User talk:Cazedessus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Kit Carson

The idea of Wikipedia is not to reflect the editors--who are, after all, a self-selected group of strangers--think is the truth about whatever topic is at hand, but to reflect the various viewpoints that exist. There is no doubt much that you could add to this article if you tried to follow Wikipedia's guidelines--particularly the neutral point of view rule--and did not try to remove viewpoints that you personally disagree with.

Note: "legacy" and "legend", are not the same. Both are used in the Kit Carson piece. LEGACY comes from the documented record, LEGEND comes from unverifiable stories. Cockburn's song is legend, for not one word of the story he sings has anything to do with historical reality, except that he sang the song in person on Dec. 9 1991, fifteen years ago. Presumably, he's been singing this false story weekly......say 750 times, often in front of thousands of people who listen to his introduction about Saturday morning movies and an Indian he met in Arizona some years ago who told him this story about Kit Carson and his learning "pestilence, famine, war, poison and flame". Unwilling to check out the historical facts, superficial song writer Bruce Cockleburn parrots the exaggerations, it's picked up by a Wiki editor, probably Nareek, and becomes just another "point of view." But not only does the song contain tales that are false (President Polk told Carson nothing like that), it contains negative, demeaning, denegrating and devilish accusations "documented" by "someone in Arizona told me."

[edit] ==

Thank you for experimenting with the page Kit Carson on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Karafias Talk • Contributions 01:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ==

[edit] Wikipedia

It seems your edits are in good faith, but don't understand how wiki works. If you want to change the Kit Carson article, discuss your ideas on the Kit Carson talk page, provide references to back up your opinion, and reach a consensus with the other editors. Once you get the go-ahead to implement your changes, add them in a professional, encyclopedic manner. Personal, unreferenced, heavily biased opinions have no place on an encyclopedia. Imagine you're an editor for Encarta or Britannica - would you type like that? This is a reference, not a soap box. If you can't prove your opinion is completely right with references, then you must allow the other opinions to have a fair say in the matter. You can't remove something because you disagree with it.

Wikipedia isn't censored. You can say anything here - so long as it is true, and professionally worded. However, we don't allow opinionated, unreferenced edits to remain in. I could edit the Kit article and say he was a purple alien from mars that ate babies. Factually, this is about as professional and biased as your edits. You may be right, but you have to word it professionally, and provide proof. You can't just say things and expect it to remain here.

See how to write the perfect article. Wikipedia is a great way to distribute information, but it isn't a free-for-all. We have rules and guidelines, and they must be followed to ensure that wikipedia remains as reliable and professional as possible. I hope you will attempt to learn how things are done around here, and continue to contribute in an effective way to this encyclopedia. We can always use more editors, and it seems your heart is in the right place. If you really want to ensure the factual accuracy of this article, do it the right way. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. --Karafias Talk • Contributions 04:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ============

My aim with Kit Carson in Wiki is to: "root out propaganda literature and extremist brainwashing."Cazedessus 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ============

Wiki says: "is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views."

Is there a "neutral" position on the European occupation of the Americas? What is it? It's certainly a "competing view" that the Indians should have met Vikings, Columbus, Spanish, Jamestown settlers, Pilgrms at the shore and said "Stop, go back." It's certainly another "competing view" that the Europeans could have treated the Indians the way the Russians told the Cossacks who were invading and occupying Sibera..kill them all! (And they did.) And it is a "competing view" that since the Indians were not all unified (nor were the Europeans, BTW) and thus frequently attacked each other FOR MORE LAND AND MORE POWER..what's wrong with Jamestown settlers wanting the same, or the Spanish/Mexican/American settlers of the Rio Grande River in the 1800's wanting the same and being repeatedly attacked and raided by a strong tribe of mountain Indians...the Navajo. SO WHAT IS A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW? When discussing the invasion of France on D-Day of 1944, does Wiki permit "all sides without favoring a particular viewpoint?" OK...I'll go look. More later."


[edit] Kit Carson

Hey.

The first thing I want to get out of the way is your accusations against wikipedia. It seems everyone that comes here and immediately can't edit wikipedia to conform to their point of view comes to the conclusion that wikipedia is evil and they are being censored. First, look at the neutral point of view policy. Once you have read that, look at the article on NPOV disputes, and how to go about dealing with them. If there is a different point of view, and it has popular support or facts to back it up, it must be allowed to remain. Just because you believe you are right doesn't mean you can delete everything you disagree with. However, an article shouldn't be biased or unbalanced in favor of one viewpoint. Equal support and criticism should be given to all sides of the story. Because you are dealing with people - some of which are highly opinionated - sometimes disputes over the article will arise. DO NOT get into a revert war, start deleting content, or discussing the article in capital letters in the main section. First, take it to the article's talk page. I can't stress that enough. To keep things relatively neutral, you must try to reach consensus with the other editors & agree on content and wording. If for some reason you absolutely can't agree on the article, then it's time to get outside help. You can get an admin to help, bring a mediator into the debate, or take it to the Arbitration Committee as a last resort. There are many processes in place to ensure that your voice is heard, and that articles remain factual and neutral. But you can't go vigilante and start deleting the work of others, or leave all-caps messages in the article. This sort of behavior will get you blocked.

Keep in mind that while people may disagree with you, they're good people at heart, and only have good intentions. Almost any seasoned wiki editor would have reverted your edits. Your edits simply don't conform to NPOV policy, and some of them looked like vandalism. It's important to remain calm and professional, and not get into edit wars.

After carefully looking over the article, I agree that it is unbalanced against Kit. The wording portrays him in a very poor light, and it provides far too many references of a disparaging nature with much less in favor of him. I've flagged the article as unbalanced with the {{Unbalanced}} tag, so that any users seeing the article will know to take it with a grain of salt. This will also promote discussion of the article, and hopefully allow you to easily resolve your disputes. I noticed you've made no comments at all on the articles talk page. If you don't discuss possible resolutions there, your changes will not happen. You *must* reach consensus with the other editors. I believe you said something on my talk page about completely re-writing the article. This won't work. Wikipedia is about consensus, and you must get the O.K from the other editors, or your work will simply be reverted. If you are unable to reach an understanding with the editors on the talk page, and believe that the editors participating in the discussion are being completely unreasonable, you can take other steps. However, you should really make an effort to be civil and respectful toward others. No talking in caps lock, and no insults. Remember that proper formatting, editing and wiki markup is also very important. If you write something and it is improperly formatted, it may be reverted if the editor doesn't feel like adding the proper format and markup.

Facts and references are your strongest weapon. If you see some a section in the article that you believe is false, look it up. If you can find no references to prove it, you can delete it. If you suspect something is false, but can't prove it, and the article cites no references, use the {{fact}} tag to flag this section as being possibly unreliable. If there is a section that is extremely controversial and you can find no references to prove it, it's OK to delete it. Just be sure to leave an edit summary, and provide the reasoning of why you deleted it on the talk page. If you just randomly delete, your edits will be reverted. Your side of the story deserves as much text as the other side. If it seems like a certain portion of the article is unbalanced, add in your side in a completely neutral fashion. In the case of highly controversial articles like this, you will probably need to reach consensus on the talk page on the format, context, and wording before you add your changes.

I'll be monitoring the Kit Carson article and its talk page. If you need any support making your changes, I will be there to assist you. I hope that you will take the time to learn how wiki works, and properly introduce your ideas and knowledge. Best of luck, --Karafias Talk • Contributions 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vile censors"

Would you please knock it off with the "vile censors" stuff? We took out the "lies" and "truth" stuff because that's 100 percent contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. No one's calling you names here; we expect you to treat us with the same respect. Nareek 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Nareek...get it straight. If I bring info to wiki and wiki decides to use 50% of it with a CONTRARY introduction, I'll call it VILE CENSORSHIP, 'causes that is what it is. First Amendment. And what happened to my lont post of yesterday titled "with GREAT pleasure"...? Censored 100%? I don't see it here.


Caz, your comment is on the Kit Carson talk page - where you left it. --Karafias Talk • Contributions 04:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


If WP were a federal government project, then you indeed would have a constitutional right to say whatever you darn well please. But WP is a private project that does have some actual rules about what you can and cannot say--and one of the rules (Wikipedia:No personal attacks) is that you can't make personal attacks on other editors. It's a good rule, keeping us focused on the work at hand rather than at each others' throats.
In general, I think WP's rules are pretty smart, even when (maybe especially when) they're not intuitively obvious--like the "verifiability not truth" rule. It's worth one's while to actually go through and read the main ones. Nareek 12:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Help

Hi! Thanks for your note and for your recent constructive edits. Be glad to help. Are you having a problem with the system or access issues? If so, you could try typing your additions on the article's talk page, and I'll weave them in. If it is not a system problem, what else can I do to help?

FYI, in future correspondence, the User page is reserved for the User's notes about his/herself and the associated discussion page is used to talk to one another. Some people like to carry on a discussion on one talk page only, while others will copy messages and place them on all participants pages. Your choice. And, if you sign your name by typing four ~ symbols, it will show the date and time of your edit and give your correspondent a direct link to both your User and Discussion page. Take a look at my signature (both on the finished page and edit screen) for an example. Best wishes. WBardwin 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. WB - Thanks. This is a test. There is a new and very revealing book ABOUT THE KIT CARSON ERA: BLOOD AND THUNDER, An Epic of the American West, by Hampton Sides, Doubleday, well over 400 pages of narrative history of the American West, particularly the Southwest. Cazedessus 16:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Caz

[edit] the Navajo

I've made substantial changes to the very long and complicated Wiki Navajo entries, based on my readings of the books by McNitt, Kelly and Clarke and my newly discovered 1946 Desert Magazine article on "Very Slim Man." I have made full copies of this article and it is available for anyone who can find me. -Caz

[edit] NPOV policy

The whole neutral point of view policy is worth reading, because it is central to the whole Wikipedia process, but I think you might particularly benefit from this section, which attempts to explain the rationale:

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality. But human beings disagree about specific cases; for any topic on which there are competing views, each view represents a different idea of what the truth is, and insofar as that view contradicts other views, its adherents believe that the other views are false and therefore not knowledge. Where there is disagreement about what is true, there is disagreement about what constitutes knowledge. Wikipedia works because it is a collaborative effort; but, while collaborating, how can we solve the problem of endless "edit wars" in which one person asserts that p, whereupon the next person changes the text so that it asserts not-p?
A solution is that we accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics. We are committed to the goal of representing human knowledge in that sense, surely a well-established meaning of the word "knowledge". What is "known" changes constantly with the passage of time, and so when we use the word "know," we often enclose it in so-called scare quotes. Europeans in the Middle Ages "knew" that demons caused diseases; we now "know" otherwise.
We could sum up human knowledge (in this sense) in a biased way: we could state a series of theories about topic T and then claim that the truth about T is such-and-such. But then again, consider that Wikipedia is an international collaborative project, and that nearly every view on every subject will be found among our authors and readers. To avoid endless edit wars, we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article "unbiased" or "neutral" in the sense presented here. To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents. Disputes are characterized in Wikipedia; they are not re-enacted.
To sum up the primary reason for this policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a compilation of human knowledge. But because Wikipedia is a community-built, international resource, we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, on what constitutes knowledge in a strict sense. We can therefore adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them — with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views and perhaps should not be represented at all.
There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy, that when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence. Totalitarian governments and dogmatic institutions everywhere might find reason to oppose Wikipedia, if we succeed in adhering to our non-bias policy: the presentation of many competing theories on a wide variety of subjects suggests that we, the editors of Wikipedia, trust readers to form their own opinions. Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any particular one of them, are liberating. Neutrality subverts dogmatism. Nearly everyone working on Wikipedia can agree this is a good thing.

NPOV takes some getting used to. I'm still learning to let go of my preconceptions of what I personally believe to be true and allow every point of view to get a fair shake in a Wikipedia article--it's tough to do it right. I think the key is understanding that WP is not about coming to conclusions--that's for people writing books and websites and documentaries (and, yes, songs) to do. We're here to summarize what those conclusions are, and not to guide readers to the ones we prefer. It's a tough assignment and it's not for everybody, frankly. Some people would really be better off explaining their conclusions in a forum that allows them to do so. Nareek 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nareek: Thanks for the NOPV quote and your comments.

        I admit I’m putting forth reports of 1)events that happened, 2)those who participated in the event in any way, and 3)a “view” or “opinion” of that person’s involvement in the event as recorded or reported. That is to say, the person who was 1)THERE, and 2)WROTE DOWN what he saw or did  ++has superior knowledge++  of the event and the person participating in the event to the person who was 1)NOT THERE, and 2)is simply repeating what he/she HEARD someone say.  Got it?

Now when an encylopedia wants a report or description of what a person did at such and such time during an event, where should they turn? To relevant documents from people who were there and wrote it down, or tribal tales, legends, memories and extrapolated speculation?

    For instance. How would you like your great great grandfther to be described in Wiki? What his diary says and what his family or boss reported, or the story that came from the descendants of the people your great grandfather threw out of the rental unit because they would not pay the rent?

See where I’m going here Nareek? What is the “neutral point of view” on your great grandfather? Half way between the non-paying renters opinion and your great grandfather’s diary? I confidently say, certainly not. At this point the diligent historian will ask: Did your grandfather lie or spin in his diary? Is the report from his boss and the rest of the family reliable, or is it also tainted with falsehoods, lies and twisted description(s)? Is there a record of those non-paying renters before or after your grandfather threw them out? This will take some investigation, some reasearch, some study and some time.

And now to Kit Carson. His diary exists, many of his letters are in the National Archives, there are a dozen contemporary descriptions of Kit Carson; his character, his activities, his proclivity, and his life style. Isn’t it obvious that it is exclusively the Navajo and their lackies that drum-beat a characterization of Kit Carson that is at odds with the 1)Kit Carson diary, 2) Reports by the other people who were with him during the Navajo war, and 3) the genereal contemporary descriptions of the man while he was alive? Where does “theory” fit into this? Are these Navajo et. al. comments really “competing views”? Where is there any “evidence”, besides Navajo memories, that Kit Carson was a “genocidal maniac” who shot women and children and ate baby Navajos? So, while I can and will agree that the “Navajo et.al.” contrary “opinion” and contrary “view” can be admitted to exist, those "opinions and views" can be demonstrated to any rational human being to be not only flawed, in error and probably prejudiced, but also typical of those who have an agenda to destroy or demean a famous character in American History, disparage the European invasion of the Americas, dismiss the savage blood thirsty raids conducted for hundreds of years against any and all non-Navajo people, and perhaps advance current political perks. Do you believe there is a neutral position on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Your turn Nareek. Cazedessus 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks in Kit Carson discussion

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nareek 10:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I would love your input.

Hi C, If you are still around, I'd like to contact you about some decent application of your knowledge. Let me know on my user page e-mail, it is activated. --Seejyb 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very much "still around", but last year I grew very tired of reading the "personal attacks" on my friend Kit Carson, so I devoted my KC energies elsewhere. I tried to contact you directly from wiki sources...but cannot find an Email address, and hesitate to leave mine here.Cazedessus 14:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lets communicate

I share your interest in KC; I have several books on him. I am no expert, but there are people who are. You can turn on the email communication system and communicate through Wikipedia without having your email address disclosed. If you wish to do so, then we could exchange emails without disclosing them publicly. Richiar (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I have found the REAL life of Kit Carson fascinating, and continue to research his life and times. Tell me how to "turn on the email com. sys." and I'll happily do it. Cazedessus (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Sumner

I have displaced your intervention on Fort Sumner from the main page to the page of discussion where it belongs. No signature are allowed in the articles. Signed comments have to be kept for the discussion pages. Thank you, --Cgolds (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)