User talk:Oldwindybear/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, Oldwindybear/archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Try our tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
Keep the Five Pillars of Wikipedia in mind, and remember to write from a neutral point of view.
Sign your posts on talk pages using the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~, or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!

-- Kirill Lokshin 23:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

sorry about putting that welcome on your user page. i've done that to a couple of people by accident now. was going to move here, but i see you were already welcomed before i added mine!

i think that your recent edit at bonnie and clyde is much improved, but i would still revert. don't want to edit war though. since there aren't many editors participating there (puzzing, considering the subject), i've entered an RfC to get outside opinions. thanks. SaltyPig 01:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have extensively researched the Bonnie and Clyde issues, both legally and historically. As a certified paralegal, who is finishing an advanced degree in law and ethics, I can assure you that the plain fact was that Bonnie was not wanted for any crime that would have gotten her the death penalty in the laws in effect at the time. (they lacked our accessory in the first degree, et al!) Historically, Hamer was a viscious and cold blooded murderer who deliberately ambushed a 23 year old girl who had never -- to the best of any historian's knowledge -- fired a shot at anyone. (though gang members described her as "one hell of a loader!") Since Bonnie was committing no crime at the time of the ambush, and was not wanted for any offense which would bring her the death penalty, there was no legal justification, or moral justification, for shooting her 160 times. I have a degree in history, and taught, and have asked 3 attorneys to research the legal issues, and a Phd level historian to check the historical context. All agree. There was simply no legal justification for the murder of Bonnie Parker. By the way, when you say Wikipedia is not interested in new research, that is fine, but that does not mean you can exclude existing. known, facts, that i, or anyone else, had merely to verify and then post. To do otherwise would be to insist that we allow fantasy to masquerade as history because we cannot cite the law in effect at the time - which is obviously absurd, and not the purpose of wikipedia. (We are not talking about Clyde, a different situtation!) OLDWINDYBEAR

Aetius

I can not agree with your thinking about Aetius after death situation. Even thinking of Gibbon is without importance and is not have any influence on that part of article ( I am creator of that part ). Strategic situation has been simple. Must important province of "West Roman empire" has been Africa. Even in AD 410 Alaric has see signification of that province and demanded from emperor Attalus which he has created ships for going with Visigoth in Africa. Attalus his puppet has refused to give ships even under death treath because barbarians in Africa is nightmare scenario. Majorian after Aetius death has seen that but he has been defeated. Even "East Roman empire" has started Africa invasion in time of emperor Leo but they have been defeated. 4 emperors ( last is Anthemius )in V century has seen that but not Aetius ??? Even in worst scenario without Gaul, Britannia and Hispania "empire" has good opportunity to survive in Italia, Balcans and Africa with East Roman soldiers which are protecting force. They have make minimal 5 military intervention for protection of "West Roman Empire". They have greatest European army of V century and can never be forgotten in Europe strategic situation. I will what you have added and my comment ( this ) transfer in discussion part of Aetius. rjecina

Gibbon is of course my primary source, but by no means my only one. Norwich, considered the finest scholar on the Eastern Roman Empire today, and a historian of major import on the West, does not find Aetius to be the villain that you find him to be. I am not deinerating your conclusions, but I honestly disagree with them, and can cite sources that agree. The West certainly suffered a horrific loss with the African provinces, but the decline and fall of the West was not the result of anything Aetius did. First, as Norwich points out, the Western economy was solely agarian, while the East was based on a combination of trade, industry, and agarian factors. Secondly, whether it was, as scientists now suspect, lead poisoning, the citizens of Rome had ceased long before Aetius came on the scene to fight their own wars, or do much of anything other than be a huge drain on the treasury. While the theme system in the East provided men and treasure for centuries after the west had fallen, the West never developed anything remotely close. In short, no one man was responsible for the fall of the west, it is historically inaccurate and simplistic to do so, and in the case of Aetius, to overlook his heroic defense of Western Civilization against Attila the Hun would be historically and morally wrong. OLDWINDYBEAR

Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles

Did you apply to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles? Your name was put on by an anonymous user; maybe you added it when you were not logged in? Take a look, and add it if you like. Greets, The Minister of War 11:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was added by an anonymous user but decided to stay on the project, I think I can contribute to it. OLDWINDYBEAR 12/28

Texas Ranger Division

I hope you don't think me unneighborly, but I wanted to take a minute to explain to you why I reverted your recent edit to Texas Ranger Division. Questions about the legality of killing Bonnie Parker may be out there, but we can't as editors take a position about anything. Assertions of fact or opinion must be properly attributed and sourced. For instance, you changed a line that said, essentially, that it was unclear whether there was legal authority to kill Parker to "There was no legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker." A statement of fact like this needs either a definitive source, or to be attributed to someone else as opinion, provided it's been published in a reliable source. Similarly, you inserted what amounts to editorial commentary, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (would you read this in Britannica?): "For bravely laying in ambush and murdering a 23 year old girl who had never shot at anyone, the United States Congress awarded him a special citation for trapping and killing the outlaws. ^[1] It is a particularly disgraceful episode in Ranger and Congressional history that a man would be honored for murdering a 23 year old girl who was not wanted for any crime permitting the use of lethal force, and who screamed in agony as she was shot repeatedly. Only recently have historians begun to seriously examine how vile Hamer's murder of Bonnie Parker was." These are all simply statements of your own opinion. Please take another look at Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability, all core policies for contributing here. Thank you and if I can help you formulate these ideas more properly for inclusion in the article let me know. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. (Sorry, Wikipedia sometimes has a pretty sharp learning curve.) When you leave comments on talk pages, don't insert a new comment in the middle of someone else's comment, or it looks like they're the ones who said it. Begin a new section for a new topic and then leave your comment. Make sure you sign your comments by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~) -- this will automatically fill out your name and make a time and date stamp. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't think me unneighborly to challange your revert as wrong in law and wrong in fact. Hi Kat, this is oldwindybear and let me explain the lack of legal authority to kill Bonnie Parker, and you can then decide whether your revert was right. I am a certified paralegal, with 2 degrees in history, one in paralegal studies, and another I am finishing in law and ethics. I went to the library of congress, and studied the laws of the states of Texas and Louisiana, and the United States Code, during the period in question, 1932-1934. There was no charge which Bonnie could have been charged with which would have allowed use of lethal force to effect her capture. Unlike today, they did not have accessory in the first or second degree, nor conspiracy to committ murder, as we do today. Further, I went to Louisiana, and had previously checked the extensive library at teh University of Houston, where i graduated from, and there were no warrants in effect in any jurisdiction for Bonnie Parker for Murder. Further, no historian has ever alleged she fired a shot at anyone. No one --no offense to you -- wants to accept what this means, and bell the cat. 1) If she had no charges pending which allowed the use of lethal force; 2) had committed no act which could have resulted in such charges; then 3) the killing of her was unlawful homicide under the laws of all three jurisdictions. Politics ruled the day then, and she was swept into history as just another victim of a society which has one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and another for poor kids from the Dallas Viaduct. My research is without flaw, and seriously, IN 62 YEARS NO ONE HAS ALLEGED OTHERWISE. Isn't it time for wikipedia to tell the truth? I ask you to allow me to put in the flat facts that exist, not the phony story the government pawned off to justify this girl's murder. Are we here for facts? If we are not, I will stop writing for the encyclopedia, because there is no point. No matter how much proof you bring, you chose to print the legend, not the facts. Please take the right step, and print the truth, I am outside DC, retired, email me at j1994r89@hotmail.com, or we can speak by phone -- my research is peerless, and no one challanges it! Are you afraid to speak the truth? Isn't it time someone spoke up for a girl who was visciously murdered? (no matter what a killer her boyfriend was, under the laws of the time, his crimes could not be shifted to her nor could she be charged for them!

Since you refuse to discuss the real facts, before a group fo us leave wikipedia forever, we appeal your unfair, historicaly incorrect, and propagnda correct dedcison to the board, and then go, oldwindybear ti is a terrible shame that you woudl bow to the texas political estahlisment than print the truth - rather than do that, it forces si tp withdraw our litle finanical supprrt and go find a site tha tis wiling tp print the undisputed truth, It is a shame, i think Dr. Blair, and myself, and 5 others who are comitted to the truth being told won't find it told on wikipedia, and that is a terrile sjakelxp

I've responded to your comments at Talk:Texas Ranger Division. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) -- and i respond to you here, at your talk page, where you reverted, and then i leave wikipedia, along with a group of vets who believe, as i do, that the truth should matter, and you don't care about the truth.[reply]

>(scribble)</ this is oldwindybear the trouble is that there is NO BOOK that says this -- what there is consists of the laws of the states involved, the US Code, and the legal record, including warrants. I understand your point, and to a certain extent, sympathize with it. But what you are saying is that because no author saw a profit in exposing the corruption active in Texas at the time (and as a texas resident, as I was, you know that existed!) that the law does not matter, the library of congress does not matter, nothing matters, because a fiction writer did not write it in a novel. That is NOT the way an encyclopedia is run! All I can do is resign in protest, retract the contribution I was going to give, and urge my fellow veterans on our websites, (Disabled American Veterans, Veterans of Foreign Wars) that wikidpedia is not interested in the truth, won't accept facts, but demands that someone write them in a book! Why not cite me? I wrote a paper for college called "The True Story of BONNIE and CLYDE, Murdered by the Government, May 23,1934" for the University of Maryland! Kate, you seem sincere -- don't you see the dicotomy in what you are saying? You admit that my research is probably valid (and you know reasonably it is, or someone in the last 72 years would have found a warrant for Bonnie, or cited a statue she violated somewhere that justified lethal force apprehension! Instead, you say, damn the facts, we publish the legend, That makes wikipedia a joke, i am sorry to say. i won't try to tell the truth anymore in wikipedia, because wikipedia is not interested in giving students or others seeking knowledge the truth, it is interested in being policitcally correct, and that is sad, I bow out, I am not interested at my age in political correctness, but the facts, Ma'am. just the facts...oldwindybear

As we both live in DC I am sorry you felt it not important enough to talk to me about this. My leaving wikipedia just means one more good historian is not going to be contributing. But the sad fact is, you don't really care about good history, you care about form and format, not facts. I am posting on all veteran's websites today urging them to boycott wikipedia because the project is NOT interested in the truth, unless the truth is policically correc...oldwindybear1/5 (I frankly have better things to do than watch my factually correct postings edited out because they do not meet the political correctness standard here! History does not matter here, unless some author wrote about it at some point. That is INSANE. Law should be determined by the statues in effect at the time, not what some layman writes might be so! Records on active warrants mean more than a book saying there were none! Your standards are not professional, and not geared to tell the truth...sad, because this is a GREAT porject I had hoped to contribute to the remainder of my life. But I won't endorse a lie.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia's policies are not bendable. Good luck to you. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry for you, because as a journalist -- and I wrote for the school newspaper, and the local paper in Deer Park for years -- TRUTH is the jouranlist's grail, and you have forsaken that. It is a shame. You sacrifice principle for avoiding controversy. I find that sad. {{oldwindybear]]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it has its own policies that are rather different than a newspaper, and at any rate insulting me doesn't help anything. Again, I'm sorry you feel this way. Good luck. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to insult you; You seem nice, though I see you as a bureaucrat who is acting within a framework that is NOT THAT of an encylopedia! Sorry, but review the standards for Collier's, or other encyclopedias. Their ultimate goal is the presentation of the facts as they are best known. This is NOT the goal of wikipedia. I don't mean this against you personally -- quite the opposite, you seem quite pleasant. I believe the entire structure is geared not towards producing a fact based encyclopedia "encyclopedia as defined by dictionary:Dictionary en·cy·clo·pe·di·a (ĕn-sī'klə-pē'dē-ə)A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically" With all respect, wikipedia does not come close to that, editing facts you know are ture out because instead of relying on statatory law, and newspaper records, you say it has to written in a non-existent book?" You cannot be serious, this is merely a power play based on politocal correctness. This is the time and place to change "rules" which have no basis on running an encyclopedia, prevent a "comprehensive reference work" and exist only to serve political purposes. oldwindybear

Thanks for that, I appreciate your comments. I really do sympathize with your position, I am sure it's frustrating to have information you feel is valid and necessary and feel stymied and probably sort of insulted by the rules. But, these are definitive, unbending policies, there for a good reason and endorsed by a large number of very experienced users. I can assure you that there are no political factors at work with Wikipedia's policies. While I can appreciate that you are chafing under these policies, as with any other entity with a regulatory framework, if you want to contribute you're expected to abide by the rules.

Veering off into the philosophical for a minute, maybe I can help you understand why Wikipedia's policies on No original research and Verifiability are so important here. First and foremost, it's important I think to understand that while Wikipedia strives to be the same quality as, say, Collier's or Britannica, it has no dedicated professional staff. People can trust Collier's assertions because they know that it has a dedicated professional staff that can do research and fact-checking; an appeal to Collier's authority is based on this knowledge and its history in publishing encyclopedias. Wikipedia has no such staff, and no such innate authority. Therefore, information included in Wikipedia's articles must be independently verifiable by anyone. Its assertions must be unassailable and must be able to be proven to anyone curious about its source, else it risks its credibility as a reference work. This is why there can be no original research (i.e. nothing that hasn't been published elsewhere) -- because even if unpublished information added to an article is true, in the absence of any way for readers to verify the truth of that information, we are essentially asking our readers to "trust me on it." For Collier's, this is fine, because readers know they have a professional staff with established standards. For Wikipedia, this isn't fine. Why? Because Wikipedia information must be verifiable in a way that would satisfy the Wikipedia readership or other editors. Original research, or research that has been unpublished elsewhere, is inherently only verifiable by the person who inserts it. The problem is that the readers don't know who you are. You can't include your telephone number so that every reader in the world can call you directly for confirmation. And even if they could, why should they believe you? Anyone may contribute an assertion of fact, and we can't ask readers to simply trust the edits of someone they know nothing about. Instead, we rely on the authority of already published sources. That is what makes Wikipedia work. Does this make sense? Thanks for listening. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]