User talk:Wyss/a4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Necessity for Famekeeper

I tried to keep out of contentious issues which is why I did not answer you . I do not share your apparent faith in reasonable conduct here on WP . Indeed I refer you to my necessary complaint against the most recent edit to Hitler's Pope . I think this proves my overall contention that good faith is far from what it is we see . How this can be prevented , other than by locking pages , is beyond me . However I am in no doubt as to the nature of the editing . I see that you are an entirely logical and reasoned editor- your rv of my last intervention came from this use of reasoned good faith, but even a cursory view of the subsequent editing should show you that you were sadly misatken in your genuine good faith . There is little point in editing in good faith when others edit outside of it . It is impossible to reason with such action , as the long hisory of my attempts at discussion have shown . This is all rather sad and shameful , but exceeded a billion fold by the reality of maladministration history shows us . So , Wyss , it was never, and still is not - a question of telling you what I think needs adjustment . it is in fact a salutary lesson - there seems to be rock-hard denial at work within WP , just as outside . Maybe a stern concert of watchfulness would help , but your unfortunate last intervention against me undid all that I was aiming for, and unless you are now awakened (by the HP page) , there would be no point in continuing even the most minor edits .I long ago realised that discussions were the only way to infiltrate any balance into this organ , and I remain of that opinion whilst no one backs me up. You do , but you retain a blindness as to what we confront , therefore you do not . I see Lulu of the lotus eaters notices strange behaviour , but you should avoid allowing any strength to these surreptitiously ......est editors . Famekeeper 11:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

AH may have hoped he would be "Hitler's Pope", but as with many Europeans, Pacelli gradually became increasingly uncomfortable with and alarmed by AH and the Nazis. By the early 1940s the Vatican and the Nazis were at diametric opposition. One must understand that the typical European may have been nominally anti-semetic in 1940 but did not extend that bias to an endorsement of industrial genocide. The Nazis were accomodated during the early 1930s for many and sundry reasons but their tactics (intolerant social policies, world war, wholesale persecution of jewish and other groups which was later disclosed to have included genocide) had privately turned most people against them by 1943, certainly by 1944 when much of Europe was in ruins and threatened by the Red Army. Wyss 03:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i - UHJ

The male-ness of the UHJ is extensivly discussed in the MAIN ARTICLE on Baha'i Admisistration, and expanding that (or much of any other) issue in the MAIN BAHA'I article would be like putting a section on ordination of women on the main catholic page. It's enclyclopaedic, but this is not where it goes. Rick Boatright 19:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

That's a very effective use of caps :) Does this mean folks investigating the Baha'i Faith need to accidently stumble across this minor detail in the Administration article? Anyway, comparing an article on Catholicism with one on the Baha'i Faith doesn't make sense to me. The issue of male ordination in the Catholic Church is widely known while the all-male administering body of the Baha'i Faith, which is a relatively new religion which presents itself as progressive and tolerant, isn't. Wyss 19:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have EXCESSIVE CAPITALIZATION disease. I'm afraid I do it all the time. Typing ' ' and flipping into italics just doesn't "do it" for me.  :) Re male UHJ, I was not disagreeing with the idea of including the word "male" in the UHJ line, by all means, I think it rational. Then, if that strikes someone as odd, they are likely to hit the main article on Baha'i administration.Rick Boatright 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katyn

My dear Wyss, at the time of Katyn Massacre, indeed Soviet Union was an ally. But an ally of German Reich.In fact they are historians who suspect that it was coordinated with Germans.--Molobo 20:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why didn't you say so in the first place? :) Wyss 20:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Requesting page protection or mediation would be a good place to start. But edit warring is not acceptable under any circumstances besides patent vandalism. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Understood, but 141 doesn't listen to reason, he games the system. Look at his contribs. We have tried for months. Tonight he's gotten more agressive than usual as all but it's the same old discredited content, same old tactics. He's engaging in the revert war, we're just reverting back to the consensus versions. Wyss 23:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know any other way to say it. There are many procedures set up to deal with this kind of thing. I'll say it again: Request page protection, request mediation, or file an RfC. Don't revert endlessly. That accomplishes nothing.
I'm just here to warn about the 3RR. Other that that, I don't have much more to add here unless there is something else that needs attention. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I do understand. Please appreciate that he was hoping to drag an admin unfamiliar with the pages into this... it's an old tactic of his. I 100% agree with you, as I say... this is more of an unusually frisky night for him than wonted. Protection won't help, he'll just return when it opens up (and worse, it may be protected with his unsupported content intact). RfC or RfA may be the only way. Wyss 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An hysterical/a hysterical

Actually, no. It has nothing do with "hysterical" being some sort of exception. (And "uniform" follows the rules: the "u" is an accented syllable, so it's "a uniform", never, in no dialect, "an uniform".)

See [1] for the full story. The distinction is more British/American English. JRM · Talk 21:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect (really), the exception I mentioned is due to the unaspirated vowels (as explained in the link, but which I didn't have space to go into with the edit header). If a hysterical is an American usage, ok, but I still think it sounds/looks clumsy and as the link points out... "Widespread but half-baked literacy is probably responsible for the fact that the formerly unaspirated h in such phrases is now commonly pronounced, as is also the case with the word herb. In other words, if lip-moving readers are "sounding out" hysterical, sure, they won't understand the an in front etc. Sigh :) Wyss 21:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, whether you write "a" or "an" depends on how you pronounce things. Since nobody will ever claim agreement on pronunciation, there's also very little point in correcting back and forth. As a non-native speaker I have, of course, been drilled in the art of half-baked literacy... So I'll say "an 'ysterical" but write "a hysterical". :-) JRM · Talk 21:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course we can all agree on pronunciation! Even the BBC gets it right... mostly! ;) Wyss 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler page

Would you please look at my inclusions upon this page . thanksFamekeeper

I just notice you there on history page of Pius XII . I kow that what you say is WP policy . I simply find it unacceptable that sources I produce are denied and excoriated and shifted into being scholarly POV . The result is purely that I have to justify my sources ad infinitum . i think it is very wrong the way I have been forced to constantly repeat them and myself . If you are otr know an admin, I am pleased to hear it, as I for one , feel quite alone .Famekeeper

In aside -I think non-english speakers should give english lessons. As far as I can see they cannot often even determine who is or is not a native speaker .FK

I went into the article and integrated your contribution (which as rewritten, does clarify some murkiness other readers had mentioned). Two things you might want to keep in mind are that historians don't so much see the Catholic Church as having been complicit, as accomodating in 1933. However this had changed to confrontation by 1941. Like many other members of the German establishment, Kaas made some mistakes of historic proportions but it would be misleading to single him out too much and one must constantly remember that AH was supported, however grudgingly, by a rough majority of the German people during the mid-1930s. Regarding English, while your vocabulary is excellent and your grammar is generally ok, your English writing tends incorporate elements of German syntax which, in English, create convoluted and turgid paragraphs which are difficult for most native English speakers to plow through. This IMO is one reason why your contributions have been reverted so frequently... it takes real work to reduce them into crisp paragraphs and tone down the PoV. I say this only to be helpful. While there may be a bit of historical bias in favour of the CC regarding its role in the second world war, overcoming that bias will often require succinct writing and a scrupulous adherance to NPoV. Anyway... I hope this helps :) Wyss 20:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Documented record

On the Talk:Gavin Lambert page you have written, "I've removed content from these articles because it is unsupported by the documented record." Does this mean that every contribution to a Wikipedia article you have written is supported by a documented record? If so, would you please cite all documented records you have used on the related talk pages. Otherwise I may remove all your unsupported contributions from the article pages according to your own principles. 80.141.240.185 20:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you vandalize Wikipedia articles you may be banned (you've just come off a 24 hour block for violating 3rr). Please be aware that any ban could include your regular Wikipedia username (and I'm not referring to User:Onefortyone). Finally, you might want to review Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wyss 20:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I right that you are unable to provide supported records for every contribution you have made to Wikipedia articles? If so, then you should stop demanding such standards from other editors who frequently cite independent sources supporting their view. Further, you should read the Wikipedia article on double standard. By the way, what do you mean by "regular Wikipedia username"? 80.141.206.36 21:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I never said that and I think you know what I meant about the other username. Please stop cluttering my talk page. If you have something to discuss, please do so on the appropriate article's talk page. Wyss 21:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith and Source

if you did not mean to impugn my good faith old fellow, neveertheless your edit on Pius XII discussion ciomes as close as possible . i take offence rather as I have been over-scrupulous in presenting what you call secondary source . You knock my prose ( and for your interest I have zero german) and that may be justifiable . But my good faith is another matter .Join the club .@Wonderful' . Please do not lecture me when you were yourself unable to disentangle the sources necessary and write the history . It's not very nice , do you know?Famekeeper 08:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood something along the way. Is English your native language? Wyss 17:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

English is my native language . Is it yours , I suppose I would ask , too ?If it is not , I'm impressed at the writing , and had certainly assumed it was .Education I make no claim to , and I think it quite correct that my constructions may be odd. I write as I think when I am writing . I don't prepare much -except for your wonderful -like Weimar summary , which was over abbreviated to shake off the accusers who contantly want an earth-shattering proof in the shortest space . Damn lucky , they are, that I never tried , but I might yet .
I take your points about the complexity of late or any Weimar ,or indeed , any German period. However please don't feel you have to cover generalities of that comlexity . I have been trying in WP to include actual specifics which are not contradicted by the general complexity of experience, only shaded therefrom . I seem to feel no more than fobbed off by that generality which you several times utilise . Do you understand me , in this statement (fobbed) ? I find it rather POV to speak of such generalities compared to reference made to actual historical sources . Such as Klemperer stating that Kaas had a hand in the Hitler Reichstag pro-christianity statement . That is a specific reference to negotiations - the fact that Str jumped on me for that was but a reflection of the emotive way I referred to it ( in part a priest was speechwriting for Hitler ). Nevertheless , source . Not general but specific , and part of a slightly wider picture which is not to be ignored because of the general condition of compexity . Or am I wrong , and if so , how? And Wyss, indeed the pages around the issue, were as they say ,crap . Either completely naive and un-informed , or deeply dishonest . Only after being battled about the actual source, did I really begin to believe the latter. I really thought you were even handed, but then you constantly drift off into the general, leaving me looking turgid and POV and a bad writer . It doesn't help the repair jobs , I don't think , what? PS this is a reaction to the fact of your relating what I consider serious fact against the wide generality . I am myself , based in Laws , in this case . Not my Laws .Famekeeper 00:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
The thing about encyclopedias, the pith of them, is that they will generalize. In Wikipedia this will be especially true in the main articles. I think you should start an article on Kaas :) Wyss 11:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Kaas?-Have you seen what Str did to Hitler today  ? I may as well never have arrived, the reality has not resolved to source . This is quite ridiculous . Its back to Jimbo, and the whitewash . Quite monstrous .Famekeeper 18:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you should do an article on Kaas. Re Str1977 and the AH article, once he's done I'll clean it up. Wyss 18:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't spend life sweeping behind Str , analysing and preventing every last move . I have been constantly prevented- Klemperer deals with the speech categorically , and he is become just a POV, even Shirer centred on the speech in the 50's .it is quite incredible . This is not funny - I simply do not have the time at the moment . Str is full time , full on . I think your sanguinity is admirable , you are very imperturbable , unlike myself . As soon as I touch Kaas , he'll jump all over me . Ill have to flood pages repeating source right from the beghinning , again . It is like Sysyphus or Groundhog . I think its nearly time to call attention from outside the WP . Famekeeper 19:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the present Kaas article and apart from typos I see no way to emphasise more what historians have pointed to as collaboration/approbation without the usual reaction . If I go in there someone will follow and it will become two steps backwards. As I have for a long time realised , the morality of the Church involvement , the internal legality ,is the only way to unpick the history (given the vatican records are not open for this period. Their own shame centres on Pius's words to Goering . That is real evidence, moral evidence , of breaking the Magisterium . Kaas as intermediary between the Holy See and Hitler is widely recognised so I suppose you are suggesting I re-inforce the historical recognition . But of course Str well knows the sources by now, as does presimably the watching Church office (lets be real about that in a digital world) . There is no direct proof of the calumny , without that letter to the centre leadership read by Monsignor Kaas. You could add that Kaas was Monsignor on Hitler's page , surely ? No-it's just moral because they wiped their tracks very well . Bruning's memoirs are heavily disparaged by Str - I bet their is avidence, but I am not in a postion to travel and find it . Another Cornwell is needed , or Glasnost resulting from the actual up-coming prosecutions. or someone takes a canonical case, seriously . OK , bye then . Thanks deserved to you for your watching .Famekeeper 21:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PS- I did Kaas.Please protect if you see fit.Famekeeper 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reichskonkordat

I return (and delete/archive as you require) to ask you to help me in the consideration of whether the secret annexe of the above contravened the Versailles Treaty . If it existed its secrecy would have no bearing on the relevance to Double Effect . I can google and will ,and return to limited literature , but this arises out of my Kaas completions . By the way Str removed reduncancy which I re-expanded . This however is included , as it appears on Reichskonkordat . Here , Wyss ,is one more specific point : I saw it independantly from whoever previously confirmed it on RKK't . Str jumped on it very hard , so I dropped it . Now I want to get the one point sorted . Famekeeper 13:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kaas already emasculated . I cannot handle it-meaning it is made impossible for me . read statements if you wish between me and Str, no ad hominem but no furtherance . sorry, I tried. Famekeeper 21:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing tactical, that Gd Shep on Pius XII-it is well known and discussed and relevant. I only suggest expansion by way of understanding this pontiff . Thanks anyway for the rv, heartening .Famekeeper
I mostly reverted it because it was written in liturgical language with no NPoV. Some mention may be appropriate further down in the article but a lot of this sort of liturgical praise is so standard (in context) as to be un-notable. Wyss 19:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lois Weber

I have a suggestion for a worthwhile article for you to do from scratch: Lois Weber. If interested, you can start from here but I must caution that there is often contradictory information on the Internet about her. Ted Wilkes 19:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll look into her. Wyss 19:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

Don't say you have zero credibility to a fellow contributor. Talk about the article and the edits, not about the other volunteers here. I blocked your account for 15 minutes while you think about this. Uncle Ed 02:46, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

That editor's credibility is sparkingly documented on the article's talk page along with the talk pages for Elvis Presley and Nick Adams. Wyss 03:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you still have to be nice. :-) Uncle Ed 22:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hitler's vegetarianism

what are your sources? there has been a lot of discussion on this topic and what you recently did turned the previous version entirely around. where did the cosmetics containing animal products come from?

discussion on the subject

from many things which have read it seems that he eventually ate meat less and less because of his flatulance problems and that they were not caused by his diet.

hope to hear from you soon.

  • Please sign your posts with four tildes.
  • Most AH biographers discuss this topic. His vegetarianism is widely documented, although some vegetarians seem to have a problem with it. Have a look at Toland. Wyss 17:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hitler's vegetarianism is common knowledge, but readers would like to know how the English-speaking world became aware of it. So I would say to Wyss:
  1. Keep the vegetarian mention in the article
  2. Get busy digging up a source to back this up.
Others, please don't turn this into an edit war, wyss will have the info in a day or two - there's no hurry, Hitler's not going anywhere: he's dead.
By the way, nice edit summary: AH's vegetarianism is widely documented, although I'm aware this makes some vegatarians uncomfortable Uncle Ed 22:56, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
Sources abound, here's a helpful summary of them [2]. Wyss 23:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: The Conqueror

I picked two movies at random, and they both have higher instances of cancer than does the The Conqueror. Does this prove my random thought, or do I need to look at every popular movie from the 50's? WikiDon 00:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say your instincts are likely on to something, but any meaningful study would require a scientifically randomized sample of dozens of movies (say, produced during the same time period) and lots of verified data about cast and crew. Then one would have to determine if the effects weren't due to the makeup they all wore or something. A professional statistician would be handy. Still, it would be original research which one can't place in a WP article, unless one could get it published and better yet, peer reviewed :) I'd say the "Conqueror Curse" could do with a bigger, docking disclaimer though, like, "there is no scientific evidence that cancer rates for the cast and crew of this film were substantially different from the average for productions during the 1950s" blah blah... Wyss 00:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler pics

Hi Wyss. On the Hitler talk page you mentioned seeing some pictures of Hitler 'ranting away in the cold'. DO you have those in electronic form? I'd be really interested to see them, or do you know where they can be found? Thanks--Xiphon 11:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I think (almost for sure) one's in Toland (Adolf Hitler). Hmm, I think he also published a companion picture book with even more. Wyss 11:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Me thinks someone has an obsession with Hitler...
(Unsigned 12:57, 7 September 2005 Spawn Man)
Not. Wyss 14:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint, but I've only got what's known as a research assignment, maybe that's an obsession by some definitons, who knows--Xiphon 17:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a toxic topic (quite understandably so), though Stalin should be even worse but isn't. Wyss 17:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis impasse

I've just posted on Onefortyone's talk page asking for his input on the apparent impasse the three of us are facing at the Elvis talk page. I've made one suggestion as to a way forward, but I'm not sure it's particularly beneficial. Perhaps you'd like to take a look, and see if it would be acceptable to you, or if you have a better suggestion.

Also, I've been assuming that you were male, and may have referred to you as 'he', but I see from a comment of yours on the Elvis talk page that you're female. My apologies for making assumptions. ...You'd have thought I'd have got your sex right what with me being your sockpuppet or vice versa. ;-) KeithD (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries :) Wyss 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest that continued engagement with User:Onefortyone at Talk:Elvis Presley (Page #6) does nothing to help the situation with someone out of control. I think it's probably best if we not feed this druptive force anymore and let the Arbitration Committee do its job. Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 20:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Wyss 20:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


I take offense to you inserting into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Onefortyone/Anon 80.141.et al unfounded accusations about me as follows:

  • "even if he can be abrasive and unilateral when he gets excited about something."

I'm sure that if you reflect on this, you will want to remove it as Wikipedia:Wikietiquette suggests for contributor's conduct. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 16:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended. I don't want to be associated with the abrasive and unilateral aspects of your conduct so I thought I'd best mention this. I agree with you 100% on the 141 issue and believe you've made vastly positive contribtions here, always in good faith, but I think you've worsened the EP/NA problem through your approach (I also think editors like 141 tend to bring out the worst in everyone so I don't think you should be sanctioned in any way). I think 141 should be banned hard and permanently, although I have little hope that'll happen. If you can think of a more helpful way I can make clear I don't approve of your behavior, I'm open to hearing it. Either way, I support the RfA you've filed, I applaud the wonderful research and work you've done on so many WP articles and I don't think what I said strays from Wikipedia:Wikietiquette. Wyss 17:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
You made a start, but I think your comment must be removed because, No.1, it is unsubstantiated, which is of course what you and I have accused Oneforty et al of doing in his writings. And, in fact, I am never abrasive, never get excited about edits, (except when I read a really good article like Abraham Lincoln at Wikipedia) and, as to unilateral, it is impossible not to edit any other way. Nonetheless, I have found I had to "go it alone" to substantiate every single thing I write or objected to, e.g. the lies by Onefortyone that I documented, or my inserted edits about Presley transistor radio and the Wall Street Journal that you unilaterally deleted and forced me to prove. However, beyond your statement about me being not true, my objection to your comment is that it is "out of place" and unwarranted in the arbitration article that is about Onefortyone's fabricated edits, his unfounded assertions, and his abuse of Wikipedia and the goodwill of its participants by using it as a platform to sell books for the French author, David Bret. Third party comments on the Rfa page are meant to give factual input that agree or dispute the statements by the Party of the 1st part. Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Then I offer your reply as support for what I said. Truth be told I think it helps. Lots of admins see this as a petty edit war, in no small part because of the way you've handled yourself. I think you're spot on about 141, but your tactics in handling him have obscured his malicious abuses. Wyss 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

So far as the Sony transistor radios go, you never did prove EP was responsible for their introduction into North America :) Anyway bringing it up in this context is the sort of thing that makes observers shake their heads and ignore it all... Elvis Presley? Gay? Transistor radios? Uh huh. So who fricking cares? Wyss 18:51, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


I respectfully disagree, my conduct has been impeccable. But, you are certainly entitled to your opinion here or on my Talk page, but not on my Arbitration claim against Onefortyone et al. Although I have more if you like, I think there are those who might agree that this is an example of abrasive, improper, and excited conduct which was followed by this Thanks. - Ted Wilkes 18:58, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Yep! Spot on. At the time I didn't realize he'd had past experiences with you and was way over-sensitized. I apologized to him and he accepted (enthusiastically, which I thought was cool). Anyway you and I can disagree on stuff and still work together. Let me put it in a way my Anabaptist ancestors might have appreciated... where that admin and I do not seem to agree is that any edits you may have made (to talk pages or articles) that were nettlesome to some, even that Sony transistor nonsense (a very rare editorial excess for you btw, IMHO), along with your inflaming, fog laying approach to 141, are motes compared to the malicious beams laid by 141 in this encyclopedia. Wyss 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Eggs I've heard of. But fog? - Ted Wilkes 19:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, eggs :) Wyss 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And oh yes, if 141 gets "inflamed" when I calmly and business like provide documented evidence that he lied in an edit? So be it. Ted Wilkes 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, nobody cares about 141 (not even 141's owner, which is why he uses a single-purpose sock). It's not him who you've inflamed. Wyss 19:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

(I have lots of respect for Ted Wilkes' edits to this encyclopedia, even if I do "scold" him over some details of how he has handled the EP mess, which would drive almost anyone to distraction. In a "perfect" wiki, IMO TW's reactionary response would have been brushed aside as innocent bluster and the core problem he was trying to fix would have been swiftly dealt with, which it has yet to be) Wyss 09:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics

RE: "Eugenics is a social philosophy that is pursued in the name of improving human stock via the social intervention in human hereditary traits". Why is this sentence "blatantly PoV"? What quotation marks are you talking about?--Nicholas 10:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told there were several problems. I reverted it back to:

Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through social intervention.

from your version which was...

Eugenics is a social philosophy that is pursued in the name of improving human stock via the social intervention in human hereditary traits.

because:

  • Eugenic thought positively advocates. It is a social philosophy, not a science (and is a psuedo-science only when wrong-headedly applied as a science). Any pursuit would be through the science of genetics. It matters not a wit whether eugenics could ever be successfully applied, or if it would be thought ethical to do so, we only use the first sentence to define what eugenics is.
  • Use of the term pursuit in this context can easily imply futility, hence the PoV. As is well-documented, what one person may call an improvement another might call a defect or whatever. In simple terms this is why eugenics can (likely) never be a science, since improvement can't be scientifically defined or described.
  • The term human stock is unscholarly and unscientific and harkens back to obsolete terminolgies associated with earlier 20th century abuses (more PoV, rather grotesquely so if you ask me, which you did). Hereditary traits is the scholarly and scientific term.
  • I mistook the wiki markup you used to italicize the Latin word via as quotation marks. Either way, I'm no fan of using Latin when English will do.
  • With all due respect, the second article the (between via and social) is flawed, clumsy syntax, which gave me the impression you quickly dashed off the entire sentence in an emotional (hence PoV) rather than circumspect state, however I speak only of the impression I got, not my true opinion of your psychological demeanor at the time.
  • There are other issues, but these five are enough for me. Wyss 11:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I find that short explanations are sweet. Otherwise, you end up sounding dogmatic and just plain rude.--Nicholas 09:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Sigh :( Wyss 10:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Verification of vegetarianism

I completely agree with you. If good faith attempts are made to verify information to the best of our ability -- and we are simply unable to do so -- then such content should be removed from the main article with a note placed on talk. However, I sometimes make a note on talk before removing the content if it is controversial and/or disputed. --Viriditas | Talk 11:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I'll nominate the article on AfD. Wyss 11:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that wasn't what I was referring to, but you are of course welcome to do as you wish in such matters. I was discussing the nature of verification in general, and how to deal with questionable content. I don't think the List of vegetarians meets the criteria for deletion, but it certainly requires citations. OTOH, adding the {{Unreferenced}} template is entirely appropriate. --Viriditas | Talk 12:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The article can only mislead IMHO. Wyss 13:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's ellipsis

Yes, it was the reference to "late 1930s" that led User:Jayjg to suggest that there was a contradiction. I just noticed it myself. As for the "that"...I don't think it can be comfortably elided from "stated that...". In other circumstances "that" can be safely junked, but I find it jarring here. Babajobu 22:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, taste :) Wyss 22:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler

Hi Wyss, the problem is that even the sources you produce to support your position say that H continued to eat meat. Vegetarians don't eat meat, not occasionally, not ever. They may eat milk, cheese, and eggs, but they don't eat any mammals, fish, or birds. So if you eat ham or caviar, as H did, you're not a vegetarian, and that goes for the definition used then, as well as the one used today, because the definition hasn't changed in that time. So I'm a little confused as to why you want to say he was. By all means quote the sources saying he was a vegetarian (or saying that he said he was one), but we can't put words in their mouths. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What sources are you referring to? Traudl Junge? Why do you say I'm producing these sources? I don't think you've looked into this carefully at all and I thought you were a more heedful editor than that. However, I do realize AH is a hot button topic for many, for whom objectivity and balance is difficult to maintain. He did kill 12 million, after all. I'll wait for input from other editors, this is getting a bit boring, creepy and weird for me right now. Wyss 07:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)