User talk:Peter Karlsen/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello Peter Karlsen, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Endofskull (talk) 03:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page! Kartano (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you self-revert

Please consider self-reverting this edit, since the discussions on the Talk page prove[1] that your edit summary is incorrect. You are now editwarring this change without consensus, and without addressing discussion or suggestions in Talk. That violates Wikipedia policy. Blackworm (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit summary refers to the editors active in the recent discussion, not to one or two users who have long since abandoned the issue, and are therefore unable to respond to comments I or other editors have recently made -- consensus is necessarily discursive. Actually, reviewing the history of the article, you seem to be "editwarring this change without consensus":

• Off2riorob removes the BLP violation [2]
• You restore it [3]
• Coppertwig tries to avoid the BLP problem [4]
• You revert him [5]
• I remove the BLP violation [6]
• You restore it for a third time [7]

When you're singlehandedly reverting three different editors, you should really step back and consider whether consensus is actually on your side. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll note Coppertwig's edit validates my position, not yours, and I vastly prefer his edit to yours, as I'm reasonably sure he does (please read his comments carefully). However, it has a problem, as I stated in the edit summary, and which you did not address. You didn't address his arguments, nor any of the arguments opposed, nor propose any solution that would presumably be acceptable to any of the editors opposed. This dispute started long before you arrived, and since there are no valid arguments for changing this material, and no new arguments brought countering those of any of the editors preferring the stable version, I suggest you follow WP:DR if you're unsatisfied with the lack of consensus you have for this change. Editwarring is not the way to go. Blackworm (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I seriously question whether there's any validation of your position to be found in an edit you reverted. Sorry -- no matter how you try to spin it, reverting three different editors yourself is a really bad idea. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The validation is that he left in "second degree rape of a child" which is a sourced statement I see no valid reason to remove. The problem with Coppertwig's edit was minor, as it implied that "child rape" was equivalent to "statutory rape." This is an article where non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily, and when editors fail to frame their objections in terms of policy, claim provably false consensus, and revert without discussion, it makes me confident that a wider consensus will agree with including the wording stated in sources and in the text of the law, when describing the conviction. Blackworm (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, must I quote Coppertwig's exact words? Coppertwig said, "However, saying only "child rape" or "rape of a child" would be misleading because it seems to mean violence or force, so the bit about statutory needs to be added. [...] One way or another, though, I think for NPOV and clarity both "child" and "statutory" need to be in there."[8] Now look at your latest reversion: [9] Do you now affirm the comments you made in the edit summary of that reversion?[10] Blackworm (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Your quotation of Coppertwig is also misleading. It's clear from his edit [11] that the word "statutory" was already present in the article before he edited it; the substance of the edit is to add the term "statutory rape" to distinguish Letourneau's crime from a forcible act. This clearly reflects a concern that the prior wording "statutory 'second degree rape of a child'" is misleading. What is of perhaps greater concern, however, is your attitude -- users who claim that edits with which they disagree "must apparently be fought heavily" need to step back, read Wikipedia is not a battleground, and reconsider matters from a broader perspective. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. The point is, it's clear from his edit [12] that "rape of a child" (the text of the law, and sources, etc.) was there both before and after his edit, and was removed by you. You, on the other hand, directly misquote me, as I said it was the non-neutral POV in the article that must be fought, not editors. Please strike out that misquote, as it is provably false. I'm not impressed by your failed attempt to characterize this dispute. Blackworm (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So you acknowledge, then, that it's possible to use a direct, verbatim quotation in a manner that's misleading, and that the same could be done with article sources :) Of course, my actual comment was "users who claim that edits with which they disagree 'must apparently be fought heavily'..." Edits are not synonymous with editors; please don't conflate the two to claim that you're being misrepresented. In any case, assertions that you are justified in reverting three editors yourself because "non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily" will find little favor with either administrators or the community. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledge that. Of course, it's irrelevant since such is not the case with the many, many reliable sources calling Letourneau's conviction "child rape" or "rape of a child." You are correct on one aspect; I misinterpreted your comment. However, it is still a misquote. I never said "edits with which they disagree," I said "non-neutral POV." Your statement seems to paint me as a POV-warrior, which is clearly your intent. Thankfully, it is quite transparent in light of your arguments (rather, your lack of valid arguments) on the content. Blackworm (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You're simply repeating your argument that since WP:RS use the exact words "child rape" or "rape of a child", such language must be acceptable, and wouldn't be misleading in the article. I've already explained on the article talk page why such terminology is misleading when quoted out-of-context. Your sole response seemed to be an assertion that the terms aren't misleading when preceded by the adjective "statutory" -- an argument which I've already refuted [13]. If you're uncomfortable being regarded "as a POV-warrior", would you prefer the term "NPOV-warrior" instead? Claiming that "non-neutral POV must apparently be fought heavily" seems unavoidably characteristic of a battleground approach to editing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't "refuted" anything -- I addressed the somewhat imprecise argument you cite in the edit you cite with a re-ordering of the terminology,[14] which you did not address but rather switched your objection to some other aspect you had already stated[15] and which I had addressed.[16] Also, from now on, please address the content, not the contributor. Blackworm (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't "addressed" anything by arguing against an irrelevant hypothetical, or repeating your misinterpretation of WP:VER which requires articles to repeat the exact words of sources, rather than recognizing the ability of editors to rewrite material in their own words, and the need for some rewriting to avoid copyright violations [17]. Furthermore, if you continue to baselessly accuse me of personal attacks while defending your right to accuse editors of paedophilia, then I will request that the community stop your disruption of the project. Peter Karlsen (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what I'm arguing. Since you're now misrepresenting my arguments, I again suggest you seek WP:DR. Please address this suggestion as it was made long ago. Blackworm (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My sympathies Blackworm, as I've been encountering the same pseudo-reasonable battlefield editing approach from same Peter Karlsen on the Mark Harper page.86.171.172.129 (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)