|This is UseTheCommandLine's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to UseTheCommandLine.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
Cochrane Collaboration Wikipedian in Residence position open
|WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013!
You're invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 1–4pm on Sunday, October 13, 2013 at the Portland Art Museum's Crumpacker Family Library, located on the second floor of the Museum's Mark Building (formerly the Masonic Temple). The edit-athon will focus on the local arts community (but you can work on other topics as well!). It will also kick off the Oregon Arts Project, an on-wiki initiative to improve coverage of the arts in Oregon. Details and signup here!
Request for comment on La Luz del Mundo
I have created a To-Do list to improve the article on La Luz del Mundo. I have incorporated your suggestion to the list and would like to get your input on the list. The list can be found here: Talk:La_Luz_del_Mundo#FAC_To-do_list. Thanks. Ajax F¡oretalk 23:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Follow up from August 2013
This is a follow up to the dispute in August 2013 regarding the FDR block quote. Since then I've become aware of things regarding the block quote and Wikipedia policies and guidance that I wasn't aware of or overlooked earlier that month. Hopefully, you weren't aware either.
First of all, the FDR block quote is Original Research. The No Original Research Policy lists speeches as an example of a primary source.
Second, the quote violates policy on Neutral Point of View. The policy says "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." The subject on the New Deal and "charges" of fascism is heated now, it was certainly heated back in the 1930s.
Regarding quotations and NPOV, Quotations guidance states "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." The block quote has a rhetorical question. NPOV also means that including FDR's quote means permitting quoting other POVs, such as Roosevelt's private statements.
The third core Wikipedia policy is Verifiability. The block quote fails verification. It reverses the sentence sequence and uses the ellipse to conceal two changes of subjects. On page 49 of Fireside chat book, Roosevelt denies charges that he was violating constitutional rights. He then talks about his economic programs. On page 51 Roosevelt changes topics again and says that his programs were practical, not radical. The Manual of Style says "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." It further states "Legitimate omissions include extraneous, irrelevant, or parenthetical words, and unintelligible speech (umm, and hmm). Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text." The block quote violates all of these rules.
The Quotation guidance states "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example () at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles." I overlooked this in August, but it should go without saying that a false statement should be refuted, or removed.
I am right about the New Deal violating constitutional rights. That is why I mentioned the Schechter decision. After I was blocked Rjensen dropped by my talk page and wrote in part "That is completely false and one reason he got reverted by other editors. The Supreme Court never mentioned the Bill of Rights..." Rjensen was wrong on both counts. The Schechter decision specifically mentioned the Tenth Amendment. (It's true that violating the Bill of Rights isn't necessarily fascist, but it is the Roosevelt block quote that created that test, not me.)
I pointed this out at Rjensen's talk page. Pass3456 went and said that "obviously" Roosevelt wasn't referring to the entire Bill of Rights. Again, the exact opposite is true. Roosevelt told listeners to "read each provision" of the Bill of Rights. Rjensen and Pass3456 dominate the consensus on the New Deal. I can cite other claims they made that are equally fictitious. Everyone makes mistakes, but theirs are always in the same direction.
At the New Deal talk page there is a whole series of excuses for the block quote. The current one is that the Tenth Amendment doesn't protect individual rights, just the states'. The other is that the Supreme Court rejected the Schechter decision. When I have the time to resume the New Deal controversy I will easily disprove these claims, citing at least 10 experts on the constitution whose credentials can't be exceeded.
Incidentally, the editors of the Fireside Chat book say on page 46 that the "charges" of fascism were really warnings of "regimentation" and "cautionary comparisons" to European totalitarian governments. It is not fringe theory for the New Deal article to elaborate on the critics' points and show that FDR privately acknowledged radical influences. The block quote violates all Wikipedia core policies and well-established facts. It satisfies the criteria of fringe theory.
This weekend I will probably be challenging the block quote again. I think you are obliged to either help remove it or let me deal with it.
I am sorry for the length, but I wanted to fully elaborate on the problems with the block quote.
P.S., there are other problems in the "charges" of fascism subarticle. Material is copied verbatim from Kiran Klaus Patel's book without quotation marks. A quotation from Patel's book is selectively edited to misrepresent findings by Patel and John Garraty. A quotation by Isaiah Berlin is from an editorial column, which is also original research.
Meetup in Vancouver, WA
|WIKI LOVES LIBRARIES 2013!
You are invited to attend the upcoming "Wiki Loves Libraries" edit-athon. The event will be held from 2:30–4:30pm on Sunday, November 17, 2013 at the Vancouver Community Library (901 C Street) in Vancouver, Washington. The edit-athon will focus on creating and expanding articles related to Vancouver and Clark County. Details and signup here!
In September you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)