User talk:Carolmooredc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif

Imbox style.png This user wants to see everything in its place.

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July

Wikinic 2013 washington d.c. 02.JPG

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!


James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: Anti-war requested move discussion

Carolmooredc note: Text and response moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war and then back here after User: removed it

Oppose Mainly because the biggest war mongers say that they are acting in the name of peace and I don't want to see any "humanitarian" wars etc. promoted as "wars for peace" here. I was tempted by the inclusion of (international and civil) conflict resolution studies, but since someone pointed out that academics might not want to be in the same category as pro-peace protesters, and thus might withdraw at some point. So it might as well stay "antiwar" to avoid Big Brothers coming in to enforce peace through militaristic police states, which is all the rage these days (and through history).

Thanks for your input. There's been a lot of confusion and misinterpretations based on my pithy proposal, so I take responsibility for the bulk of the confusion. I sometimes forget that the Wikipedia community tends to see things quite differently than other communities, and brief proposals always lead to unintentional ambiguity and multiple interpretations. I'm not going to address your interpretation of my proposal because I feel we can be more constructive by moving to another proposal altogether. It saves a lot of debate and arguing and allows us to move forward on other pressing issues without spending an excessive amount of time on discussing misinterpretations. I'm sure you know what I mean; you've probably encountered similar situations where you say one thing, and members of the community think you are saying something completely different. With that said, I would like to clear up a few things to help smooth out our relationship moving towards the future. After all, I'm going to need your help and participation to move this project cleanup forward. So to clear up a few things:

  1. I don't see what "war mongers acting in the name of peace" has to do with peace studies, nor can I envision how this would have anything to do with including such wars within the project scope. Therefore, I'm not sure why you brought it up or how it is relevant. Perhaps you can correct me or give me some added insight so I can see your point. I do understand what you are trying to say (and I don't disagree with it), but I fail to see the relevance to the topic at hand. This is why I've concluded that you (and obviously others) are misreading my proposal. And just so you know, I think it is safe to say that the current proposal is dead in the water. I acknowledge that.
  2. I think the point about academics was another misinterpretation of this proposal. Peace studies encompasses such people along with activists and protesters.
  3. Again, I don't see what "Big Brother enforcing peace through militaristic police states" has to do with this proposal. I suppose the question to ask then is, do you believe that the peace studies curriculum has been infiltrated by the government or watered down in some way?
  4. Finally, I'm curious about your own personal approach. On the membership page, you said your primary interest is in the I/P conflict, and the current project watchlist shows that those articles have the most activity. However, I question whether those articles fall under the scope of "antiwar", when they are actually centered around peace activism and peace movements. As a result, it would seem your own personal preferences (and the watchlist activity) would support my proposal to rename this project. Again, I'm not all that concerned about the proposal, but it is a tad ironic that you seem to support it in action but oppose it in words.
  5. There is a stigma associated with the term "antiwar", as the media actively uses it in combination with violent rhetoric, and as you know, certain sectors of the US government have been spying on and infiltrating antiwar groups and inciting violence to support this false media narrative. However, you never see the media associating violent acts with groups who work on nonviolence or peace programs. Peace activists have also noted how the term "antiwar" can be abused, and tends to focus on aggressive rhetoric and action rather than on the philosophy and practice of peace that support it. Obviously, the media and the government takes advantage of this weakness and exploits it. This is why you will rarely, if ever, see a depiction of any so-called "antiwar" group as peaceful in the mainstream media. This is not a mistake nor a coincidence. In other words, it is the government and the media itself that has insisted on the "antiwar" label, not the movement nor the activists. You should really think about that for a minute.
  6. Finally, the current scope of the project utterly fails to encapsulate and describe the topic in any comprehensive manner. Most relevant articles are not tagged by the project, and many that are appear to be off-topic. When you study anti-war sources, you find the same topics covered under peace and nonviolence studies. There is also an overlap with the study of weapons proliferation and anti-militarism that has yet to be addressed. And the scope of the project is flawed. I take issue with a project scope of "articles related to Anti-war movements and ideologies" as much as I took (and still take) issue with the scope of WikiProject Conservatism. The fact is, there is no academic or educational interest in "ideologies". That ceased to be interesting in the last four decades of the 20th century. As anyone still alive and kicking knows, ideologies are officially passé in the 21st century. What is of interest here is a data driven approach to understanding the study of peace, based on its historical antecedents, significant events and people, and most importantly, its relationship to society and culture through its movements and milestones. To view all of this as simply a single idea called "anti-war" and to narrowly track this idea independently of its time and place is the wrong approach. The right approach is to focus on the practice of peace and its adherents, and the important contributions that have resulted from the opposition to war. The ideas are embedded in the actions of the individuals and their movements, and in their relationship to the wider world, and that's where the project scope resides.

That's it for now. Viriditas (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Carolmooredc response put on an removed from Wikiproject talk page:
  1. United States Institute of Peace supported War on Iraq. All sorts of neocons talk about war for peace and some of them edit here. It's a reality in the world and on Wikipedia.
  2. Someone mentioned academics above. I've had trouble with editors who are - or say they are - "academics" throwing their weight around here or wanting to make it clear they are not mere activists or Wiki editors. So just a concern based on Wikipedia experience.
  3. Israel is NOT making war on Gaza right now?? See Operation_Protective_Edge. That's a "peace action" according to lots of partisan editors, paid and unpaid. They'd love to have it part of a "peace" wikiproject.
  4. Now a days - except for a few black bloc machos - the only violent people at peace demonstrations are govt provacateurs. Mainstream media stereotypes and stigmas should not dictate Wikipedians' actions.
  5. Re "current scope of the project". Yes, it is narrow but needs to be to avoid phony "peace" efforts. Why not just start Wikiproject Nonviolent conflict resolution? It includes REAL peace efforts and isn't too long and confusing a name. I might join it myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
This is just a note to let you know that I removed the comments from the project page that you added. I specifically said I posted them on your talk page so as not to interfere with the discussion on the project page, yet you ignored me and moved my comments there anyway. To me, this illustrates my initial concern about misinterpretation; it seems that you did read what I wrote and saw something different in it that was intended. Your reply to my concerns indicates more of the same. I'm getting the sense that you aren't the slightest bit interested in what I have to say, which is fine, but don't go changing venues when I start out by explaining why I chose this venue. Of course, you are welcome to copy the discussion to my talk page, but I get the sense you have no desire to read what I wrote in the first place, and you'll just respond with further off-topic remarks. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I just went back to read your reply for a second time and I'm amazed. What does the United States Institute of Peace have to do with the subject of peace studies? Well, absolutely nothing. It sounds like you misread and misunderstood something again. Which editors claimed to be academics and were throwing their weight around? None, of course. You confused the notion of Wikipedia taking an academic approach based on its use of academic sources about the subject with academics themselves. This discussion never occured. Operation Protective Edge has nothing to do with anything that has been said yet you've referred to it twice. You missed the point about the strong relationship between the media and the government and repeated a point I already made about infiltration. It's like you never read what I wrote. Finally, you close with another tangent about fake peace efforts while telling me to create a separate project that duplicates the current scope. Again, it's like you completely ignored what I said and launched into your own agenda. Carol, I can't have a discussion with anyone who responds like this, so I won't be communicating with you again here on this page. However, I want to thank you for giving me real insight into the reasons the antiwar project has become totally defunct and irrelevant. Lastly, I'm not the one that needs to start a new project. As far as I can see, you're the one who needs to stop impeding its progress and development. It's hard to imagine that you mistakenly changed the subject and avoided the subject of discussion twice in a row. As far as I can see, you have no real interest in the antiwar topic, you're just using it to continue the I/P conflict in another project, even though it is not under its scope. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Many editors experience editors going to their talk pages to dispute their points instead of article/project talk pages to be problematic and thus move discussions to talk pages. I experience quite negatively. Please do not do it again here. Thanks. 23:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Did you even read the original comment (now deleted)? I specifically explained that I was not interested in disputing your points on the talk page as I did not want to detract from the community discussion, and I forfeited the dispute, telling you that my proposal was dead in the water. Why then, would you move my request for clarification, made in the spirit of trying to figure out how to work with you, to the talk page after I told you that? Seriously? Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
And now you did it again. Carol, this is just a note that I will not attempt to work with you again in the future and I will not solicit your input or your opinion anymore. It is clear to me that Wikipedia is secondary to your primary agenda, and I'm not here to discuss or argue about your personal beliefs or motivations. Thanks, but no thanks. I'm going to get back to improving articles now. You keep doing whatever it is you do here. Since what you do has nothing to do with improving Wikipedia, I'm sure we won't cross paths again. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Double edit conflict. Now I'll have to replace your original and my reply and figure out what you are saying about dead in the water. So ditto on "huh". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No, please just delete it in its entirety. I'm sure you are a lovely person, but it's impossible to communicate with you. I can't believe you once again repeated the academic thing on the talk page after I clarified it. You've confused the RS recommendations for using the highest quality sources (such as scholarly sources) with a straw man argument you created about how we must rely on academic peace studies arguments made by neocons. Seriously, Carol? It's hard to tell if you are doing this on purpose or just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. Let's just put an end to this comedy of errors. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps you aren't communicating as clearly as you believe you are. In any case, I archive frequently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Carol, communication has implicit assumptions. For example, I assumed you were aware of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which forms part of my proposal and includes your objection. You seem to be intent on reinventing the wheel. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)