Jump to content

Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gareth Owen (talk | contribs) at 14:39, 7 November 2002 (another voice against Lir's twaddle (the OED)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ancient Imperial Names

Hear Hear! More awful doings by that evil Lir.

Did you know that Lir claims that Canadians come from Canada? Lir claims that Americans are from America! Lir even claims that Iowans are from Iowa!!

BUT GET THIS YO

Lir further argues that Minoans are from Minoa just as Hattites and Hittites are from Hatti and Hitti!!!! WHAT UTTER NONSENSE IS THAT???

WHAT ILLOGICAL INSANITY COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE SOMEBODY TO SAY THINGS LIKE...

Why shouldn't we follow a naming procedure in the ancient period that if applied to the modern period would result in our referring to the United States of America as the United States of Americans and re-naming Germany to Germans and referring to the People's Republic of China as the People's Republic of the Chinese Civilization!

Afterall, we all know that Minoans do not really come from Minoa-they come from the Minoan homeland of...well, you know, where Minoans were from over...there...with the Minoan stuff...and that...just cuz Egyptians come from Egypt doesn't mean Minoans come from Minoa...and I mean...it's not like there is any sensible reason that Minoans would come from anywhere but the Minoan place.

WHUH? Oh dear, it looks like Lir is up to more crazy re-naming which is even more atrocious than the renaming of classic German cities to some kind of German name...

Lir 22:25 Nov 6, 2002 (UTC)

My mental picture of you is a 14-year-old girl. And the Minoan Civilization derives its name from King Minos. Get a life, girl.

Yes, I am 14! That is the perfect age! Of course the Minoan civilization derives from King Minos. If I were to create a country I might very well call it Liria. King Minos' land is called Minoa just like Alexandros' city was called Alexandria!

I am now adding books to Minoa:Talk which discuss how Minoa is not a figment of my imagination.

I'm a bit "leery" of what Lir is going to do next. Try to bear in mind that this is an encyclopedia...

Yes, that is why I am striving to seek correct naming of articles. I do not see why that is so offensive to some.--Lir

The "correct" naming of articles is decided by the community not by you. We have already decided, long ago, that we name things according to widest English usage. --mav

That is very nice mav. However, we have not determined what is the widest English usage of many terms. Hitti and Minoa are in common use as the homelands of the Hittites and Minoans.

Neither are used commonly enough to make the Oxford English Dictionary who say Minoan Crete and Hatti/Khatti/Khita/Kheta respectively -- GWO

Hitti and Minoa are as standard as Phoenicia and Syria, which are the homelands of the Phoenicians and Syrians. I find it absurd that you not only fail to understand this, but that you fail to recognize the wide number of sources I have shown that reflect this obvious truth, and you fail to show even one source where an "expert" says, "Minoans do not come from Minoa. In fact, in historiological research we never ever say Minoa. We only refer to the Minoans, in much the same manner that we usually say, 'Americans are dumb' rather than 'The United States of America is dumb' in a few hundred years we will surely begin to deny that the United States of America ever existed, and that it is only acknowledgable as the Americans."

Lir 14:04 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

Afghanistan

  • 65.96.161.106 - changes to US anti-Taliban articles: perhaps not really "vandalism" per se, but not really correct either. Take a look, please. --Ed Poor
    • Looks like a genuine contributor to me, by no means a vandal, even though he badly stepped on your feet. I think he's right about merging "Operation Enduring Freedom" into "US Invasion of Afghanistan"; perhaps he could have been gentler. This alert should go to "edit wars". FvdP 17:53 Oct 29, 2002 (UTC)

Articles on Judaism

  • Ezra Wax is vandlaising Relationship between segments of Judaism -- 137.111.13.32 22:05 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
    • Ezra is not "vandalizing" -- he is making valid, permissible edits which you guys disagree with strongly.
    • Please indicate how it's "vandalism", or just post your complaints to the Wikipedia:annoying users page. The V.I.P. page is not for Edit Wars or Neutrality disputes. --Ed Poor 22:10 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC) (one of several syops)
      • He keeps on deleting the whole article, wiping it clean (see that page's history). If he doesn't agree with its content, he can try to improve it, but he shouldn't be deleting everything, or replacing it all with basically nothing. He should either make constructive changes or discuss the issue on Talk: --- 137.111.13.32 22:14 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)
32, please take the moral high ground by indicating what's wrong with Ezra's changes in the article's talk page. Simply reverting is an "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth policy" that will, as my rabbi once said, make as all blind and toothless. --Ed Poor

If anyone wants me to revert and protect a page, say so here. Please indicate the page and version, at least. Reasons for the request are optional, but might help your case. --Ed Poor 22:39 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, please revert Relationship between segments of Judaism to the version before the current one (i.e. revert to the non-Ezra one). Ample reasons are provided by me on Talk:Relationship between segments of Judaism, and by Slrubenstein on your User Talk: page. -- 137.111.13.32 22:42 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Following moved from Wikipedia talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

Clutch deleted this posting by RK to the Vandalism in Progress page:

- Wikipedia editors, please note that Ezra Wax is vandalizing Wikipedia. He is now totally out of control, writing pro- Ultra-Orthodo Jewish polemics and proselytization. Many of us have attempted to work with him, but he continues to override the Wikipedia project, and refuses all attempts to maintain any type of NPOV. He is now emarking on a vandalism by inserting a large number of deliberately non-NPOV entries based on his own person view of what Judaism should be. He needs to be banned, and immediately so. Danny, Slrunebstein and I have been trying to contain the damage, but he is writing factually false material, errors, lies and non-NPOV polemics faster than we can correct them. Please ban this vandal, immediately.

I understand that the Exra Wax case is not the typical example of vandalism, and cannot be handled in the same automatic way that we usually handle vandalism. Nevertheless, RK and Danny have raised some serious issues that require some more serious attention from sysops. I understand why some like Ed Poor and Clutch do not see this as vandalism -- but it really does go beyond "irritating users." I simply request a few sysops to look carefully at the history of Ezra Wax's articles, and RK and Danny's comments. I am convinced that some articles should simply be deleted, others should be blocked -- and Ezra Wax needs more of an explanation of what Wikipedia is about -- I have tried to no avail, but the need is real. I will post this same message on the Wikipedia Militia page (if it still exists) Slrubenstein

I've been giving this my full attention for the last hour. Tell me which pages to protect and they'll be "safe" overnight -- or until another sysop intervenes. If you don't say which version or I'm not sure I understand or agree with your reasoning, will you be happy if I just take a random version from a couple of days ago? --Ed Poor

I defer to Danny and RK on this, although I do think "Shabbos" should be deleted as there is an article on "the Sabbath." What is next? Should I write an article called kawfee explaining that this is what some new yawkas call coffee? Slrubenstein

Jehovah's Witnesses

  • This user: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clutch Keeps on vandalizing the entry on Jehovah's Witnesses. He keeps censoring the article, and forbids the rest of us from describing this religion. He appears to be a pro-JW proselytizer, who knows that Christians find his religion to be non-Christians. Therefore, despite the clear consensus of the entire Wikipedia community that has worked on this article, he single-handedly keeps censoring information on this group, to falsely make it appear to be a mainstream Christian denomination. None of us have been able to reason with him. Sometimes he censors words, othertimes whole paragraphs. His goal appears to be to remove NPOV to make Wikipedia safe for proselytizing.
What Clutch has done is no worse than what you did to predestination. Some of your changes there appear entirely without merit.
Clutch, like most contributors, responds to kindness and reason. If you disagree with his edits, please explain why in detail, on the talk page for that purpose.
Do not misuse the vandalism page, or you could be banned for vandalism. Keep it on talk. First and last warning. --Ed Poor 21:56 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

Ed, if misusing the vandalism page was grounds for banning people, many of our contributors would be gone. Try to apply kindness and reason to both sides of an edit war. ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 02:50 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Hmm, kindness and reason -- where have I heard that before? Sounds like something I might have said myself... --Ed Poor 15:21 Oct 25, 2002 (UTC)

Columbus

I do not see how this is vandalism. The man went by Cristóbal Colón and appears to have been born as Christofor Colon. One of these two names is obviously what should be used. Not some bastardized name. Brion seems to feel that we should Angloize all foreign names-that is a pretty stupid idea.

Actually, while your changes are not vandalism, Brion is correct here. In English, "Cristóbal Colón" is called "Christopher Columbus". This is not a basterdisation -- its the English language. In fact, even the proper noun "español" has been changed to "Spanish" in English. Nobody would argue that this is in any way "unethical". The article should be titled "Christopher Columbus" in the english version and perhaps "Cristóbal Colón" in the Spanish version only.
(Rational people are welcome to read and contribute to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (anglicization).) LDC has now banned Lir for a range of poor behavior. --Brion 04:55 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)
After a brief and rather civilized discussion on the mailing list, it was decided to un-block Lir. --Ed Poor 18:31 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Current_disputes_over_articles&oldid=410091"