User talk:Charles Matthews

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14

Societal attitudes towards homosexuality

Charles,

The article "Societal attitudes towards homosexuality" is being used, not for the benefit of the reader, but to promote the agenda of a well-organized group of gay advocates. I can provide you with many examples if you would like. I have gone through all of the proper channels to raise a red flag about this.

The first item on the "workshop" page is a request to "remove the article" [1]. But, so far, that option has not been added to the "proposed remedies" section of the "requests for arbitration" page [2].

I hope that you will seriously consider adding this remedy to "proposed remedies" section, as that is the only remedy that will actually correct the problem.

Best Regards, Lou franklin 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that your implication, that the NPOV policy necessarily fails on topics of this nature, is generally accepted here. Charles Matthews 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I am not saying that there is a problem with all "topics of this nature". But the NPOV policy is clearly failing on this particular article.

I hope that the proposed remedy will at least be presented for an up or down vote. It may be voted down, but since the other remedies are being considered I believe it would only be fair to vote on removing the article. That is really the only remedy that addresses the root problem. Lou franklin 01:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. You are just repeating your claim. Charles Matthews 12:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My implication is not "that the NPOV policy necessarily fails on topics of this nature" as you suggested. My implication is that the NPOV policy failed on this article, because the group of editors who control the article have make sure of that. Lou franklin 16:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You will be aware that you could ask for this article to be deleted by the usual community process. The ArbCom saying 'delete the article' (which is a remedy well outside the normal) would go against numerous basic ideas here: (a) the ArbCom does not involve itself in content issues, but on how editors behave; (b) deletion is a community matter; (c) only the AfD process has implications for re-creation of an article under the same name. Since the same issues can clearly be raised in other articles, anyway, it seems to be the wrong direction for all sorts of reasons. You would in fact be better advised to ask for a simple merge into homosexuality, through a request. Charles Matthews 17:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I did "ask for this article to be deleted by the usual community process", but the same group of gay advocates that wrote the article just organized again to vote the motion down. Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a mechanism to stop extremist groups hell-bent on using Wikipedia to get their propaganda out, truth be damned. If a group of extremists organizes a dozen or so people they can vote in a block, make tag-team reverts to get others bounced for 3rr, etc.

The best solution is to remove the biased article. I suppose that merging the article into homosexuality would be better than nothing since that would result in one biased article rather than two. Who would I request that of? The Arbitration Committee? Lou franklin 22:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

To request a merge, post at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Charles Matthews 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the information, but it appears that the same group that controls the article can vote on the proposed merger. What I need is an impartial body, not the same body that created the problem in the first place. Lou franklin 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well of course they can vote, and so can anyone else. If you don't like democracy as it applies here, you will have to be content with the ArbCom's ruling, won't you. Charles Matthews 23:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only will I be content with the ArbCom's ruling, but getting an ArbCom ruling is my objective! The group that created the article isn't going to vote to have their own article merged. Giving the people who created the problem the power to settle it is not democracy. It is letting the fox guard the chicken coop. I am advocating representative democracy. ArbCom has no vested interest in this article so they are able to serve as an impartial jury. For that reason, they are the appropriate body to vote on the article's removal.

I can see that we are at an impasse, but thank you for your time just the same. Lou franklin 02:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The above exchange seems to be an obvious example of how a serious, honest person can be frustrated by a wanton group that intends to use Wikipedia to further its own malign purpose. Every request that the person made was turned around and used against him. Such exchanges demean Wikipedia.152.163.100.65 14:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, AnonymousPoster, you could also take it as rank incomprehension of how this place works. I am an ArbCom member, but the ArbCom does not rule on article content. Therefore arguing that it should in this case is pointless. It's special pleading. It does not in fact demean the English Wikipedia that article deletions have an open forum. Charles Matthews 14:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That AnonymousPoster was not me, but he is right and I hope he will email me. Wikipedia is a bureaucracy. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but the problem is that Wikipedia's mechanism for stopping organized groups from pushing propaganda doesn't work.

Wikipedia articles are controlled by majority. When a dozen gays or Klansmen or Moonies decide to get together to control an article, there is nothing built in the Wikipedia model to stop them. Changes made by outsiders are tag-team reverted by the group. If the outsider persists, he gets blocked for 3rr. This has happened to me several times. Yet the group members don't get blocked for 3rr because they have gamed the system by taking turns removing legitimate changes.

"An honest person" can't get the article deleted because the group votes en masse against it. You can't get the article merged because the group votes en masse against that too. Mediation won't help because it is based on "consensus" and consensus means trying to compromise with the organized group whose very objective is to produce a one-sided article. ArbCom won't help because they feel it is not their job because it is a "content dispute".

Wikipedia's mantra is "assume good faith". But in reality you cannot always assume good faith. The truth is that there are groups right now that are purposely misusing Wikipedia for their own PR purposes. Wikipedia needs a mechanism to stop these organized groups that are not working in good faith. The Wikipedia model as it exists today doesn't work. Lou franklin 03:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have certainly noted that you do not assume good faith in other editors here. Charles Matthews 06:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"ArbCom does not rule on article content." Is there a limit to ArbCom's indifference to content? Is any degree of crime or vileness permissible? For example, The Aristocrats can be an article that contains a contest to describe the most extremely degenerate criminal behavior. The Hashish article can enthusiastically provide information on the preparation, ingestion, and availability of drugs. How harmful must an article be in order to make ArbCom consider some degree of control?Lestrade 15:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Firstly, anyone can edit the articles. Secondly, articles can be protected if there is no other way to preserve the content. The matter of where the boundaries of responsibility lie is ultimately one for the WikiMedia Foundation. It is not in any case for the ArbCom's collective judgement. But I think you are confused about the informative function of Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 15:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure anyone can edit articles, but when a group colludes to control an article, there is no way to stop them. You can say that it is not ArbCom's job, but the problem is that it is not anybody's job. If Wikipedia is to maintain any integrity at all, somebody is going to have to make it their job. Lou franklin 12:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have the wrong approach, as is evidenced by the current ArbCom case. I had a look at the hashish article, and it is deficient (as has I think been pointed out already on the talk page there). The question is whether to attribute this to a conspiracy, or whether it is better engage with other editors in a patient process of discussion. A founding assumption here is that it is always better to do the latter. Extreme statements and rhetoric are mistaken; WP always has deficiencies, and there are always enough serious people around who wish to have them fixed, piecemeal. Charles Matthews 12:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dust solution

Hi, Charles, I greatly appreciate your hard work at WP, but you made a goof when you recatted this article (which I wrote). It belongs not in Category:General relativity but in the subcategory Category:Exact solutions in general relativity, along with similar articles on null dust solution, etc. ---CH 04:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It had no category at all, in fact. So I added a category, knowing it to be approximate. Charles Matthews 12:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Organization of the Kwantung Army of Japan

Your comments and oversight of these Japan WW2 pages are appreciated. I understand your viewpoint, though with so many edits necessary to make these types of page readable, I have taken the approach that bold editting is a justified way forward. My comments say that the links may never be written not will not. I always aim not to lose any information. Please feel free to add back any redline links that you consider important for the future. I have reinstated Prince Takeda. Welsh 07:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, more satisfactory would be to have the option of reverting your edits to the links, without undoing your good work on the copy editing. Perhaps you could bear that in mind in the future. Charles Matthews 09:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's 7th

Charles, do you happen to know whether the two parts of Hilbert's seventh problem are related in any way, or if the first part has been resolved? Cheers, AxelBoldt 20:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the first quickly, it seems to ask something like the linear independence over the algebraic numbers of log α, log i and 1, where α is an algebraic number, and log i is of course standing here for π (essentially). I'm sure this is now known, for the non-trivial cases of α. The reason is that both parts are specialisations of logarithmic forms of a general type, which can now be tackled in general by Baker's method. But I'm not sure when the first part was proved (if before Baker). Charles Matthews 21:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't properly awake when I wrote that ... Charles Matthews 12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Try again. In radians, I think we are taking about some angle ε such that ε/π is algebraic, and also cos (ε) is hypothetically algebraic. By solving the quadratic equation for

exp(iε)

we then see that the question is of this type: can

log &alpha/π

be algebraic, with α algebraic, in non-trivial cases, which here should mean that α is not a root of unity?

This anyway is a question about a linear form

log α + βπ = 0

having solutions in algebraic β, outside the cases where β is a rational number. Charles Matthews 14:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Firth (surname)

Sorry Charles Matthews, it was my mistake to tag it with unsourced. There is no such requirement. Thanks for notifying me. I have removed the tag. Sorry again. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agapetos Arbitration

I'm sorry to spam your talk page, but this seemed serious enough to directly put on your talk page. I have evidence that AiG has actively had employees push their POV on the AiG page and possibly on related pages. I have added a new evidence section in the Agapetos arbitration to that effect, explaining the evidence. Due to the very serious nature of this accusation and its possible implications for Wikipedia, I decided to directly alert all of the ArbCom members. JoshuaZ 01:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S, Arbitration, and SKull.

Two points.

1: How is Arbitration coming? No one seems invovled.

2: Can you check the tlak page on Acharya S. Skull made personal attakcs. Ive realsied Ive allwoed frustration to lad, and now just try to stick ot he facgts. However they still attacked me and made no real address to wthe problems I raised.

3: Coudl you possibely see to revisin the current article, as its harldy unbiased?

Thanks.

ZAROVE 16:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You can monitor the case at WP:RFAr; it has not yet moved to voting, being at the evidence stage still. You can look at the Workshop subpage to see what it being suggested (and you can participate there). I have blocked User:Rpsugar indefinitely.

I noticed that the article was being edited again. It wasn't in such bad shape, a day or so ago, I thought. Charles Matthews 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well right now it is. Its a promotion for dear old Dorothy, remoivgn the reaosn for her beign "An archeologist ect..." as well as any citisism or less-than-steller performances by her, and addign useless drivel.

I'll revert again tonight, and hope that it remains in th condition.

ZAROVE 18:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Acharya S

You have made a comment about no personal attacks on user Zarove on the Acharya page. Why then do you and others allow Zarove to make constant personal attacks against the subject herself as well as the other people editing there? This seems to be an egregious abuse of Wikipedia's policy. Here is a list of the numerous personal attacks Zarove has made on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E/evidence

Do you really believe that this sort of behavior is acceptable when you can freely remove personal attacks on Zarove? There is quite a bias going on here. This matter is something that should be take up by the Wikipedia organization ASAP. Why isn't this person with his constant derogatory remarks being banned?