Jump to content

User talk:Ed Poor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 23 November 2004 (→‎Reminding and challenging: Can I get away with this, or will I be request-for-comment'ed into exile?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fun with anagrams

From the internet anagram server:

  • George Bush (senior) and his wife: ego bugs her
  • George W. Bush and Boston winning the World Series: Hub egos grew
  • George W. Bush and the Internet: hugs Gore web, or begs we hug

Surfer dude

Ya need to wake up and smell the fresh salt air
 and hear the seagulls calling and the surf rushing to the shore; 
Feel the sand beneath your toes and more;

Ever questing for that perfect balance between wave and board;

Swimming out eager for a thrill and riding happy homeward.
Current Wikistress

Pre-election stress

Come back soon, Ed. While obviously you've got hot-button issues like the rest of us, your normally even-tempered mediative (or should I say meditative?) personality is extremely valuable and encouraging to many of us. Good luck destressing....I imagine you'll feel a lot better on Wednesday morning, even if some other Americans wake up a little crestfallen (I admit, I don't share your political viewpoint, but I respect our mutual right to disagree amicably). And if you should wake up to bad news, well, come back here and edit away your blues. :-) See you soon, I hope. Jwrosenzweig 21:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good work

Hehe, October surprise - I just sat down to write it myself, when I saw you had beaten me to it by a few hours :) →Raul654 23:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Keep up the good work

Don't let the mailing list tempest get you down, you're doing great work on Wikipedia. Jayjg 16:06, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Support

Thanks for the support, you all. I'm not a saint, and I get discouraged just like anyone else. I've been having a lot of mood swings since mid-October, and I predict there's an even bumpier road ahead. -Ed

Eternal Wisdom

Larry Sanger's definition of neutrality

Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. --Larry Sanger

Another editing tip

"Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity." (Albert Einstein)


Current talk

Your comments on my talk page

Thanks for your comments. What is the name of your church?

And just incidentally, can I try this (original) thesis on you:

The conflict between the Isrealis and the Palestinians is purely about land. Religion is not the issue, it is a mere slogan and pure propaganda. The Israelis show none of the hospitality that is central to Judaism, and the Palestinians none of the care for innocent life that is central to Islam. The tragedy is that members of neither of these religions seem able to criticise those who are bringing the names of their respective Gods to shame, and so the propaganda stands largely unchallenged. The covert secularism of both sides, and its wide implicit acceptance by those both inside and outside these and other religions, is key evidence of the crisis of 20th century spirituality which continues into the present.

Tom Lehrer put it very well in his song on nuclear proliferation: Israel's getting tense, wants one in self defense, the Lord's our shepherd says the psalm, but just in case we better get a bomb.

Food for thought? Don't get too stressed about it. God's in control. Andrewa 19:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with your thesis. My church is Unification Church. Thanks for the anti-stress pep talk! (Anything's better than poisoning pigeons in the park) --Ed
And maybe we'll do in a squirrel or two... Andrewa 21:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Missing explosives in Iraq

Re your mailing list message, there appears to be a past version of the article written by you here. I don't know if it's the last version you wrote, but at least it might be something. Proteus (Talk) 16:13, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feedback

I would appreciate your feedback on my comments I left at Talk:Current_events. Thanks! - Dejitarob 19:43, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Winter Soldier

Thanks. I would like to mention that I belive that this user is a VVAW member, and had been battling SEWilco for quite some time on this. The POV nature of his version is without question, and no ammount of evidence can change his mind. Perhaps I can, and I am willing to go through a long and lengthy debate, but I feel he will only come to the table if forced to do so. TDC 20:52, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Well, now you can discuss it on the talk page. Maybe Cecropia will unfreeze the page in a day or two. Good luck, and stay cool! --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've been trying to get user TDC to the discussion page for a day and a half now. Please see his comments and his threats of never ending revert wars on the discussion pages. And no, I'm not a member of the VVAW. Sheesh. -Rob
Well, he's got no choice now. And don't think I'm siding with him, I flipped a coin before protecting the page. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 20:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, you have locked in a POV article. This is all I got from him in response to my requests for discussion:

TDC - can you please explain why you have removed the formatting of sponsored events from the article? -Rob

You never explained your sweeping changes originally. The last stable version was by SEWilco [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War&oldid=6080456), and your following edits were never explained. Do so now, or this edit war will never end. That I can promise you. TDC 19:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Please try to maintain a productive attitude here. Your threats and ultimatums are unwarranted. The version you cite by SEWilco is very old by several edits. What changes, besides formatting, do you take issue with? -Rob

Gee, I dont know, everything. TDC 20:02, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vietnam_Veterans_Against_the_War"

Exactly how is a person supposed to deal with an attitude like that? -Rob

Long term, or short term? I've given him some rope, and if he hangs himself with it, we'll see about that on Monday. Meantime, if you two can work it out, Cecropia or any of the other dozens of admins can unlock the page. Think "cool", and have a nice weekend! :-) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 21:04, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, Uncle... I'd gladly take that advice, if it weren't for one particular problem: The 2 articles in question are being referenced frequently over the next 4 days due to their relevance to political campaigns this year. Letting the POV mess stand for the next 3 of those 4 days while TDC hangs himself doesn't seem to be an acceptable solution. I hope you can understand my position on this. -Rob

Election

Ed, is it your understanding that "October surprise" means something that has been media-managed and deliberately sprung by partisan journalists at the appropriate moment, or can an October surprise be any unexpected news event? Would the bin Laden tape count? Evercat 18:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it is indeed 'deliberately sprung', but not necessarily by journalists themselves. That is, the journalists don't have to be the ones behind the manipulation of the electorate. Influencing an election is a sport with many players.
Does the article give the impression that only the media are behind October surprises? If so, then the wording is a bit off and should be tweaked. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 16:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ed, request

Hi Ed, I would like to respectfully request that the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK be closed finally as many "48 Hour" deadlines have passed since its inception almost one month ago. I will also ask User:Cecropia. Thanks again for all your help. IZAK 02:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Update

Ed: Thanks for your interest, please see the update at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/IZAK#Seems basically resolved between Sam Spade and IZAK. On the basis of that alone the RfC should be closed by now (another reason is that the original "48Hours" deadline has expired many times over, during the past month.) Thanks again. IZAK 08:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Factoids looking for a home

Global warming theories

  • climate models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. [1]
  • the National Research Council of the National Academies said on Jan. 12, 2000 that "The Earth's surface temperature has risen about 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius – or 0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the last century... But data collected by satellites and balloon-borne instruments since 1979 indicate little if any warming of the low- to mid- troposphere – the atmospheric layer extending up to about 5 miles from the Earth's surface. Climate models generally predict that temperatures should increase in the upper air as well as at the surface if increased concentrations of greenhouse gases are causing the warming." [2]

Misleading hockey stick graph

  • This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called "Monte Carlo" analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape! [3]
    • Please don't create M&M. Ross McKitrick and McI already exist.
      • No worries, mate - me turned it into page o' links

Iraq War

  • The US invasion of Iraq and the swiftness of the American victory has taken the Arab and Muslim worlds by surprise, despite the well known superiority of Western arms. The effects of this upheaval have not been completely assimilated in the Middle East, and probably will not be totally evident until the success or failure of the Americans in their war aims becomes apparent. There are signs that it has produced both stirrings of democratization and a desire to appease the USA, and a counter-reaction of resentment and growing discontent. [4]
  • The US effort to gather support for an attack on Iraq faced opposition on the following grounds:
  • Arab countries and supporters who claimed that any action against Iraq is an action aimed at all Arabs, and serves Israeli interests.
  • Those who believed that the inspections should be renewed and continued.
  • Those who believed that the US should not act without UN backing. Many people of this opinion also opposed a UN resolution. [5]

Reverting 67.175.84.210

It was my pleasure. --David Iberri | Talk 19:19, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Boston meetups

Hello Ed, will you be in Beantown the weekend of the 20th? See Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston. It would be great to see you again. +sj+ 21:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ko

That would be great. Ko could really do with some more Korean-speaking admins. Angela (a non-Korean-speaking admin) 22:28, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, I'm an English-speaking admin who can (barely) touch-type in Korean, with my 850-word vocabulary! My only hope is in recruiting. --user:Ed Poor (pre-US rodeo) 22:32, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

AMA

Do you know what's up with the AMA? I was an election official with Jwrosenweig, and there was originally supposed to be an election every 6 months. My election results message is still on the main page, and I was wondering if the AMAs were still even truely around. I would have sent this to Alex, but he's apparently rather infrequent these days. Anyway, my vote tallying services are open for business if needed. -- user:zanimum

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

See these six categories up for "votes of deletion":

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Palestinian_terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Middle_East_terrorists and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Terrorist_organizations and Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Islamic_terrorist_organizations and this one too: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_terrorist_organizations

IZAK 10:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where to make the following suggestion, but: Let's just have a terrorism category. That's enough. The sub-categories smack of partisanship.
While I personally side with Israel and tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic I try hard NOT to imbue my edits with this perspective. My goal here is not to present an objective view of reality -- since the consensus required for this on political and historical matters is patently unobtainable. I'll settle for NPOV: an accurate, unbiased recounting of the major points of view. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 12:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Dubious page?

I'm considering putting Muslims for Israel up for VfD on grounds of unverifiability and non-notability. Any thoughts? - Mustafaa 19:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I really think VfD is the way to go here. Jayjg 19:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If any other sysop wants to restore it, they can. I think it's a fake. Did you visit the website? Did you Google for references? Did you note the orthodox Jewish spelling of Allah as "G-d"? It fails to meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion.
This is not a the world's blog, it's an encyclopedia. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 19:46, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." (that's policy)
I'll concede that someone has started a website called Muslims for Israel -- like the website Arabs for Israel - but that doesn't mean there's a real organization behind it. A guy in my church likes to hand out business cards saying "New Revolution Productions" - but there's no company behind it, except in his mind. Should I make a Wikipedia article about the company he dreams of founding? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 19:55, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

You might also be interested in Arabs for Israel, since you mention it above; I'm sceptical, though not as sceptical as the other one, since it at least mentions one person... - Mustafaa 02:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Nonie Darwish and its talk page. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:26, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding IZAK

Hi Ed, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK. Thank you. IZAK 10:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, IZAK, I've advised you repeatedly to avoid personal remarks on talk pages. When are you going to wise up? --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:59, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

As for the "port of call" - it was more wishful thinking than anything else to recommend yourself as a dedicated arbitrator. I'm still interested in someone who can rapidly intervene in non-stop reverting and bickering over those miserable IPC (Israeli-Palestinian conflict) pages. Sometimes I actually participate, but generally I avoid that very dark zone of Wikipedia... JFW | T@lk 17:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Krill factoids

How much krill have been lost? Was it 80% worldwide, or just 80% of one small area near Antarctica?

  • But the British Antarctic Survey has found a dramatic drop in krill populations in the waters off the Antarctic Peninsula, a region with half of all the Southern Ocean's krill stocks. The agency compared krill records gathered by nine countries since 1926. "We found in that sector, there was a large scale decline. It was about, very roughly, an 80 percent decrease in krill abundance in the last 30 years," said British Antarctic Survey marine biologist Angus Atkinson. He is the leader of the krill study that appears in the journal Nature. (emphasis added for Wikipedia talk) [6]
    • (William M. Connolley 20:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)) If you're interested in this I very strongly recommend you actually read the original Nature paper rather than any dubious PR-type summaries. And we're not an agency, we're a Survey.
  • If you'll e-mail a copy of the article, I'll take a stab at reading it. Barring that, I trust you to summarize it in layman's terms for us lesser minds here at Wikipedia. And thanks for the quick answer. Do you have my talk page on your watchlist, or what? ;-)
    • Sorry I don't have a copy. I do't see any obvious reason for it to get into wiki though. Yes this is on my watchlist - I think it happened automatically when I edited it...

Dore Gold

You wrote: I'm not sure why so many contributors want to censor Jato Sam & his "illegal acts of war... atrocities" criticism. Putting it in the article does NOT endorse the JATO view.
The Talk:Dore Gold page makes it quite clear why "so many" (4) want to remove an off-topic quote about Israel on a page about Dore Gold. The criticism is not related to Dore Gold but to Israel. The Dore Gold page is about Dore Gold -- it is not a soapbox for criticizing Israel. Should we include criticism of America by Osama bin Laden on the George W. Bush page? Please respond on my talk page or on Talk:Dore Gold. Thank you. --Viriditas 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Fumento, Fred Singer

I just took a look at some of your watchlists. The Michael Fumento and Fred Singer pages need some serious work, as they are currently biased and far from neutral. --Viriditas 02:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Despite my admiration for figures like Fumento and Singer, I will never be satisfied with any article which is biased -- for or against. (Your name reminds me of veritas, Latin for "truth" ;-) --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 12:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
("Viriditas" actually means "Green-ness" -- but you already knew that.) -- Derek Ross | Talk
(William M. Connolley 13:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've responded on t:FS. For Fumento, I've added a nice link to Tim Lambert's work. The Fumento article is clearly far from neutral: it doesn't really have any meaningful criticism of his junk :-)

Middle East factoids

Could this possibly be true?

Islam allows no rights whatever to born Muslims who leave the faith—formally, murtadd fitri—including the right to life. [7]

Wikipedia:cooperation

Aloha. This page looks interesting. Do you think it has potential? --Viriditas 06:53, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Singer

(William M. Connolley 22:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)) We had Singer give a talk today. Pretty much what you would expect. But: at the end, he was asked, how come you are associated with a web site (http://www.sepp.org) that is naked propaganda? His reply: its not a science web site. But (he was pressed) what about the lack of balance. Well, its not a science site, sez S.

Just thought you'd like to know.

That I'd like to know what? That he was attacked with leading question that used loaded words? And that he responded diplomatically instead of launching into a tirade or engaging you in acrimonious debate?
(William M. Connolley 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)) You seem to be assuming it was my question. It wasn't. "naked propaganda" is hardly a leading question: its a direct assult on the credibility of the site. The point I was trying to make was that Singer failed to say: thats unfair. Or, indeed, any defence of it at all.
Whover said "associated" was making as ass of himself. Singer isn't "associated with" the SEPP website: Singer CREATED and runs SEPP. Saying he's associated with it makes it sound like it's someone else's project and asking "why" he's involved insinuates that he should "disassociate himself" from "those people".
(William M. Connolley 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Noted.
And I'd like to hear a sound bite or read a transcript. I'm not sure what you mean by quoting Singer as saying his web site (the one someone said he's "associated with" but you and I know he CREATED and RUNS) is "not a science site". Are you trying to put words in his mouth to the effect that he "admits" his site is only propaganda?
(William M. Connolley 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I'm telling you driectly that he was given the opportunity to deny it, and made no attempt to.
I thought you had some commitment to the truth, but were only a bit batty. If you can't give a good account of this incident, I might have to revise my opinion of you. Don't make me stoop to that level -- I have a bad back ;-) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 13:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)) I've told you something you don't like, and you're trying to wriggle. Quite why you think (oh holier-than-thou-complainer-about-personal-insults) that calling me "only a bit batty" is a mystery to me.

VFD - alarmists

Dear Ed, whatever you think, you seem interested in the global warming debate. On VFD there is a vote whether "global warming alarmism" (and alarmists) should be deleted. --Lumidek 12:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should keep the alarmists around -- they write such amusing articles ;-) but the global warming alarmism article ought to be merged with global warming controversy. I rarely "vote" at vfd. It's usually a waste of everybody's time. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 13:19, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Beckman

Hi Ed! Peter Beckman - if written this way - does not sound terribly Czech. The Czech version of Peter is "Petr" and Beckman is not Czech at all. To summarize, I don't remember him... Have you met him in person? All the best, Lubos --Lumidek 15:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant Petr Beckman, and he *is* from Czechoslavakia. He first came to my attention with his contention that every nuclear power plant which goes offline and is replaced by a coal-burning power plant, kills dozens (hundreds?) of people annually due to air pollution. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:33, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Wonderful idea! I have joined. I will let some others know. Thank you. IZAK 03:32, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Palestine map

Given your interest in the boundaries of Palestine, you might be interested in a map I downloaded lately:

. - Mustafaa 00:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the region of Palestine seems to extend beyond the Jordan River to include quite a bit of territory to the east of it, if "Filistin" means "Palestine". Interesting, also, is the placement of the word "Jordan".
Honestly, I don't suppose the disputes over who gets what will ever be resolved by determining "who was there first". I think the problem goes back to the battles described in the Book of Joshua; and then even further to the incident in Genesis when Abraham's wife told him to kick out Ishmael and Ishmael's mother. I daresay the pain of being disinherited, er, lingers on and can even be magnified over the centuries.
Only a parental heart can heal this wound, but alas! Wikipedia has no article about that... --user:Ed Poor (talk) 14:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
"quite a bit of territory to the east of it": quite a small bit, relative to the size of Jordan (or even to the size of Israel), but yes, it extends in to Gilead. "Jordan", of course, was being used in a rather different sense than it's used today, but it makes sense; Galilean dialects of Arabic are rather more Levantine than Palestinian Arabic "proper" is. And as you say, determining "who was there first" in some ultra-long-term historical sense is utterly irrelevant; but of course, according to Islamic theology, neither son was disinherited. - Mustafaa 15:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikinews demo up and running

Hi!

I'm writing to let you know that the Wikimedia Board of Trustees has approved the first stage of the Wikinews project. There's now a fully operational English demo site at demo.wikinews.org. This will be used for experimenting with various review models and basic policies before the site is launched officially in about a week. demo.wikinews.org will become the English version later.

You voted for the Wikinews project, so I'm asking for your participation now. Everything is open, nothing is final. What Wikinews will and can be depends in large part on you. There already is a global Wikinews mailing list for discussing the project. If you are interested at all, please subscribe -- coordination is of key importance. There's also an IRC channel #wikinews on irc.freenode.net. Realtime discussion can help to polish up articles.

If you're looking for something to do, check out the articles in development and articles in review. Or start a new story in the Wikinews workspace, or ignore the proposed review system - it's up to you. I hope you'll join us soon in this exciting experiment.--Eloquence* 01:59, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I'm there, Eloquence. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 16:04, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Ockham

You added a redirect FROM Ockham's razor TO Occam's razor.

The article clearly states that the principle is named after william of Ockham. Therefore the principle is "Ockham's Razor", and other spellings are typographical errors.

No, they are not. They are alternate spellings. Many citations of the principle William expressed are spelled Occam's razor, and a minority are spelled Ockham's razor. This was settled over a year ago.


Demographics of terrorism

All terrorists are Islamic? What's that supposed to mean?

--user:Ed Poor wrote on Nov 5, 2004 (UTC): " While I personally side with Israel and tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic I try hard NOT to imbue my edits with this perspective."

Okay, you seem to be confused. Here is the definition of the word terrorist:

"One that engages in the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

That definition (from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000) does not require a person to practice Islam to be a terrorist. Many people who do not follow Islam are terrorists. Are you saying that Timothy McVeigh was not a terrorist? Is the United Liberation Front of Asom, the group responsible for the recent bombings in India, not a terrorist organization? That's like saying that all pedophiles are Catholic, or that all stockbrokers are Jewish. This idea you have that "all terrorists are Islamic" is chauvinistic, and it is perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret that statement as a direct attack against the religion of Islam. It is never a good idea to blame problems on a general group of people.

Please, see Islamophobia.

I do not see how a person who holds the belief that "all terrorists are Islamic" would be able to edit an article about Yassir Arafat or Ariel Sharon with an acceptable level of neutrality.

--NoPetrol 00:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest that openly bigoted Wikipedians like Ed "all terrorists are Islamic" Poor just need to be kept a close watch on. I defend him in the sense that I don't think he should stop editing articles about Israel/Palestine, just that people should be aware of his troubling views - Xed 01:01, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's three personal attacks in less than 30 minutes on two different pages, directed at two different users, Xed. --Viriditas 01:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personal attack? It's an accurate assessment of Ed Poor. Are you the other person I made a 'personal attack' on - because I exposed you as a liar? Aren't you the (person) who said that I "claimed (Vanunu) was a scientist to bolster his credibility" and then you denied an interview with him took place? It's difficult to take seriously comments from liars - Xed 01:18, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Calm down and stop making personal attacks. Asking you for evidence in the context of your news headline is in no way shape or form "denying" an interview exists. Apparently, you did the same thing to Uncle Ed, when you took his comments out of context as well. --Viriditas 10:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You calm down and tell me where I "claimed (Vanunu) was a scientist to bolster his credibility" - Xed 14:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You keep ignoring my "nuanced qualifiers". Why does Kerry get a pass, and not me?

By tend to agree (as I said before) I meant not that I agree that the generalization is true in all cases, but that there was a "tendency" or "trend" that goes that way. I already explained this a couple of times. What part of "tend" don't you understand?

'tend' does not wipe out 'all'. All the sophistry in the world will not make it so. - Xed 01:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a logical distinction between all X is Y and all Y is X. For example, "all pedophiles have child pornography in their car, in their house, and on their computer" is a generalization that police captains and FBI agents go by. (Of course by "all" they mean "nearly all" - that's the nuanced qualifier thing again, okay?) But cops and prosecutors and lawyers know that the reverse generalization cannot be inferred. That is, mere possession or viewing of pornography is not legal proof that a person has molested a child.

Now you compare Muslims to pedophiles - and you're an admin! - Xed 01:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps what's bothering you is that you feel "all terrorists are Islamic" implies that "all Islamic people are terrorists". Uncle Ed can help you out here. Let's go back to the original quotation which I paraphrased so poorly: "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims." There, that explains everything. Feeling better now? --Uncle Ed 13:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

No that's not the problem. It's the inaccuracy, idiocy, and bigotry of your original statement. There's no need to make up another statement so you can pretend we thought you meant that. How can you "tend to agree that all terrorists are islamic"? The terrorists of Colombia alone (FARC, NLN, AUC etc) make up over 30,000 people. The Tamil tigers have around 10,000 members. In contrast, 'fighters' in Al-quaeda videos are often hired for the day and told to bring their own weapons. In the UK, 664 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act since 9/11. Only 3 people have have been convicted of having any association with any Islamist terrorist groups, none of whom were actually involved in a terror plot. The majority of people convicted under the Terrorism Act since September the 11th have been members of Irish terrorist groups like the UVF or the Real IRA. How can you "tend to agree that all terrorists are islamic"? - Xed 01:53, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you should say, "...terrorists in the Middle East tend to be Islamic," or "...the people who are responsible for the violence in the Middle East are mostly Islamic" instead. Those are still wrong, in my opinion, (because it is clear that the Israeli army and the United States military initiate a great deal of the violence over there as well), but I think they make a little more sense. --NoPetrol 23:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I ran out of gas on this one. But I agree with NP's first suggestion. And I'm going to ask my press secretary to screen all my posts from now on, or I'll never get elected again.

Anyway, given the stridency and extremism of my views, isn't it amazing that so many Wikipedians consider me to be an expert on NPOV policy. If it could be measured, I would bet that I have the lowest ratio of (reverted edits) to (extreme positions held) of anyone at Wikipedia. And that's because I know well the difference between "I'm sure this is true" and "This statement is unbiased."

Under which heading does "i tend to agree all terrorists are islamic" go under? - Xed 18:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not planning any major revisions of my opinions, but I'm always open to new and better ways to express differences of opinion and disputes over the facts in Wikipedia articles. (Did you know I won an award for "least troll-like user" earlier this year? ;-) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Modest too. Another admin pats himself on the back. It is indeed amazing that anyone regards you to be an expert on NPOV policy. A miracle. Perhaps you're just naturally gifted - Xed 18:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see no need to modest about my natural gifts. Now do you want to keep me on as Mediator with you and Jay, or not? I want to settle this thing before Thanksgiving, or know the reason why not. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:36, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how a person with such strange opinions could be qualified as a mediator for anything. You seem better qualified for asking me if I want fries with that. - Xed 18:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LOL, actually I worked at both McDonald's and Burger King. Do you want the meal or just the sandwich? ;-)
No, I want you withdraw your statement and apologise, or back it up with figures. - Xed 19:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was wrong to say that "all terrorists are Islamic". I hereby officially withdraw that statement. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:07, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
It's not "overgeneralizing" (see your edit summary) to say all colors tend to be yellow. It's simply wrong. It's taken you nearly 2 weeks to apologise. I think that shows the sincerity of your apology. In leaving "I tend to believe that" out of your apology and saying "i was wrong to say", you've given yourself a get-out. Only last week you stated that Islamic terrorists make up around 90% of the total number of terrorists, and others are " exceptions to the rule". Either you pulled that figure out of a hat due to ignorance/bigotry, or you have the sources to back that up. - Xed 20:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Okay, he's said he withdraws his statement. Perhaps we should drop it now. Why don't you edit that post, mister Poor, so that people don't get angry anymore. It seems like someone has italicized the words "all terrorists are Islamic", anyway. (By the way, I bet I can guess who did that in two tries.) --NoPetrol 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All terrorists are Islamic

Please provide figures for this assertion of yours. - Xed 15:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's not my assertion. I merely "tend to agree" with it. By which I meant that -- in the context of the Middle East -- nearly all terrorists are Muslims. Give it a rest, okay?
You made the statement, so you back it up. Please provide figures for your assertion that "all terrorists tend to be Islamic". I see your new 'nuance' is to imply you said "in the context of the Middle East" originally. No doubt you will soon be saying "I only meant all terrorists from Muslim countries called Muhammed are Islamic".
What I object to is the inaccuracy, idiocy, and bigotry of your original statement. How can you "tend to agree that all terrorists are islamic"? The terrorists of Colombia alone (FARC, NLN, AUC etc) make up over 30,000 people. The Tamil tigers have around 10,000 members. In contrast, 'fighters' in Al-quaeda videos are often hired for the day and told to bring their own weapons. In the UK, 664 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act since 9/11. Only 3 people have have been convicted of having any association with any Islamist terrorist groups, none of whom were actually involved in a terror plot. The majority of people convicted under the Terrorism Act since September the 11th have been members of Irish terrorist groups like the UVF or the Real IRA.
So how can you "tend to agree that all terrorists are islamic"?
- Xed 18:15, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether I do or don't, I can write an unbiased article about it, and you're going to help. See demographics of terrorism. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:55, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oft-expressed? Unbiased? The article is irrelevant, it's your original statement which is at issue. - Xed 19:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it's going to be deleted anyway, in an action initiated by User:Lance6Wins, a user who has been banned from editing certain subjects due to his extreme pro-Israel position - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lance6wins#Remedies. Maybe he shares your strange assertions. - Xed 02:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just delete the damn statement so we can forget about this. --NoPetrol 20:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tried to X it out, but it unXpectedly was restored. It wouldn't stay Xed out. Should I try again now? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:02, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Look, Xed, it was a fact that he messed up. He mistakenly beleived that all terrorists are Islamic. He now realizes that that statement is false. Let him delete it. --NoPetrol 21:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can delete it from my own talk page, but I'd also like to delete from the other article talk pages where Xed copied it.

And by the way, the italics were in the original.

And I'm also sorry for saying that I tend to agree with the idea that all terrorists are Islamic; I hereby withdraw that statement as well.

For the record, I do not believe any of the following:

  • that all terrorists are Islamic
  • that all terrorists are Muslim
  • that 90% of terrorists are Muslim or Islamic

However, I still do believe that attacks on Israel and the US have been predominately funded, planned and carried out by countries in the Islamic cultural sphere and/or adherents of Islam (the religion).

For what it's worth, however, I am open to new information which will cause me to revise my opinions. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 22:01, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Why does it take two weeks to withdraw such an obviously untrue statement? What kind of prejudices must one have to believe something so obviously false in the first place? What kind of parochial mentality confuses terrorism against 2 countries (1% of the worlds countries) with the whole world? - Xed 23:26, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lance6Wins

Lance6Wins is banned from editing Isr-Pal articles? He's been doing plenty... - Mustafaa 15:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can revert any such edit of his. An admin can give him a "slap on the wrist" (i.e., block him for a short period of time). --user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently it took him a while to hear about the "decision". Nothing "bad" since Nov. 15th though. Are we over-reacting a bit?

  • "P.S. Lance6Wins did add incidents and references for those incidents to Violence against Israelis (various pages) today, before seeing this decision." [8]


These are my edits since I saw the decision:

  1. 19:51, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Current events (factual error not a Commander, a rank that does not exist in the army. an officer.)
  2. 15:47, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Talk:Current events (Running human evolution theory)
  3. 14:48, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Zachary Baumel (External links) (top)
  4. 14:40, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) International Solidarity Movement (add citation to an example of this. correct English "access ... is controlled")
  5. 14:32, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Demographics of terrorism
  6. 14:32, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
  7. 14:11, 18 Nov 2004 (hist) Demographics of terrorism
  8. 22:00, 17 Nov 2004 (hist) Current events (November 17 2004)
  9. 20:01, 17 Nov 2004 (hist) Iran's nuclear program (Timeline)
  10. 20:00, 17 Nov 2004 (hist) Current events (November 17 2004)
  11. 19:43, 15 Nov 2004 (hist) User:Lance6Wins (top)
  12. 19:38, 15 Nov 2004 (hist) User:Lance6Wins (Final decision)
  13. 19:10, 15 Nov 2004 (hist) William Safire
  14. 19:09, 15 Nov 2004 (hist) William Safire

Which ones are we talking about here?

Current Events: Factual error...please see the commander link that i replaced with officer...commander, indeed, a naval rank for an army officer. Please note that no one has been fit to revert the factual correction....at this time.

Zachary Baumel: missing Israeli soldier believed captured by Syria. Nor has this been changed.

International Solidarity Movement: International organization not a party to the conflict, lest they wish to declare themselves combantants, in which case they can be shot on sight per Geneva. Is this an issue? Mirv did revert this. You may want to look at the diff. You might prefer the edits that I made. I believe the reference is useful and the English is better, for what that is worth.

Help me understand which one(s) are a problem. This is new ground for me. Lance6Wins 20:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One could certainly argue the ISM one, but fair enough if he hadn't see the decision yet. - Mustafaa 20:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One could certainly argue that the ISM, being as it is in Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is within the terms of the injunction—which is why I reverted it. —No-One Jones (m) 20:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One could argue that. Are you saying that the ISM is a party to the conflict? Lance6Wins 22:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bahsten Sundaze

I know you're busy all weekend, but just wanted to note that we're planning to meet tomorrow evening in Cambridge. Let's plan another meeting for next month, when you'll be free. Cheers, +sj+ 17:59, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about Dec 5 (Sunday eve), or sometime the following week (Thursday night)? +sj+

It will take me 5 hours to get to Boston, and I'd like to bring Danny, too. I'm reluctant to make a 10 or 11 hour roundtrip just for an evening of drinks -- although I'm sure it will be a very convivial evening.

I'm more interested in a conference, with breaks. Anything shorter than, say noon to 7 P.M., seems like a missed opportunity. We have much more to do than merely meet each other. Please help me create an agenda. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 21:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy

Please see: Talk:Two-state_solution Lance6Wins 22:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right to comment to comment on this page. Ed Poor is a expert in factual inaccuracy. He's also a self-styled expert in NPOV - Xed 22:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are you going to follow me around and make personal remarks forever? ----user:Ed Poor (talk) 14:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I see you've created a couple of articles to support your contention that "all terrorists are islamic" - Xed 14:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[chuckle] Actually it's two versions of one article. Demographics of terrorism will be replaced by Terrorist profile. And, once again, it's not MY contention, but a generalization which I had once upon a time "tended" to agree with. If less than 50% of terrorists are Muslim, then not only is all terrorists are Islamic false, but so is most terrorist are Islamic. I'm only concerned with WHAT is right, not WHO is right. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 14:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
After taking two weeks to withdraw an obviously untrue statement, and then immediately starting two articles to perpetuate the lie, it seems you are not particularly concerned with either WHAT or WHO is right. - Xed 15:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am curious about why you are spending more time "proving me wrong" on talk pages than working on the articles in question. Do you like chatting more than working, or what? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Opposing bigots IS work. Hard work too sometimes. Also, it's better to pull the weeds out with the root rather than wait for the garden to be filled with them. Dealing with a Wikipedia filled with articles based on the idea that "all terrorist are islamic" would be harder than dealing with the source - Xed 15:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I'm sort of a project for you. But really Wikipedia is not a place to oppose bigots. It's not even a place to oppose bigotry. People who espouse holocaust denial aren't going to change their mind, no matter what words of wisdom we add to articles or spout on talk pages.

I'm not really interested in teaching via Wikipedia. I only want the articles to be accurate; or failing that, at least unbiased. If I've added anything untrue to an article, I hope you will delete it - thus restoring the article to its intended ideal of accuracy. And if I unbalance an article by providing too much POV of one side, I hope you will re-balance it by providing an additional, contrasting POV. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 15:43, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Reminding and challenging

I consider those descriptions to be reminding Alberuni to follow the 3 revert rule, and expressing my frustration at his consistent contempt for that and other Wikpedia rules. That said, I'll take your comments seriously. Jayjg 16:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Better to post a comment on his talk page, like, "Please follow the 3 revert rule." (I can joke around with Dr. William Connoley because we're friends -- teasing is okay amoung friends. YOU, on the other hand, CANNOT joke around with Alberuni, you humorless fart! ;-) --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Ed, if you're serious about this issue, why don't you take a look at his latest revert on Lynching. I provided a paragraph fully linked to articles by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, BBC, and even a pro-Palestinian site, which he promptly reverted (for the 4th or 5th time) as "Zio POV". Jayjg 16:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&oldid=7787914"