User talk:Darkness Shines: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:18, 21 October 2013

DYK for John Rope

On 12 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Rope, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Rope was the first Apache scout to receive the medal of honor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Rope. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Hi there. Had you had any thoughts about taking this back to FAC? I thought probably we were over the POV issues raised by one particular editor, but that the appearance on the FAC page of that discussion, together with Dr Blofield's comments, may have discouraged further reviews. I'd be cautiously optimistic about it running again from scratch... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one particular editor will find something else to prevent it going through, but I was thinking of trying it again at any rate. Will probably do it tonight when I get back from the pub. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I just did it now, I would likly muff it up later

Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to mess up the FA page so I'll ask it here. If it already passes the criteria, why wasn't it promoted the last time around? I am definitely puzzled. --regentspark (comment) 20:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because the usual suspects jumped in and I lost my temper, so other that Hamiltonstone there were no further comments, but given what has now been written it was obviously a waste of time. One reviewer is suggesting Bose as a source, what a joke. This BTW is the "scholar" who has said that the rapes only numbered in the thousands, and in one paper said the Pakistani military had committed no rapes at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with some of Squeamish's comments but they are addressable. Fowler's main objection is harder to deal with ("genocidal rape"?). I guess the larger issue is whether something as narrow casted as a specific act of violence during that war is going to be easy to make into a featured article. Put too much background information and it will be viewed as a coatrack. Put too little and you're going to be get stuck with fowler-like objections. Regardless, the very act of addressing these comments is worthwhile (unless you're a trophy collector!).--regentspark (comment) 23:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have begun to address some of the stuff raised by Squeamish, some are not possible, I am guessing he does not know much of the cultural norms over there, he does not seem to know that a raped woman is a dishonoured one, perhaps a footnote would do the job? Not really sure about Fowler's issue with genocidal rape, just because I only wrote the article a few weeks ago does not mean no-body has ever heard of it, it was defined a fair while ago

You got access to that article Squeamish mentioned? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bose and Mukerjee are both in your mailbox. --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will stay involved, and you can ping me if you feel you're getting impatient with any comment, so i can always come in and give a different perspective. I think Squeamish's points look pertinent, and I noticed one of them critiques a structural issue that was partly caused by my restructuring late in the last FAC, so I will take a look it at too (re the Deutsche Welle interview). You are absolutely right about not knowing the local cultural norms (specifically rape=dishonour) and neither will most readers, so it will indeed require clarification. Not sure whether footnote is the best solution, but it is one option. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: All help greatly appreciated, want to ask you about this ref you added [1]. That is a discussion on the book Dead Reckoning Bose does not discuss the mass rapes in it that I can see from searching it on GBooks. I am still of the opinion the Bose is fringe, the paper RP sent me proves it, she claims there were but a few thousand rapes, and she even got the number of troops on the ground wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Fair question. I was sympathetic to the argument that Bose's views should be covered, if only to demonstrate that they are fringe / biased. I was in the process of introducing some material, starting with that reference, when I realised I had mis-read the source, and that it referred only to deaths, not rapes (except at one point where it combines the two). Nevertheless, if Bose does talk about numbers of rapes, she cannot be completely omitted. On the contrary, it shows the article's current text about the range of numbers offered by writers is inaccurate. Better to say something like. "Among other sources, Sarmila Bose claims a few thousand rapes [or whatever the correct description may be of her claim] took place. However, other scholars have rejected her analysis of the war as biased or her methodology as poor [cite all of them - this is a strong claim requiring strong cites], and remaining estimates of the number of rapes are from X to Y [ie. use article's current text]". This way, the grounds for rejecting Bose are made explicit.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamiltonstone: With all due respect, Bose will never be cited in this article, please see Bangladesh: Politics, Economy and Civil Society p 71, fringe sources get no weight, genocide deniers, less so. I cannot in good conscience have a known genocide denier and fringe source given any weight. She ain't going in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that Bose is a fringe view. In fact, she seems to be the only academic to hold that view, so outer fringes is more apt. Given that, I suggest not giving it much, if any weight. The correct place is probably a sentence or two in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. --regentspark (comment) 22:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sorry but I can't deal with this crap anymore. RP and Hamiltonstone, I really appreciate the help given, but I have had enough of being told I have written shite. I did my best, obviously it is not good enough for this shithouse. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon DS. I can't believe you, of all people, are taking offense. You've dished out plenty of the good stuff yourself more than once. :) --regentspark (comment) 22:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking offense mate, they are right, at least Fowler is. I am not good enough to get an article to FA. So once this one had failed, which it will, I am taking a long break. I honestly think am burned out. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you may not get a FA. Big deal. If you follow through with the FAC process and comments, you'll end up with a much better article. That, in my book, is worth a lot more than an FA badge. --regentspark (comment) 01:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines: I just read the post you left on my talk page (after you removed it). After arriving here, I read what you wrote upstairs. I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting by a long shot that you can't write or that you can't write at an FA level (whatever that means). I was saying only that an average reader will have a hard time understanding the article. I believe that we should write for average readers, not for people in the know. I think you are making too big a deal of the FA process. The point is to have fun, not to get a GA or FA or whatever other virtual honors Wikipedia has made up. The question is are you having fun writing that article? (And I do understand it is a painful topic.) If you are not, set it aside and pick up something else to work on. Make up some small articles. I just made copying pencil, Caroni Plain, Nariva Plain etc because I need them for another longer article. Anyway, again, I don't make the kinds of judgments that you might be imputing to me. I might point out issues with an article, but never issues in a person. We all have issues. So who am I to point a finger at someone. I have enough problems of my own. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS And RegensPark is right. After all, if people are spending time to think about the article, and offer criticism, the article can only improve. Stay in the FAC by all means and see it through. I'm sorry I got a little irritated on my talk page, but you were being churlish and you caught me at a bad time. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPS I just saw John Rope. Nicely done. So, you don't really need my advice. Make up some more John Ropes if you feeling burned out. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS One of the advantages of writing shorter articles is that you can hit up people to help you and they won't mind because it won't take that much of their time. That way, you can more enjoyably learn to fix the issues that eventually come your way in an FA. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Genocide of indigenous peoples in Paraguay

On 19 October 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Genocide of indigenous peoples in Paraguay, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the genocide of indigenous peoples in Paraguay led to 85 per cent of the Aché tribe being hacked to death with machetes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Genocide of indigenous peoples in Paraguay. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

I didn't remove the repaso tales, Cloudac did it. Please, do not remove the tags of the article before the discussion is finish. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 10:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And for all my TPS, I reverted his removal of sources, his reason for removing them, peruvian sources. Go figure. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. You are right, I deleted the tales twice. I hope you participate in the discussion. I would suggest that we bring the case to Wikipedia:RS/N. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shock, hold the front pages, I was right. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing matters with Keysanger, on any topic, easily causes headaches. His English is incoherent (not sure if it is a translation problem or if it is really the way he is thinking), and he is easily prone to aggressive outbursts. My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review. I should have done this years ago, but I did not know much about Wikipedia's rules to do anything about it. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 ::Sorry. You are right, I deleted the tales twice. I hope you participate in the discussion. I would suggest that we bring the case to [[Wikipedia:RS/N]]. --Best regards, '''KS''' ([[User talk:Keysanger|wat?]]) 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 :::Shock, hold the front pages, I was right. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 14:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
+Discussing matters with Keysanger, on any topic, easily causes headaches. His English is incoherent (not sure if it is a translation problem or if it is really the way he is thinking), and he is easily prone to aggressive outbursts. My only recommendation is that you document all of the nonsense and later present it at AN/I or an RfCU for review. I ''should'' have done this years ago, but I did not know much about Wikipedia's rules to do anything about it. Regards.--[[User:MarshalN20|<span style="color:olive">'''MarshalN20'''</span>]] | [[User_talk:MarshalN20|<sup><font color="maroon">'''T'''</font><font color="Silver">'''al'''</font><font color="maroon">'''k'''</font></sup>]] 19:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)