User talk:The Myotis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ottoman Empire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MonsterOfTheLake 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Thank you but...
Please do not edit facts to support your personal analysis of a subject into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ottoman Empire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. That the historians who define the event as genocide outnumber those who don’t is a know fact, and there can be no valid reason for subtracting it. Why you forbid any link to the ‘Armenian genocide’ wikipedia article is also baffling. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.
Also, please check commentary for grammatical accuracy before adding it to an article. Thank you, Mr. Myotis
As an afterthought, I would like you to carefully read the following passage from that nice NPOV article you recommended me, and think about how it relates to the current subject.
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."
Now, you must admit that your version of the article gives the impression that the divide between historians who claim civil war and those who claim genocide is evenly split, if not in favor of civil war. The insistence of preventing any link to the AG wikipedia article and the continued addition of the theory that the isolated Armenian rebellions were Russian backed certainly does. Do you really believe that the majority of historians and government institutions define the events of 1915 as civil war? I have numbers that say otherwise. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, 22 independent nations, and 39 of the 50 US states all officially recognize the events as genocide, not to mention the majority of historians (out of those who have formed an opinion). I only know of one country that officially refers to the events as civil war (if there are others, let me know). That the argument of genocide deserves more weight is hardly just a personal opinion as much as it is a World opinion. And, according to Wikipedia procedure, the majority view deserves the most attention.
Thank you for you time, Myotis The Myotis 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is a European?
Hope this helps...--Caligvla 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armenia in Europe
I am a member of the AMA (Association of Members' Advocates) currently acting on behalf of User:Caligvla, who has named you as one of the participants in the dispute over whether Armenia is in Europe or Asia. Caligvla has listed a number of reference sources classifying Armenia as an Asian country. He claims that the only sources quoted by your side of the dispute are 1.) an obsecure Canadian website that places Armenia in Europe, and a BBC article that mistakenly places Armenia in Europe. Can you please respond to this and give your side of the argument (preferably on my userpage)? Under the AMA principle of audi alteram partem, you have the right to be heard. (NB Copies of this message have been placed on the talkpage of all those who Caligvla has named as participants in the dispute.) Walton monarchist89 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- User:Augustgrahl has agreed to the compromise I outlined on his talk page, which is that the sentence Armenia is situated at a cultural, historical, and religious intersection and located at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, in the southern Caucasus will be an acceptable replacement for Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, as long as we also continue to include the sentence about Armenia being a transcontinental nation. User:Eupator has declined to accept this compromise. I have now opened a straw poll on this issue on my talk page. Please add your comments supporting or opposing the proposed change. Walton monarchist89 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- As you can see, the straw poll has provoked equally strong support and opposition for the proposed changes. It's useful, if only to show that there are strong feelings on both sides of this debate - but it sends us back to square one, in that the opposition from you, User:Eupator and User:Hectorian is strong enough that I don't have a mandate to make the changes. As such, having failed to find a compromise of my own, I'm now inviting everyone else to suggest one. We need to find a way of saying, in a way that no one finds offensive, that Armenia is both in Asia and in Europe and that the domestic political situation reflects links with both continents. Any ideas would be welcomed. Walton monarchist89 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] RfC opening on Armenia
Given the complete deadlock on this issue, and the failure of the strawpoll, I think the time has come to take the dispute-resolution process to the next level by opening a request for comment. This will open the debate up to the whole Wikipedia community, and hopefully generate, if not consensus, then at least a majority view. I will invite all users involved in this issue to contribute to the RfC, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I realise that you may now be a bit bored with having to explain your views again and again on different pages, but as an advocate I think this is the only way to finally end this dispute. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armenia strawpoll
NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:
- Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
- Neutral 1.
- Oppose 10.
As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hey I am sorry, I didn't mean to delete anyone's post.. I was trying to get revert something, and I hadn't realized that somebody put in a post in the meanwhile... I wasn't trying to delete anything.. Baristarim 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. Apology accepted.The Myotis 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Antiziganism
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your work improving this article, and for connecting it better with other articles. Keep up the good work. - TheMightyQuill 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- You’re welcome! I certainly will continue working on it. The Myotis 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please sign your name on AfD discussions
Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Cafesjian. Please sign your name on AfD discussions and talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. --Eastmain 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ...
Please try to cut down on negativity.. In this page, you said "more donned white hats". Which was even a bigger stretch than the lame source provided which only said "some". Do not manipulate sources and see what is and not what you would like to see... That article is in horrible shape, the Sun Language Theory bit is nothing but half-truths etc. The stuff you included can be in a page "Ultra-nationalism in Turkey", Ogun Samast was never described in the media as a nationalist but an ultra-nationalist - read up on the notions please. In any case, adding it in this article is OR for the reason I just mentioned. Anyways, take care... Baristarim 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to create a separate article to describe only ultra-nationalistic tendencies, and I don’t think any other page on any other type of nationalism makes distinctions between standard and ultra nationalisms. If you think the page is one-sided or ‘negative’, go ahead and add more information. It is, after all, a start page and I only inserted topics I have had a good amount of experience with. I am not sure exactly what your beef with the ‘white hats’ phrase is, but I’m sure it is rewordable. Ideally, we can find someone NPOV to work on the article, organize and add some information. And if you want to improve the Topal Osman article, try and find some other sources. The Myotis 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I hear your point.. I am sorry if I might have sounded a bit harsh earlier. My only point with the white bonnets was the fact that it overlooked the sympathy that most of the Turks felt at his assassination - that's all. Cheers! Baristarim 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
