User talk:Ireneshusband: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:42, 28 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Ireneshusband, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 05:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hidden agenda with my welcome. It's a welcome to you to say simply, thanks for coming. Wikipedia even has it's very own Welcoming committee if you're interested in welcoming others once you're familiar with how things operate. With so much information about, new users find it helpful to have handy links provided to them before they can make too many mistakes. And besides, we like to let new users know there's somebody else around to help out. It can get crazy out there :) -- Longhair 05:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd better point out here, in case anybody gets the wrong idea, that the "hidden agenda" I asked about was whether the welcome message was a hint that I hadn't read the howtos and guidelines well enough (which, to be fair, I haven't yet). I should also say that I didn't use the phrase "hidden agenda" as such (I think what I actually said was "tactful hint"). I hope this doesn't sound too touchy. It's just that I'm paranoid about sounding paranoid. -- Ireneshusband 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. One of the important policies at Wikipedia is Assume Good Faith. It works just as much in your favour as it does in mine. :) -- Longhair 06:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember getting annoyed at the person who first put this on my talk page, because I thought he was being demeaning or whatever. :P .V. 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just got your message. I see what your talking about and I'll look at those articles you pointed out. I hope to talk to you soon! (p.s.-one reason the CT article is so heavily guarded by Official POV dogmatists is because they consider it to be a "lever") SkeenaR 06:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read The Creature From Jekyll Island? As well, there are books written by academic insiders like Tragedy and Hope I've read the first one. I don't think they are what you had in mind, but The Creature From Jekyll Island might have some valuable information, as it covers much ground beyond the Federal Reserve. It is also very well sourced. SkeenaR 08:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly Literature

You've got me kind of curious about this. I'm kinda tied up as far as having a look into this stuff for a day or two, but there seems to be a fair bit of writing on it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=conformism+conspiracy+theory&btnG=Search

Here are some titles that I found within one of the links:

Mark Fenster, Conspiracy Theory: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (University of Minnesota Press).

Timothy Melley, Empire of Conspiracy: The Culture of Conspiracy in Postwar America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).

George Marcus, ed., Paranoia Within Reason: A Casebook on Conspiracy as Explanation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

Jodi Dean, Aliens In America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998).

You would enjoy reading that Jekyll Island book. He says "Conspiracies are the norm, rather than the exception. History is an unbroken chain of one conspiracy after another" and follows up with a ton of sourced information most people I'm sure would find shocking. It's really interesting. I'll talk to you soon. --SkeenaR 23:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks, I also value your feedback. SkeenaR 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Edits

I figured you were right about the Conspiracy theory article needing some cleanup and pov neutralizing. Maybe you have some good contributions to add, and you could have some fun with this too. I'm just attempting to improve the introduction right now. SkeenaR 09:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polyarchy

I have made a significant change to Polyarchy. Please read, edit, and support me against possible attempts to revert. --Drono 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 conspiracy theories

I completely agree with you on the suggested page move. I think a few other pages with the same problems in naming that you may be interested in are Allegations of Israeli apartheid and Islamic extremist terrorism. The latter is up for AFD. Regards, KazakhPol 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposed title, but unfortunately for this one, it will also be a long, hard battle. KazakhPol 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

If this change does happen, could we use 9/11 alternative theories instead of 9/11 (alternative theories)? Just a small point and I created one as a redirect earlier. --Wildnox (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply here

To avoid further clutter.

I am offended that you see me as a "debunker". I'm pretty sure you called me this only because you disagree with me and have no other knowledge involving me. I'm in no way a debunker, and I actually happen to believe one of the theories(forknowledge as the article calls it) and see some of the others as reletively possible(even though I think most are a bit of stretch).

I have not ignored the policies as you claim, I addressed then when I said, on two occasions, that I do not believe they apply here because I do not see the phrase as being a serious insult or violation of NPOV. The google test was never mentioned as a be all and end all, but rather a supplement to the rest of my arguement, which is how it is ment to be used. I don't think you can say that the sources I provided were all implying falsehood(especially not the one from 9/11 truth), with the exception of the popular mechanics article. I also don't think that there is any "leap of faith" involved here, they refered to theories involving 9/11 as "conspiracy theories". No other special criteria is called for.

I wanted to end the debate not because I thought I made neither, either, or both, of us right, but because this has degraded into an utter quagmire, which I usually try to avoid at all costs. It's also that I hate leaving a debate early, but also hate having a debate take up 80% of my time on wiki. --Wildnox (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through this talk page again I see now that I owe Wildnox a belated apology, which I have left at his talk page. Ireneshusband 05:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. I'm also sorry this debate got out of hand. I'm a little bit surprised whenever a user chooses to apologize; I'm usually just happy when this doesn't happen. That being said, I don't think that many users were guilty of misconduct in the end. I think there was only one user who not only crossed the line but also made no attempt to go back. I won't name a name, most likely he is the same user you would consider to have been the worst offender. I also don't think there were any sockpuppets involved in the discussion, as the majority of editors were long established, though I admit that is never a sure thing. If you disagree with me on the level of misconduct or possibility of sockpuppetry, and you think there is anything serious enough to warrant the actions of admins, feel free to make a note at WP:AN/I. Also, sorry if any of this is poorly worded or confusing, It's roughly 1:48 so I'm not in the best of writing mind. --Wildnox (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These may be helpful

As I said on the article talk page, I'm removing myself from debate and instead am only going to add sources to the discussion, since nobody else has done so yet. These are a few that may be of use to you, since you haven't cited a source calling the term derogatory or using "alternative theories" yet.

U.S. Department of State Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.

International Herald Tribune skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"

IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll

Denver post USA Today- Call the term derogatory

--Wildnox (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A note

Hello, Ireneshusband. I realise that some of my remarks on the talk page of that 9/11 article may be a little biting. It is not my intention to cause personal upset, but I do believe strongly in shooting a straight arrow and not diluting my sincerity simply in order to get along. That being said, I apologise if you are insulted by my remarks — I shall be making the most Herculean of efforts to be more civil in future engagements. Rosenkreuz 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comment on my talk page. Rosenkreuz 18:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking to Policy, Not People

You would do better to stick to policy arguments, and avoid getting into disputes with editors on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories page. It's a lot more persuasive. Morton Devonshire^Yo 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Devonshire not only failed to stand up to the people who were using personal insults and threats against me, but he joined in with them himself. Given the circumstances, the above comment is itself staggeringly insulting. Ireneshusband 03:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping yourself here.

Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand perfectly what you are trying to do. Ireneshusband 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the news that broke on Wikipedia a bit back (there's been a tremendous amount of work to suppress it), but you should check out this from the village pump. It may seem like you're a minority on this, but your not. These disruptive administrators are paid to make you feel that way. Persistence is our best weapon. If you like, we'd be honored to add your name to the list of minutemen (they shouldn't block you just for being added to the list). --Interrogation 20:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but maybe that's just what they want you to think...who can you trust? Where can you run? Rosenkreuz 20:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble deciding whether or not to trust you, Rosenkreuz. Your intentions are transparent. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you have nothing to do with Interrogation or any of the long list of socks that are popping up in a similar vein recently. Doing what you think is right is noble, but making blind accusations in a large-scale POV war is not. His claims of "confrimed federal contractors" and supposedly paid admins is nothing more than a list of users who ever disagreed with him. Please, keep speaking your mind and contributing to wikipedia constructively, and don't enter into this foolishness. --Wildnox (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (within minutes no less). --Bullets&Love 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concern, Wildnox, and I believe it to be sincere. However, whether or not the people mentioned in the list are US government contractors, I still find it remarkable that most of the editors whose conduct I have found frustrating and distressing in recent days are among those listed. That the fate of User:Zen-master has been brought up against other people as a threat, just as it was, in a completely unjustified and unprovoked way against me, is also something I find very interesting. Threats of this kind make a mockery of the principle of assuming good faith on the part of other editors. The very least that can be said of the situation is that there seems to be a problem of bullying by editors who have come to believe that they are, in Wikipedia terms, above the law. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Interrogation, for drawing my attention to this. Of course it would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on the discussion you refer to, but I do take it for granted that moneyed interests of various sorts will attempt to manipulate Wikipedia and that we should be on our guard against this. It would be insane not to be. I also take it for granted that some of their tactics may well be very devious and very effective. This issue has been on my mind a great deal in the past week or so.

As to the kinds of people who might be employed to do this, I think that the recent book by the highly respected criminal psychologist Robert Hare, entitled Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work (cowritten with Paul Babiak) is very informative in this regard. According to Hare, around 1% of people (at a very conservative estimate) are psychopaths. Very few of these have the same murderous tastes as Karla Homolka or Ian Brady, but many of them do get a great kick out of manipulating situations and messing with people's heads. Moreover they are often able to do this easily because of their extraordinary gift for and delight in lying.

In between the factual content of Hare and Babiak's book is a fictional account of a psychopath who infiltrates a marketing department by plagiarising other people's work and playing colleagues off against each other. Just as it seems a couple of his managers have compiled enough evidence to expose him, we find that he is playing golf with the company president while those same managers are being escorted out of the building. This is a danger that Wikipedia, like any organisation, has to be able to deal with. The difference between Wikipedia and the fictional company in Hare and Babiak's cautionary tale is that Wikipedia itself has no money. The only money to be made out of Wikipedia is in shilling, which is why I think that any psychopathic individuals who do infiltrate it are probably employed by somebody to do so.

I was once a director of a housing co-op and we had to deal with somebody who, in hindsight, I strongly believe to have been a psychopath. She cost us a lot of money. The reason I think she was a psychopath is because, despite her apparently reasonable and pleasant demeanour, she couldn't quite fake it 100%. There was something glib about the way she talked, something contemptuous and callous about the way she looked at you. At times she would appear to be angry to the point of being abusive (which is how she bullied people into giving up a lot of money), but then she would turn round and behave as if absolutely nothing had happened. These are the kinds of people we should look out for.

It is also important to understand the weaknesses of psychopaths. One is that many of them have very poor impulse control, which is one of the reasons why there are so many of them in prison. However this may not be true in all cases. Nevertheless, if you prod them the right way (or at least as far as is possible within the rules of Wikipedia) they might, once in a blue moon, do something to give themselves away.

The other weakness I believe is significant is that they not only have no respect for truth, they have no understanding of the concept; they lack insight. If you stick to your guns and base your arguments firmly and unrelentingly on evidence, Wikipedia policy and reason, they will not be able to respond in kind. All they will be able to do is to throw back a few fine sounding platitudes or to parrot an argument they have heard from someone else. In my past dealings with such people it has often been my own argument, and even my own style of words that I have heard thrown back at me, with only the names or a few key words changed.

I should, though, add a couple of words of caution.

One is that not all dishonest and manipulative people are psychopaths and that likewise, not all people who behave in an aggressive or irrational way are necessarily psychopaths. The former may sometimes make even better and more dangerous liars because they do possess empathy and insight. The latter may simply be very angry or upset rather than coldly malicious—psychopaths do not experience or understand true anger, love or fear. For instance I believe that most of the irrational or even hateful comments one is liable to see on talk pages related to deeply contentious topics such as antisemitism are expressions of genuine human feeling and should be respected as such.

The other is that an attempt to identify and root out psychopathically malicious individuals can have undesirable consequences and therefore we should take great care. In Robert Hare's earlier book, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us (1993), he was deeply scathing about the activities of James Grigson, a psychiatrist who would testify in death-penalty cases in Texas that the defendant was a psychopath and would definitely kill again. In addition to condemning Grigson's blatant professional irresponsibility, Hare noted that it was his extraordinary "charisma" that swayed the juries to accept his bogus clinical judgements. Hare then drew attention to the remarkable degree of self-assurance that Grigson demonstrated, his apparent inability even to contemplate the possibility that he might be wrong. Hare was obviously trying to hint strongly at something, because all the qualities he noted in this court-appointed scourge of psychopaths were themselves some of the hallmarks of a psychopath. Grigson was, incidentally, expelled from the American Psychiatric Association in 1995.

Hervey Cleckley realised that, even though you can rarely discern a psychopath by what they say at any particular time, you can spot them if you observe them for a long period of time because their behaviour never matches up to their words. If you watch them long enough they will give themselves away, although there is, unfortunately, no guarantee that everyone will be able or willing to see it. Ireneshusband 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, but I suspect they're not psychopaths. I think if you asked them they'd say " we're just doing our job". --Ass breath killers 23:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ::I have no trouble deciding whether or not to trust you, Rosenkreuz. Your intentions are transparent. [[User:Ireneshusband|Ireneshusband]] 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 :I would suggest that you have nothing to do with [[User:Interrogation|Interrogation]] or any of the long list of socks that are popping up in a similar vein recently. Doing what you think is right is noble,  but making blind accusations in a large-scale POV war is not. His claims of "confrimed federal contractors" and supposedly paid admins is nothing more than a list of users who ever disagreed with him. Please, keep speaking your mind and contributing to wikipedia constructively, and don't enter into this foolishness. --[[User:Wildnox|Wildnox]][[User talk:Wildnox|(talk)]] 20:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
+:::: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” (within minutes no less). --[[User:Bullets&Love|Bullets&amp;Love]] 21:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 ::I appreciate your concern, Wildnox, and I believe it to be sincere. However, whether or not the people mentioned in the list are US government contractors, I still find it remarkable that most of the editors whose conduct I have found frustrating and distressing in recent days are among those listed. That the fate of [[User:Zen-master]] has been brought up against other people as a threat, just as it was, in a completely unjustified and unprovoked way against me, is also something I find very interesting. Threats of this kind make a mockery of the principle of assuming good faith on the part of other editors. The very least that can be said of the situation is that there seems to be a problem of bullying by editors who have come to believe that they are, in Wikipedia terms, above the law. [[User:Ireneshusband|Ireneshusband]] 07:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 Thank you, [[user:Interrogation|Interrogation]], for drawing my attention to this. Of course it would be inappropriate for me to comment directly on the discussion you refer to, but I do take it for granted that moneyed interests of various sorts will attempt to manipulate Wikipedia and that we should be on our guard against this. It would be insane not to be. I also take it for granted that some of their tactics may well be very devious and very effective. This issue has been on my mind a great deal in the past week or so.