Talk:Pan Am Flight 103/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Gene Nygaard (talk | contribs) →Washington Post usage of ambiguous word "tons": reply to SlimVirgin about direct quotes |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Washington Post usage of ambiguous word "tons"== |
|||
Here is a another specific example of "tons" used by the Washington Post which are not identified there, but which are clearly identified in other sources, with '''bold emphasis added''' by me. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 23:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10000-2004Oct5?language=printer Washington Post]: According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, opium production in Afghanistan in 2003 amounted to '''about 3,600 tons''' -- that is to say, three-quarters of world production -- over 200,000 acres of cultivated land. |
|||
[http://212.58.240.35/2/hi/south_asia/3476377.stm BBC News]: The 185 tonnes of opium produced that year - compared to the '''3,600 tonnes''' in 2003 - mostly came from the small area of northern Afghanistan then held by the Northern Alliance that later helped US forces topple the Taleban. |
|||
[http://www.rawa.org/opium4.htm The Guardian], ''U.N. Agency Warns Afghanistan Over Opium,'' October 29, 2003, by Susanna Loof, Associated Press Writer: This year's production of '''3,600 tonnes''' represents a 6% year-on-year increase, while poppy cultivation, at almost 81,000 hectares (200,000 acres), was up 8%. |
|||
[http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2003/nar819.html United Nations Information Service], press release 29 October 2003: Opium production has increased by six per cent, from 3,400 to '''3,600 tonnes'''. |
|||
[http://baltimorechronicle.com/121704Hickman.shtml Baltimore Chronicle]: Total opium production soared to 4,200 metric tons in 2004, surpassing the previous year’s '''record-breaking 3,600 metric tons'''. |
|||
:Perhaps, but the other links I've provided indicate that in this case it can't be tonnes, and we can't even assume it's 1000. Your edits are not faithfully representing what we actually know about the amount sold. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for finding that information, Jay. I'm sorry you had to write it out twice. I made some other edits not realizing he had reverted again. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::Could this mean the end of the Great Measurement Debate? [[User:El C|El_C]] 00:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::The answer, of course, is no. [[User:El C|El_C]] 00:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::In order to believe that, Jayjg, you'd have to believe that the leader of Czechoslovakia (where they do not use English tons of any sort), speaking in London (where the only English tons they use are 20 "hundredweight" of 112 lb each), about a purchase by Libya (where they do not use English tons of any sort), would for some reason choose to express this quantity in "short tons", a unit not used in any of those countries. Or you need to believe that the Washington Post, in the source relied on by SlimVirgin (well, technically, the "source" for the secondary timeline relied on by SV), fudged a direct quote. Which is it? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 00:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::How do you know what they use in Libya? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 00:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::That's easy. Pretty much everyone outside the United States is metric. |
|||
::::Furthermore, the British flag never flew over Libya. So they would have had no particular reason to use British units. |
|||
::::Libya was part of the Ottoman Empire for most of the 19th century, so they may have had some old Middle Eastern units. But from 1911 to 1951, Libya was a colony of Italy—a country which had adopted the metric system in the 1860s. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 01:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::According to [http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm USMA], Libya went metric in the 1920s. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 01:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::It doesn't say that, and that website is written by ideologues like yourself. This page is for discussing the bombing of Pan Am 103. Please allow discussion to return to that subject, and take your metrification concerns to an appropriate page. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Just trying to be courteous and answer the question ''you'' posed, SlimVirgin. |
|||
::::::Of course, it does say that, in the graph. Maybe you searched for "Libya" without finding it, because the word is part of the graphic, and not searchable text. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 02:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::A direct quote from Havel's statement: "[T]he past regime exported 1,000 tons to Libya, and yet it takes only 200 grams to blow up a plane. This means that world terrorism has enough supplies of SEMTEX for at least l5O years." [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/SDE.htm] [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 01:27, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::That direct quote, with a book cited as the source, is in reasonable agreement with the direct quote in the Washington Post, considering that what is being quoted is spoken words. In any case, I see no discrepancy between the two quotes that would have any bearing on our discussion. Do you? |
|||
:::::::::It's a direct quote. That's what makes a difference. You said before that the W/Post quote wasn't good enough for you, because you didn't know whether they were actually quoting Havel. Now you do know, and now you're saying it's irrelevant. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::What appears on the Washington Post page you cited as a source is not a direct quote; the actual news article on a page linked to from that timeline page is a direct quote. The important thing is, as you can see from Jayjg's arguments, the number in that direct quote—the fact that this number is 1000, not 900. We now have direct quotes from two different sources confirming that number. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 03:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Note also that in spoken words, "tonnes" is often pronounced indistinguishably from "tons", even by native English speakers. So we lose one more clue, especially since "tonne" is a foreign word to English journalists and authors, one rarely used in American English. [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 02:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::How is placing a stamp of (such) accuracy on Havel's [[WP:POINT|point]] can be seen as espcially pertinent to this article? Am I the only one here who fails to see why this extra measure of accuracy is that necessary? Considering that, in context, it is relatively trivial. Am I missing something pivotal here? And may I archive part of this talk page to reduce scrollynesses? So many questions. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I've tried to archive three times but Bobblewik keeps reverting. There's a madness to this. Absolutely nothing hangs on these units. It's good to have them, because it makes the article more informative, and it's good to have sources linked to, so readers can read further if they want to. But to have to know whether it was 1000 x tons or tonnes of Semtex told to Gadaffi is completely irrelevant. The sources say tons, so we say tons. They say miles, so we say miles; and so on. And you don't know, Gene, whether the speech was spoken or written, or both; or whether it was a prepared statement or spontaneous one, and in any event, these things are always written down. Or do we have to establish whether he first wrote it, or first said it; and in addition, whether he first wrote or said it in English? Gene, go do the research if you want to, but please stop using this talk page to discuss the myriad possibilities. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Well, *I* am going to archive it. It's fine if Gene wants to involve us so closely with his ''ongoing'' research, but can he limit it to a subpage, and not make corresponding modification to the article itself until he has something definitive? This isn't very critical to this topic and it's completely dominating the talk page. That isn't very metodologically rational. [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::I just did it. Doubtless it'll be undone. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Heh! Was my archiving insufficient, or are you just trying to steal my thunder? [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::That's a good idea. Gene, please set up a subpage for discussing your measurements concern regarding this article, then return to the page when you have a compromise worked out. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 02:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Insolence, audacity, tenacity, belligerence, instransigence! [[User:El C|El_C]] 02:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Jeezus. He said "a thousand tons". He used a round figure. He did not give an account. It wasn't a trial, just remarks on a state visit. It doesn't matter which kind of ton he meant -- he wasn't trying to be precise. The CS Monitor, Jay, has conflated two figures: the actual amount, which is estimated at about 960 tons and what Havel said, which was a thousand. Havel is not even mentioned in the Libya and Terrorism quote. Why are we sourcing what he said to that? You cite Hansard, in which William Waldegrave says: "We are in discussion with the Czechoslovak authorities about past exports of Semtex, and have noted President Havel's statement that about 1,000 tonnes had been exported to Libya." (Hansard uses metric measurements, I believe, although I'm not certain.) The Globalvision thing is quoting the Washington Post. I am removing the Israeli source and Globalvision, because one is a tertiary source and the other is a general piece of propaganda that does not mention Havel that I can see. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 02:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||