that they can be claimed as having precedence over similar ancient mathematics in Greece, Egypt, Babylon, and China.
....
Freedom skies...appears to be one of the principal perpetrators of the unencyclopedic exaggeration, adding speculative interpretations of what the ancients might have known, and badly sourcing things by leaving such claims undocumented, providing useless unverifiable documentation, or not taking care to distinguish sources that are accepted scholarly work from speculative popular-press writings.
....
To put it bluntly: the purpose of citing sources is to convince your readers that you have thoroughly researched the subject and are fairly presenting it. Your insistance on using sources such as these instead convinces me that you are stretching, that solid sources are not available for what you want to claim and so you are citing flimsy ones instead. It makes me think there is a reason solid sources are unavailable. That is the opposite of what a source should be.


I have made a point of quoting only editors who have had no prior dealings with Freedom skies. Those who don't come from a variety of nationalities and share nothing but an expertise in mathematics and their assessment of Freedom skies. —JFD 15:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guys,

I'll try to address both of your statements here.

To Freedom skies:

  • I know that it is frustrating that an article you have worked so diligently on can get altered by a new account. That's what you get with an open-source encyclopedia :-) Just keep in mind that, though LionHeartX may be new, his opinion is still valid, though subject to the discussion/NPOV process.
  • Kennethtennyson and a number of editors genuinely disagree with you -- I do not believe that they are being malicious. I do agree, however, that there are more constructive means for article improvement than an edit war.
  • I appreciate your flexibility in working on the articles and citations with me. I look forward to your future suggestions on streamlining the quotes, et cetera.

To JFD:

  • Your work on tracking down the citations for this article and determining their subsequent merit have been invaluable for article improvement. I draw heavily upon your research when making recommendations to Freedom skies.
  • If you have further issue with citations within the article, please bring them up! I'm sure we'd all love to enter a discussion on whether the said item is appropriate or not.
  • Concerning Freedom skies, though I do find him to be an impassioned and strong-willed editor, I also find that he is quite amenable to cooperative edits towards this article. Yes, he has had his run-ins in the past. However, I feel that he is learning to keep his passionate nature a little more controlled for editting, and I do believe that people should be given a chance for redemption.
  • I agree that not all of Freedom skies's citations are encyclopedic. Rather than assume bad intent, however, let's just identify them and work towards having them removed. Freedom skies has been quite open to that previously with me. Some of his wording is also POV, but that is also easily correctable.

Let's look at it this way, no matter how raucous our disagreements have been in the past few months, can we genuinely say that the article has not improved in the time frame? Sure, lots of work still needs to be done, but let's all stay concentrated on the task at hand of improving wiki.

Fond regards,
Djma12 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I did enter into that ill timed Indian mathematics edit war and willingly backed out as I could not honestly fullfill my duties as an editor in that article. I sent a message to everyone involved and honestly admitted that "I have reviewed my future with the Indian mathematics article, and have come to the conclusion that since I am under time constraints and am under such pressure in real life that adequate responses or editing actions on "Indian mathematics" are just not possible for me right now." My initial involvement was removal of misinterpretations and the role escalted into this RfC. I backed out and despite the other party asking for a fresh start and explicitely stating "I am happy to work with you on this article" I stayed away from the article and let the other editors edit in peace. I'm sure proper explaination of the context slipped JFD's mind.

I'm attached to martial arts and Buddhism related topics and did get involved in an RfC on an completely unrelated topic, but such maipulation of what happened has surprised me , especially since I did't even mention JFD here.

Take a look:-

JFD's contributions and Kenny's contributions match exactly.

Kenny and JFD have been known to have exchanged barnstars with each other. Kenny advances a barnstar to JFD on 30 August 2006 and JFD returns the favour by granting his fellow cabal member a barnstar on 1 September 2006.

Kenny's role on the internet discussion forums.

I could rebut in the "Red Han Chinese cabal" tone but I'll let my work speak for itself. After all, recently it has been praised by JFD himself.

JFD has made baseless allegations when under pressure in the past only to have me try and explain my side to him and telling him "Listen, if this seems too stressful then I can agree on a mutual wikibreak for a couple of days to help us both relax a bit."

JFD mentioned an RfC that I walked into, take a look in the prior to my involvement Bodhidharma article and the version after. Do look into the discussion as well.

Those who craft articles such as the Yi Jin Jing or Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection article have no moral authority to dictate others about ethics. Having said that, let those articles exist in all their formidable strength.

The book "Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth By Richard L. Gawthrop" is described on Google Books as :-

A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan. Subjects discussed include new religions in postwar Japan, beliefs about fox-possession in the Heian period, and the religious life of the first shogunate in the late twelfth century. The essays offer fresh insights into the rich religious traditions of Japan, many of which have been previously neglected in the English-language writing on Japan.

(source:google books).

The main search reads as "Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia: Arrows to Heaven and Earth by Richard L. Gawthrop - History - 1996 - 341 pages"

If you'll take a look into the Places mentioned in this book you'll come across North america, Japan and Europe. However surprised some people may be, books with the word Prussia in the title can mention Japan and books like The Moor's Last Sigh can be set in Bombay, instead of the first image of the Iberian Peninsula that comes to mind.

The book has not found a mention in the current state of the article as the inclusion of African and Mesopotamian influences from new sources was postponed. I also postponed the recent influences including Moslem influences etc.

By calling your attention to the edit war I merely wanted to point out that I scrupulously follow the principle of not interfering with the other's article. The other side responds by calling new, potentially disruptive users for edit/revert warring.

The article has improved immensely under your scrutiny. The article has gone from this version to this one in a very short duration of time.

I intended to add new material but I'm having second thoughts about it after this. The supposedly "uninvolved" opposition has made it a habit to turn this into a either an edit war or a vitriolic flamewar.

I won't be adding anything major to the article for a long time (or perhaps not at all); If I do then I'll run it through you and will provide actual quotations etc. and possibly links.

I did intend to have the examples of removal of quotes and the meshing of quotes in "Origins of Bodhidharma" ready but got caught up crafting this instead. I'll definitely have them ready before I leave, and will keep checking WP throughout.

I'll also try to minimize (possibly avoid) contact with the opposition from now on and have already stated that I won't interfere with their articles (Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection and the Yi Jin Jing). "Discussions" such as these are neither productive nor pleasent.

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  04:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Request

Hi Guys,

Please refrain from making my discussion page a forum for lodging complaints against other users. I am not an admin, nor do I look at past behavior when evaluating recent edits. All I want to do is improve articles -- I am not qualified to mediate personal disuptes.

If you feel an user's behavior warrants action, please refer to WP:RFC instead.

Best regards,

Djma12 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain unilaterally from posting such material. I'm sorry that precious energy and valuable Wikipedia space was consumed during the seemingly endless rounds of fruitless exchanges. I'll see to it that it does'nt happen again.
Freedom skies| talk  17:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No harm done. And I'll take a look at your suggestions asap. Djma12 (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of Bodhidharma

I tried to mesh the quotes into the actual text. Kindly take a look here. The actual quotes are provided here. The link to the untouched version in the main article is here. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

Thank you for the barnstar.

The source cited in note 3, "Of Monks and Martial Arts," reads

The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.

Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators.

In other words the article's author, Christopher Wren, is drawing a distinction between legend and history, a distinction deliberately obscured in Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts. And I repeat, does it sound like a book with the following description—

A remarkable collection of essays written by an international team of contributors explores different aspects of religion in Japan. Subjects discussed include new religions in postwar Japan, beliefs about fox-possession in the Heian period, and the religious life of the first shogunate in the late twelfth century. The essays offer fresh insights into the rich religious traditions of Japan, many of which have been previously neglected in the English-language writing on Japan.

—would have the title Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia?

That's the sort of curiosity that an honest researcher would double-check, which is exactly what I've done. I urge you to do the same, but with a hard copy rather than Google Books. —JFD 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Wren notes the foreign influence explicitely "The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it (the Shaolin temple) was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk."

Establishment of the Shaolin temple.

As for the "Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators." part; I could not agree more. After all, I created this section. Pressing Ctrl+F and entering Chinese martial arts, like martial arts of Greece and India, have existed before the arrival of Bodhidharma should also yield results.

Having said that, note that Wren and others do not cite work from a handful of journals regarding the Shaolin Arts. The NYT journalist found it pertinent to attribute the founding influence on the Shaolin arts in legend to Bodhidharma's influence rather than quote a set of theories from a handful of journals, which rarely are mentioned at all when dealing in with the history of the Shaolin arts.

Proper context can be found here, in this excellent book by Wong Kiew Kit.

---

Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia - Drawing too heavily from the title rather than the content is not sound rationale. The book covers Japan, North American and Europe.

---

Since I have no intentions of talking to or about the opposition; it would be best if all parties followed the pattern of submiting their opinions to you and await your decision, instead of "discussing" it amongst themselves. My next reply should take about a day from now, I'll check in on WP whenever I can.

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have neither the time nor the inclination to take over acres of your talk page with crude and transparent sophistry so I'll simply ask you to check Freedom skies' citation of Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia through Google Books against the other online copy available through the "Search Inside" function of Amazon.com.

I'll get back to you once Professor Shahar's book comes out unless I hear from you first. —JFD 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And arguing that Batuo had an influence on Chinese martial arts because he was the first abbot of the Shaolin Monastery is like arguing that William Rainey Harper had an influence on the Chicago school of economics because he was the first president of the University of Chicago.
To insist that Wren is "explicitly noting the foreign influence" requires creative (mis)interpretation. Read it and decide for yourself if Freedom skies is misinterpreting Wren. —JFD 05:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindly note that there is a difference between the very personal interpretation of Wren's article as "the first abbot of the Shaolin Monastery" and what Mr. Wren actually chooses to put in the New York Times, i.e. "three decades after it (the Shaolin temple) was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk." Chicago school of economics or not Christopher Wren does not even mention the word "abbot" in his article.

I'll await your reply on this matter. Many regards, Freedom skies| talk  06:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet Wren still does not "explicitly" note Batuo's influence on the martial arts. —JFD 06:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Wren, irrespective of very personal opinions, explicitely notes that "it (the Shaolin temple) was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk."

He also attributes the founding influence on the Shaolin arts in legend to Bodhidharma's influence rather than quote a set of theories from a handful of journals, which rarely are mentioned at all when dealing in with the history of the Shaolin arts.

Arrive at your own conclusions. These "discussions" usually yield little after the first few posts.

Freedom skies| talk  06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Wren, irrespective of personal opinions, does not explicitly note Batuo's influence on martial arts.

And he attributes the introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery to Bodhidharma in legend.

And immediately goes on to say, "Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators."

In other words, Wren draws a distinction between legend and history that Freedom skies denies is there. —JFD 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm quite curious to hear your thoughts once you've verified Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia.

Christopher Wren notes the foreign influence by the direct acknowledgement of the establishment of the Shaolin temple.

My opinions about Bodhidharma are mentioned above.

I used Wren's citation of "organized martial traditions in China predate the establishment of the Shaolin temple" in the very intro itself. That was before the foreign influence outside of the Shaolin was put in This section of The Mongolian and Manchurian influence.

Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia (verify for yourself).

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  07:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does Wren say that Batuo influenced martial arts.
Saying that he influenced martial arts by founding the Shaolin Monastery is Freedom skies' original interpretation.

And, yes, by all means verify for yourself at both Google Books and Amazon.
—JFD 07:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite at all,

The very establishment of the most recognizable institution of the martial arts in China has been attributed to Batuo by Wren. Very clearly so.

If JFD's personal opinion has somehow become that Wren actually favors his case then I guess he won't mind if I put this exact quote in the Shaolin temple article:-

The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk. Bodhidharma allegedly spent nine years in contemplation, facing the wall of a cave on Song Mountain above the monastery. For exercise and protection from wild animals, he taught himself self-defense and later passed the skills along to his disciples.

Actually, the ancient martial arts probably originated even earlier as Buddhist monks learned to fend off brigands and other predators.

I'll go ahead and do it and will do it in exact quotes since allegations of misquoting are likely to follow.

Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia (verify what I found on Google books for yourself).

Like I said, these "discussions" do not yield much after the first few posts. At least the Shaolin temple article now has an NYT citation and cleanup.

Freedom skies| talk  08:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from cleanup (in the Shaolin temple article) even though I have about an hour of free time on my hands right now. The cleanup may be used by some to initiate edit warring. Freedom skies| talk  08:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In other words,

  1. If Person X establishes Institution Y
  2. And if, on the premises of Institution Y, Event Z takes place
  3. Therefore, Person X can, according to Freedom skies, be said to have "influenced" Event Z

That's misleading.
It is not what most readers will think when Freedom skies cites Wren "explicitly noting the foreign influence".

And again, please verify Pietism and the Making of Eighteenth-Century Prussia at both Google Books and Amazon.
JFD 13:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say WP:OR but I'll pass. This seems to have degenrated into a contest of who has the last word. Note that only the first few posts were actually of some substance. Also note that irrespective of the X and the Y or the abbots or the Chicago school of economics Christopher Wren has "The introduction of fighting skills at Shaolin Monastery has been attributed in legend to the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who went to the monastery in 527, three decades after it (the Shaolin temple) was founded by Batuo, another Indian monk." to say.

Many regards,

Freedom skies| talk  14:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll follow JFD's proposal of not pursuing this any further unless you ask for involvement for improving the article.

I wanted to add some material (entire sections actually) but I'll almost certainly not do that in the near future. If I have any major changes to make then I'll run them through you and will provide you with exact quotes and the nature of my source. If I make minor changes (adding links, shifting existing content under a new heading etc.) then I'll notify you and will revert if you feel that the changes made are inappropriate.

I have issues with the other side as well, some of the authors mentioned in that very short list do not support the claims at all. I once again, assure that as things stand now, I have no intentions of interfering in that article.

Many regards and I'm sorry for any inappropriate behaviour on my part.

Freedom skies| talk  11:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for helping improve Andijan Massacre article, if it wasn't for your help, KazakhPolice would make it even worse with his propaganda.

TheColdTruth 20:12, 19 March 2007(UTC)

TheColdTruth 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


And thank you for you contributions. Though you are a newcomer, you handled yourself with poise and remarkable editing growth. Congrats! Djma12 (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey thanks for the award.

[edit] RfA

  • I have added my commentary. I have tried to remain as objective as possible within my assessment. Don't take the Rfc too harshly. Just see it as what it is, a wiki growing experience. Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Srebrenica article

Djma12, last year, I put an immense amount of time and energy into the Srebrenica article only to see it subsumed by edit warring. So really, I am going to stick with the intro and put in my two cents if I see something that I feel compelled to respond to. With that said, as you've suggested, each specific massacre could be put in a sub-article, but I believe it must be done in a way that does not obscure them. Hence, I do not agree with taking out 6 to 10 paragraphs and replacing it with just one link. Rather reduce it to a few sentences with reference to each massacre with each reference linked to the sub-article. Fairview360 00:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


As Fairview points out on the Srebrenica massacre Talk page, the article is a minefield. If you have not understood it yet, basically it is about the portrayal of the massacre (issues of style, NPOV, originial research etc) and not so much about the actual facts, where more or less everyone agrees on the ICTY's findings. Understandably, the 'Bosniak' editors (in lack of a better term) feel very strongly about the issue and, in my opinion, this is one of the reasons that the article has swelled over all limits as everyone adds their favorite pieces of detail. Attempts to reduce the size of the article therefore take on political proportions (somehow becoming an affront to the victims of the massacre and, by extension, to the Bosniak people). I've been the object of more or less constant personal attacks and uncivil behavior in general. In one instance some very nasty messages to my personal email adress related to the Srebrenica massacre article.

I see that you after only a couple of days have come at the receiving end of the 'Bosniak lobby' on this article (and Fairview360 is, in my opinion, one of the most reasonable ones in that 'group'). I'm sorry if I dragged you into something you were not prepared for. Regards Osli73 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –Llama mantalkcontribs 00:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sure, but may I ask who I attacked and when? Djma12 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I meant just to warn User:TheColdTruth, sorry. –Llama mantalkcontribs 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

Thanks for that.

I was thinking about doing the same thing to make it easier for the arbitrators to follow.

JFD 11:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] barnstars

Djma12, you are not exactly winning the hearts and minds of editors when you give a barnstar to Osli73 after he has abused people's trust with the KarlXII sockpuppet and who knows how many other sockpuppets, Osli being an editor who wants to use material from the "Defend Milosevic! Defend Serbia!" website. Fairview360 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I view barnstars as simply being part of the Wiki Kindess Campaign and a means of encouraging users for essentially thankless work. If you check my user logs, I give them out fairly generously.
I didn't realize what a minefield I was walking into when I entered this article. Perhaps I was a little naive, but all I knew was that Osli was the only editor willing to talk to me, and that he was receiving lots of flak from you guys as well. After reviewing his edits, the reward probably was premature. However, I do think that the temperature of the discussions section could stand to be dialed down.
Djma12 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The flak is rather earnest. In any case, I believe this sub-article initiative has the potential to create a more constructive atmosphere at the article. It would be great if Gardenfli decides to help edit. Fairview360 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Djma12, again, I guess you didn't realize what a minefield you were walking into here (neither did I the first time I wandered into this article almost a year ago).

I'll let you form your own opinion about the various editors of this article. I'm trying to produce a concise, neutral and well sourced article in a very hostile atmosphere (where accusations of the type that Fairview360 makes above are commonplace). Your Barnstar award was bound to cause offence to the group of editors who, in my experience, feel that they represent the 'good side' (and that anyone who doesn't agree with them represent the not good side).

You mention that after reviewing my edits you believe that giving me the barnstar was premature. I'm not sure what edits you are referring to. However, if you wish to retract the 'award' you are welcome to do so and I will remove it personal page. Regards Osli73 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that once something has become established fact, it is no longer described as an "accusation", but rather an observation.
- Sockpuppetry: "CheckUser shows that KarlXII (talk • contribs) is the same as Osli73 (talk • contribs), who is already on Probation and revert parole from Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo. This means he has been in violation of the revert parole multiple times, aside from and 3RR evasion or tag teaming with the sock". [full statement here]
- See Osli's August 2006 edits to see his referencing http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/
When someone is as adept as Osli at re-inventing himself, it is equally important to remind people of Osli's track record. Fairview360 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page in order to spare Djma12. Osli73 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


  • To Fairview and Osli: I just wanted to be nice!!! Please don't turn this into some kind of political/personal issue! Djma12 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Djma12, Unfortunately, I think being nice to me is seen as a political issue by some :-) Cheers Osli73 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Barnstar

May I make a suggestion that you do leave that barnstar off your page - it does read as a personal attack to User:KazakhPol, regards Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the barnstar will be edited. For the record, I did not write the barnstar. And I do not mind having a discourse about the issue. I DO have issue with KazakhPol repeatedly vandalising my userpage... Djma12 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that, by all means leave the barnstar on, but remove the comment about KazakhPol, if you have a particular issue with an editor might I suggest dispute resolution? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
After seeing the Rfc, might I suggest requesting arbitration? that certainly has weight to it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to that, I haven't checked out the conflict or what you've done it, but if it does go to arbitration, it is highly likely your edits will be looked at as well Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I have absolutely no issue with that :-) Djma12 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well you'll be fine then,was just saying as a caution, not all requests for arbitration are successful, but it's good you've tried other methods first Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sub-article

Djma12, when I have looked at sub-articles on other issues, the sub-articles are presented in a somewhat "stand-alone" fashion meaning they read like a seperate article. Hence, I think the sub-article should have an introduction, maybe making specific reference to the fact that it is a sub-article of the Srebrenica Massacre article with a link to the main article.

After the sub-article is ready, I would like to personally invite a number of editors to look at it before putting it into the main article. I would do this by posting a message on their talk page. I would then suggest giving it a couple of days. Then this rather significant change to the article may succeed without an uproar.

What do you think?

I'll post this same message on Gardenfli's talk page. Fairview360 01:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm on call tommorrow, so I may or may not be able to work on the intro then. After that's finished, though, we can probably solicit input from a number of well-regarded editors. Any suggestions? Djma12 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am actually most concerned about the editors who are most likely to vehemently object. While my relations are not always the most cordial with all of said editors, I think if the proposal comes from me, they would be more likely to see it as an honest attempt to improve the article. Once the sub-article is prepared, I'll send you a list of the editors from whom I have invited feedback. If there is anyone you would like to add, then of course, feel free.
Thank you for your work on this. If I muster the energy and do not get distracted, I may get around to a suggested intro this evening. Fairview360 01:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh... now I understand. I thought the sandbox was the sub-article text. Fairview360 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for moving the text to the right place. I think the intro now gives a first time reader some context.Fairview360 03:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a question. In the article, the Srebrenica Massacre has a capital "M". But the title has a small "m". In a google search of "Srebrenica Massacre", it alternates between a small and large "m". For comparison, the 'm' in Nanking Massacre is almost always capitalized. Given that we are refering to the Srebrenica Massacre with what appears to be a proper name, I think the 'm' should be capitalized. If that is the case (no pun intended), then we should capitalize the 'm' in the sub-article. What do you think? Fairview360 03:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, what do you think of calling the sub-article "Mass executions during the Srebrenica Massacre"? Fairview360 03:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Djma12, I think we are pretty close to sending out invitations for editors to look at this proposal. Are you basically satisfied with the sandbox version and the sub-article as it stands now? Barring any last minute surprises, tomorrow, I can contact editors and ask them to take a look. Hopefully, by Sunday, we will have general agreement for this proposed change to the article and can go ahead with it. Maybe I am overly optimistic but I think this proposal will be accepted. Fairview360 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Djma12;

I just saw the introduction for the massacres section; and it looks good; and it puts the sub-article in context. My own involvement will likely come and go in waves; and I appreciate your contribution. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but myself, but I think that the sub-article and the revised massacre section are an improvement from the orignal article. Gardenfli 03:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Djma12, I recently put a proposal for a new section 2.3, about who planned the massacre, when and why, which is both shorter, sourced and, in my opinion, better on the sandbox you set up. However, for some reason it has been deleted by Fairview360. He seems rather adamant about it. I was under the impression that idea of sandboxes was to put up rough drafts / proposals for discussion. Rather than edit warring this I would prefer if you decided if it is OK to put the proposal there, as it is your sandbox. Regards Osli73 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lincoln specifics

Linking a policy without saying exactly what your problem is does not constitute discussion. The New York Times is a very reliable source, as well as every other source on that article, including popular news sources and historical society sources.Lotusduck 03:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Per WP:V, it depends upon the number of independent sources. If it is as you say, that there are multiple historical authorities who support this theory, then I will retract my objections. However, if there is only one authority who is subsequently repeated in popular media, the subsequent sources do not classify as independent. I will review the source article more closely. Until then, I will refrain from editing "See also." Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That is cool. Also, if you are not satisfied with the Lincoln Sexuality article, I suggest that you edit that article rather than the See also section of the central Lincoln article. Cool. Lotusduck 00:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section 2.4 sub-article initiative - clear path forward

Djma12, I believe there is a clear path forward for the "section 2.4 initiative". Currently, there is a lot of commotion regarding section 2.3 (and other sections of the article), but the 2.4 section in the sandbox does not appear to be under dispute.

I still believe that the proposal for a sub-article with the new section 2.4 text will be accepted since it continues to communicate clearly what happened, does not obscure the events, succeeds in making the article more concise, etc.

Having put this much effort in, I would like to see success. Today, I spent most of my time on distractions from the 2.4 section but should have time later to send out invitations. Given past experience, editors will be suspicious that this initiative is providing cover for underhanded edits. If one is exceedingly clear that is only for section 2.4 and the sub-article and sandbox versions are as they are now, I think those suspicions can be overcome.

Then, if successful, another clearly defined initiative could be undertaken, though I must admit, I need to be more careful not to be drawn into tangential arguments or else I will just have to withdraw back to my original stance of only focusing on the intro. I should not be spending this much of my time on wiki.

In regards to the sub-article, I remain curious about the two simple questions whether we should have a capital M and if the word "during" is more appropriate for the title.

Djma12, thank you for your efforts.

Best Regards, Fairview360 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! As for your suggestions concerning the title, I think they are appropriate. Maybe you can create a redirection page? Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Djma12, Thank you for the barnstar. I am pleased with the proposed major edit. And thank you for introducing the edits to the main page. Now people can see what it looks like.
What I want to do now is proceed very carefully, perhaps excessively so. What I would like to do is put the article back to its pre-major-edit version so people know that we are very intent on giving everyone a chance to see what is being proposed before introducing the major edit on a permanent basis. What I would suggest is saying that barring any major insurmountable objections we would like to make introduce this major edit Sunday. This will give people at least 2 days to look it over.
What I want to do is use this initiative as a way of rebuilding trust at the article. If we are hyper-cautious now, there is greater chance for future successes.
I want to be clear that I fully support this change, just want to implement it cautiously. So I'll now revert the article back and then send out invitations for editors to look at the version created through this preliminary major edit.
If I am over-explaining to the point of confusion, just check my contribs about 2 hours from now and I believe things will be clear.
Thank you. Fairview360 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Djma12,

I just posted this on the Srebrenica Massacre discussion page under "invitation for feedback regarding editing section 2.4 and the creation of sub-article".

Dear editors,

Please visit this version of the Srebrenica Massacre article to see the proposed changes to section 2.4: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Srebrenica_massacre&oldid=117151359

Please visit this site to see the proposed sub-article which the proposed section 2.4 text will be linked to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_executions_in_the_Srebrenica_massacre

If there is no major objection, we would like to introduce this major edit to the article this Sunday March 25. This ought to give each editor the time they need to review the proposed changes before they are fully introduced.

The objective here is to make the article more concise while continuing to clearly state what happened and in no way obscure actual events.

A full review of the proposed changes to section 2.4 and the sub-article will show that all information regarding the executions has been preserved and presented in a clear manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Fairview360 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Invitations sent. Now we get to see if an edit of this significance can be implemented without an uproar. Fairview360 02:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Djma12, I just posted this in the "revision of text" section of the Srebrenica discussion page:
"Djma12, I suggest we hold off on making the major edit to the article until after Opbeith completes his suggested edits. We can then take a look at them and see what the general consensus is. Our target is Sunday for making the major edit. We may still achieve that goal but it looks like Sunday evening by the earliest. Any thoughts? Thank you again for initiating this constructive positive atmosphere. Fairview360 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"
I agree we should delay final release of the new version until Opbeith finishes his edits. Sunday evening sounds like a good goal, though I'd understand if it needed to be delayed pending further edits. I may be less active during the next month or so -- I'm currently planning my wedding :-) Best regards, Djma12 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Djma12, I had an unusually large amount of free time in March but that is now evaporating. (Ironically enough, one reason is that I am going to Europe to celebrate a wedding.) I need to step back from the Srebrenica article. I believe you will find, even in the midst of disagreements, that the two other editors involved in this sub-article initiative, Gardenfli and Opbeith, are acting in good faith. Fairview360 18:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] congratulations

And all the best wishes. cs 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/j/m/User_talk%7EDjma12_5eac.html"