User talk:Folantin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:34, 6 July 2008

Please leave messages below. I will probably reply on this page to keep debates together (but you never know)

And here's another piece of the mysterious GA criteria

I think you'll like this one. Moreschi (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC) M. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) M again, non-urgent but amusing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC) R & R --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell is driving these people? WikiProject Good Articles even has a newsletter now, and an impressive 195 members. Imagine what we could do if, say, Wikiproject Ancient Near East had this amount of effort flowing into it. How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources? Is this about people interested in rating other people's work, never mind they don't have the faintest idea what it is about? Is it worth the effort to try to get back anything remotely like the original unbureaucratic "GA process" of "hey, I know something about this subject, and I can see this is a good article, well done"? sigh. --dab (𒁳) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources?" Search me, it's one of the miracles of Wikipedia. I've thought of a nice motto for them: "We strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel". They can have that for free, I'm a generous guy. I submitted an article to them with over 30 inline references and it was "quick-failed" for completely lacking citations. On the other hand this article passed with flying colours, despite the almost total lack of references for the population statistics (which seemed to change every week when I had it on my watchlist). However, they don't like criticism very much so don't go hurting their feelings by complaining. They're good at making sure dashes are distinguished from hyphens though amd what would our content be without that?--Folantin (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian poetry

Thank you for noticing. These are my first steps in en.wiki, so please correct my errors (in English and others). --Broletto (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April (French) Singer(s) of the Month

I wonder if you are going to contribute your ideas about French singers of the 17th/18th centuries (on the project page)? I guess you have better sources than we have. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katyn massacre

You have told: Undid. Eh?

-Why? has not had time to correct a mistake. Maybe my IP guilty? 92.245.39.37 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working together

I have taken down my request of having province or satrapy in the title for the sake of trying to work together, but what argument would you have with the title of either Athura or Achaemenid Assyria? Chaldean (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith while Soviet support to Iraq is being edited and improved

You had every right, in a deletion survey, to state your opinion.

I am actively working on the article, although I have to do my regular work at the same time, in a house that has the confusion of having been presented with two unexpected newborn kittens. Please assume good faith on my part in continuing. You have made it clear that you believe the article should be deleted, which is your right.

What does not come across as constructive is criticisms of individual references as I am actively writing. I'm afraid your last complaint about a Fukuyama reference is not necessarily reflective of the period the work actually covered. Having published four books myself, quite some months may intervene between the author finishing the work, and the actual publication date. A June 1989 publication date hardly suggests the book is focused on the short time since the end of the war in 1988.

There will probably be more reference to Fukuyama. While I am not a newcomer, WP:BITE seems to apply if you make frequent criticisms of an in-process article. Let's assume good faith on both sides.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I came to start this article out of a much broader context, which you can see on my userpage: establishing that a great many countries were involved in supporting Iran and/or Iraq. I had no specific preconceptions about the Soviet Union, and am writing this article with an open mind. If I put it in terms of the classic scientific method, I am testing the hypothesis that the Soviet Union supported Iran.

If it did, it was not nearly as major as its support to Iraq, but the superpowers had competing interests with both sides. I'm not prepared, as yet, to flatly state there was no Soviet support to Iran. Do you have sources that clearly establish this? At this point, I am tracking down passing references to support.

As with the Iran-Contra affair, the U.S., while tilted to Iraq, did, through a third country, provide some meaningful support to Iraq -- 2000 proven antitank missiles are not trivial in a war with significant tank involvement. It may well be that the Soviet Union, much as the U.S., used proxies to support other foreign policy needs. There's no evidence that either superpower particularly cared for either of the belligerents, but it is certainly not unprecedented that they would play both sides, as has been done in other conflicts.

At this point, I would ask you to give sources, or at least wait before criticizing partial references and also making flat statements I am wrong. When an editor/author tells me they are working on something, I recognize people have other demands on their time, and I'm apt to check back in a few days rather than a few hours.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate title

Your suggestion makes perfect sense if the article was being done in isolation. The whole motivation for doing this is to examine, country by country, that supported Iran, Iraq, or both. Several editors, myself among them, felt that it could reduce the POV-pushing to have a multinational set of subpages from Iran-Iraq War. You can see the overall plan at User:Hcberkowitz#Iran and Iraq.

Of course, the major Soviet involvement was with Iraq, and it was quite substantial, as was the French involvement. We are dealing, however, with a POV that the United States was the only significant third-country player in the war, and somehow, the US was fighting alongside the Iraqis. That Iraq principally used Soviet and French weaponry seems irrelevant to this POV. In no way am I saying the US wasn't involved, but the only way I think we can get balance is having articles on as many countries that we can find participated in some way.

I certainly don't have the time to write them all, and I prefer to write them on countries where I have some familiarity. Since you seem to have expertise on Russia, I'd be delighted to get constructive criticism on Soviet support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, which was a good deal easier to draft -- but it's by no means final. Unfortunately, while I'm normally a city person, I'm living temporarily in a rural area, with most of my books in storage, and a two-hour or so drive to the nearest serious university library. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books

Might I suggest you look at some of the talk page discussions at Iran-Iraq War, which may give you a reason that more than one editor thinks that the country+side articles are necessary? As far as Google Books, yes, I have access, but I do not have the budget to buy and download every relevant book.

Respectfully, I am not going to change the title unless there is a consensus to delete, or if, after I get it in better shape, I am convinced there was no Soviet support of Iran. If you look at my userpage listing of planned articles relating to Iran-Iraq, you will see quite a few countries that supported only one side; I am perfectly willing to say that a country did not support Iran but supported Iraq, or vice versa. Quite a few countries, however, did do so, sometimes only as a way of hiding embargoed shipments.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that you have an reasonable refutation of a POV

What you quoted makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, the discussion on the main Iran-Iraq page has some people with a furious POV, some people that actually want to learn (it was long enough ago that people didn't experience it in daily news), and some that want to build an excellent and comprehensive article.

AFAIK, the Soviet Union was not involved in the complex clandestine procurements. As one British MP put it, if all the end user certificates made out to Singapore were correct, Singapore would have the largest military in the world. In no way is the Soviet Union being singled out for criticism. There have been, however, various reports of low-level, even diplomtic, involvement.

In researching some of the other countries, I personally have learned a lot. One of the unforgettable images of the war were Iraqi volunteers, not members of penal battalions, running into minefields. Until I started researching other countries, I didn't know who designed the mines, initially made them, and then who made them after export controls cracked down.

To put it a different way, is there a reason to treat the Soviet Union differently than other states? The U.S. and U.K., for example supplied some things to both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few clarifications

Truly, I appreciate an objective view. In the lengthy discussions, there have been allegations of some Soviet support to Iran. I honestly don't know if there were or not, but enough major powers did things for both, and the Cold War was still operating although warmer, I believe it's worth an open-minded effort to see if there is any substance. Fukuyama seems to think so, for example, in Chapter IV, "New Soviet Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf." I'm still studying it, but I find it fascinating, especially in the discussion, contrary to stereotypes, of the Soviet Union being able to change policies rapidly, while the Americans were stuck.

There is a heading for "Arab states" under support to Iran, with separate entries for Libya and Syria. That's a working list; some sources on funding grouped "Arab states" together and I flagged that for further research. Clearly, the GCC role has to be documented, especially the Saudis. I can only plead that while others have worked on the drafts once they existed in at least stub form, I'm only one person and have been trying to cover a complex subject. A very similar approach of going to exhaustive subpages had an enormously positive benefit in getting Central Intelligence Agency to improve its quality, and, in some strange way, get a lot of people with strong POVs to relax. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind being aware of a grown man either crying or hysterical

But that's my reaction when I think of the infobox affair. The Military History Project developed the infobox, and there have been a fair number of MILHIST people explain things such as the difference between "combatant" and "belligerent", and that a basic rule is that if some concept becomes difficult to handle in an infobox, it doesn't belong there.

As you've probably gathered, there is something of a clique that absolutely want the United States blamed for engineering the whole war for anti-Iranian reasons. Funny, I've always thought Saddam had a bit to do with it. As far as the U.S., or anyone else, pulling Saddam's strings, that happened only once, and it was around his neck.

There is an argument that the mixed messages delivered by U.S. Ambassador Glaspie to Saddam might have made him think he could invade Kuwait without consequences, but I find it very hard to think of a counterpart action for Iran-Iraq.

It's sad, really, that the Arbitration Committee considers an infobox "content", and won't touch such matters. Enormously more progress could be made if the infobox were banished.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the nature of support and the naming of cats articles

Your point about the neutrality of titles is a good one, which I think comes from your not being involved in the Iran-Iraq battles. "support" is something used a great deal by the POV-pushers, and you may have noticed that a focal point of that is the infobox. The agenda there is putting the U.S. in the infobox because it provided so much "support" to Saddam.

There's only one reason that any case can be made for the U.S. being there: that it was in direct combat with Iran. This has its own problems, because the POV faction then massively expands this to suggest that the US was the puppetmaster and was fighting side-by-side with Saddam. My personal opinion, which to some extent can be sourced, is that the "Tanker War" was more properly the "Iran-US War", and the key issue was freedom of navigation, not economic assistance and general leverage to Iraq. Yes, there was a component of strong anti-Iranian feeling, in the U.S., that lowered the threshold of opening fire; some of the Iranians simply do not understand the depth of U.S. popular feeling about the Embassy hostage situation. As far as the Airbus and Vincennes, I believe CAPT Rogers' actions were whitewashed; I know enough about the details of the AEGIS combat system to be appalled at the aggressiveness and technical incompetence he showed. A court-martial for negligent homicide would have been ore appropriate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand about the time

I'm going to try to get some additional input, from people that were not involved in the detail of Iran-Iraq, to see if the two-article vs. one-article seems inherently more reasonable, if POV is not considered. If the consensus is one article, I can certainly merge my Soviet articles. How would that work best, and avoid duplicate effort, with what you've done?

The Soviet article is less challenging, from an editing standpoint, than, for example, Singapore, which clearly provided support, sometimes simply as an intermediary, for both Iran and Iraq. That would be my only reservation that has nothing to do with POV management.

Again, thanks. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite (orbital) and satellite (political) actions

Interesting. It's fairly well established, I think, that the U.S. gave satellite photography (IMINT) to Iraq, but I've seen a few references that suggested, for some reason, the U.S. also gave it to Iran. As you point out, there have been some reports the Soviet Union gave IMINT to the Iranians. Somewhere, I've noted a report of changes in the orbit of Soviet satellite(s) to give better coverage of the Iran-Iraq front, or possibly of Diego Garcia. This is a sensitive area, and some of the sensitivity goes back to early arms control discussion between the US and USSR (see Intelligence collection management#Source Sensitivity and SIGINT Operational Platforms by Nation#United States: Satellite Platforms); while it's not something I can officially source, I discussed this with several of the people on the U.S. side, who swore that while we didn't want to give away exact capabilities, it was the Soviets that insisted on no public confirmation. As you'll see from the latter wikilink, the US didn't admit to the existence of intelligence satellites for other than IMINT until 1996, so I tend to doubt the US offered SIGINT to anyone.

If either the US or USSR gave intelligence to both sides, it raises interesting questions. Was the purpose, perhaps, to help them see the stalemate and move toward peace talks, or, more probably I think, to exhaust both sides?

The arms sales by Soviet clients are interesting. You've probably seen that the Soviets did object to Libya providing advanced naval mine technology to Iran, so, in an indirect way, there's evidence that the USSR approved, or at least tolerated, other sales.

I've been thinking of the mechanics of merging articles. If we did this, one broad way would be a foreign policy, a military relations with Iraq, and a military relations with Iran first-level headings. Perhaps export control might be another section, much briefer here than with most other countries. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps?

While I think I did find some interesting information last night, I'm getting to a point of diminishing returns with Soviet support for Iran. I do think it is relevant, in whatever combination of articles eventually results, to mention Soviet initiatives that started during the war (e.g., the Deputy Prime Minister and natural gas expert visits in 1986) that may or may not have come to fruition during the war. Also, you'll note that I do have a sourced entry for some direct sales of undefined, but military by context, "ground equipment".

Before I take off the "under construction" tag, which may re-trigger a "traveling circus" angry editor, I'd like your thoughts on next steps. I've been thinking of the structure of merged article(s). Foreign policy works well simply with a chronological organization, but the military is awkward, if for no other reason than for level of detail. There are a few tricky issues in organization: for example, should support for the air defenses of both Iran and Iraq be listed together, or should one country's attack aviation be listed with the other country's defenses to it? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. I just wanted you to know why I wasn't taking off "under construction" when I wasn't actively changing. As far as I'm concerned, it is in a different sense of construction, frozen so you can digest it. If a particular editor objects, I will ignore it/revert changes as appropriate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Defining goals

I'm copying your response here, as it's easier for me to read in one piece. May I suggest we have the discussion on the talk page of one of the draft articles?

Folantin wrote,

I still don't see how this fits in with the picture in my article. The USSR and Iran continued some non-military commerce between each other, but that's about it. Saddam starting the war really annoyed the Soviets because they didn't want to have to choose sides. I think the clandestine offer of support to Iran in the first phase of the war (when the Iranians were on the defensive) was an attempt to maintain the "balance" in the region. Once the Iranians started winning in 1982 and threatened to set up the "Islamic Republic of Iraq", then the Soviets definitely tilted in favour of the Iraqis to prevent the collapse of Saddam's regime. I can't see how this can possibly have been a Cold War "proxy war" between the USSR and the USA, because who was on the pro-Iranian side? That's absolutely incompatible with the huge military support the Soviets (especially Gorbachev) gave to Iraq. You've also got to take into consideration the massive snubs the Iranians delivered to the Soviets (such as the crackdown on the Iranian communists in 1983). They didn't want to be allied with either of the superpowers. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I found several accounts, multiply sourced, about where the Soviets provided assistance in the very beginning of the war, and then as part of economic and diplomatic initiatives discussed in 1985 and implemented in 1986.

We are in complete agreement that the Soviets gave massive aid to Iraq, but let me elaborate on the proxy war aspect. By proxy war, I do not mean something like Vietnam, where the superpowers were intimately involved. Something that is too often ignored is that Iraq started the war for its own reasons, and Iran had its own reasons for what it considered an acceptable war.

Nevertheless, the United States, Soviet Union, and PRC all wanted influence in the area, during and after the war. China and North Korea, and many Soviet satellites, were the major arms providers to Iran, along with Libya and Syria. The latter two, and to some extent North Korea, did more transfer of Soviet (and Chinese) equipment from their own stockpiles, which the Soviets then replaced -- it's very analogous to Iran-Contra, where the U.S didn't directly send weapons to Iran, but had Israel send them, and then restocked the Israelis with new supplies of the weapons they had transferred.

The Iranians didn't want to be allied with either of the superpowers, and I'll add China to the traditional two, since China was, by this time, very much competing with the Soviet Union.

Have you looked at my article recently? I was adding content until around 22:00 Eastern US time (GMT-5). Frankly, I was quite surprised about the intelligence bases, which is more my field. I hadn't known about them. There is also substantial evidence that Soviet clients and satellites, with Soviet support, supplied Iran with Soviet cooperation.

None of the major players expected a traditional alliance with Iran. What they wanted to do was retain influence, and, especially after the war, keep Iran from getting closely to both of the other two.

Some material I found last night indicated that the Soviets exchanged clandestine aid, or authorized sales through third countries, in order to establish regional intelligence bases in Iran, which, coupled with [....]

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we're looking at "support" from different angles. I see "Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War" as implying substantial, direct military support rather than, say, continuing economic cooperation or turning a blind eye to its allies supplying arms to Iran. "None of the major players expected a traditional alliance with Iran". But I think the Soviets really wanted that. Of course, they misinterpreted the Islamic Revolution; "anti-American" did not automatically mean "pro-Soviet". What the USSR really wanted was an end to the war, not because they were pacifists, but because the conflict between two potential allies was inconvenient to them. (More later). --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this has been a bit of an excursion for me from my planned contributions to Wikipedia. I think you should continue to develop your article and we'll see what happens. I doubt if it will be deleted in the current AfD because the balance of opinion seems to be in favour of keeping it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe they will converge later. It's clear that we have different ideas of "support", which is not meant in any negative way. The definition of "support" is a problem in the Iran-Iraq page itself, more than in most rational discussions. It's hard to imagine that the Soviet Union and France didn't support Iraq, but there are editors that claim only the US supported either belligerent. Cheers! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in) The Islamic Republic's national motto during the Iran-Iraq war was "neither West (USA) nor East (USSR), only the Islamic Republic". As Folantin pointed out, the IRI started cracking down on the communist party in 1982-1983, put their members on trial on charges of "espionage for USSR", and subsequently expelled the staff of USSR's embassy in Terhan.--CreazySuit (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I might be mildly bold to suggest it, we are not trying to solve the content of that article any longer. We have agreed to disagree.

The continuing discussion is on another of his userpages, wherewe are looking at ways of reducing edit wars and hostility in articles that deal with national or ethnic issues, especially contemporary ones. I mentioned the article only for background, and, while there might, at first, have been some heat, I valued his exchange with me and, once we started exchanging messages, felt nothing personal in it, only a desire to be accurate about the subject.

If you have ideas on how to have a less confrontational approach on Iran-Iraq War and related pages, it would be very welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Yes, I was certain I had already signed, I just had no idea where. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 09:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start collecting things on the Bronze Horseman. You're right, the current article is pathetic. The Dziady article is even smaller, but at least looks more respectable somehow. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I have some lying around somewhere. Unfortunately the analysis I remember best was the introduction to an edition published by that treasure-trove of critical thought, Progress Publishers, which isn't exactly something one can structure an article round... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Armia Krajowa

Thank you for commenting on that issue. Since we agree in our reasoning about the current version, could you remove the NPOV tag from the current version? I feel it would be better for a neutral editor to do so, if I as an involved party would do so, it may lead to bad faith edit warring.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although playing's a devil advocate I will note that a user has asked for clarification if you and moreschi have also read the claims of atrocities against civilian population (your post have concentrated on the issue of collaboration). Do note that I addressed that issue at the bottom of this thread, and it is mentioned both in the RfC commentand the noticeboard request.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Of course, some are not easily convinced by criticism on talk. Could you comment on talk regarding this issue? I hope that one or two clear comments from neutral editors will put an end to this issue.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry; the article has waited long and can wait a bit longer :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penny for your thoughts?

What d'you reckon to be the most sensible name for the article currently titled Azerbaijanis in Armenia? The current title? Azeris in Armenia? Turkic peoples in Armenia? Confusion seems to be arising over the meanings of "Azerbaijani": one denoting a member of the ethnic group, the other denoting a citizen of Azerbaijan - which meaning, they're all arguing, are we using here? I'd have thought Azeris in Armenia would be best, to remove the ambiguity (because "Azeris" 9 times out 10 means the ethnic group). Your opinion? Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fazri?

Isn't this a violation of WP:NEO and WP:OR? The person who coined the term is not an academic, linguist or even a notable politician, and the term is hardly, if ever, used outside the fringe pan-Turkist advocacy blogs laden with ethnic hatred and ethno-narcissism. Nothing on Google books either. --CreazySuit (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It should be nominated for deletion per concerns about WP:NOTABILITY and as a possible WP:COATRACK. I was planning to do so myself but it was so late at night. I now note someone else has PROD'ed it. However, I had to revert the comment in the article that Zamani was a "racialist Pan-Turkist" immediately because you can't say that without backing it up with some solid sourcing - see Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. On the larger topic, this commentary by Graeme Wood of The Atlantic Monthly, might be of interest to you.--CreazySuit (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rex's essay

I certainly don't indent to edit war over this, particularly in your userspace, but I do think it's a good essay. The fact that the author got banned should not invalidate all of his contributions or thoughts.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Rex was banned for being a Dutch chauvinist POV-pusher so the essay is probably a case of "it takes one to know one". PS: I'm a bit short of time this week but I will get back to the AK article if I get a chance. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending Rex's behavior, but I will again repeat that being a "criminal" does not invalidates one's all work. Rex might have been a "chauvinist POV-pusher", but his essay seems to me neutral and useful. Have you read it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this [1] then I'm still not happy with having that as a link because it reflects all too clearly Rex's other obsession, which was having a crack at the Germans. Now I'm well aware there are a few too many German nationalist POV-pushers on Wikipedia (and, in fact, the very worst example of an ethnic chauvinist we've ever had, way back in the mists of time, was a German - or rather Prussian - editrix), but I also remember Rex's campaigns at the end of last year to render Potsdamer Platz as "Potsdam Square", to play up Beethoven's "Dutch" ancestry (it was Flemish and it was largely irrelevant anyway) and his wonderful piece of original research demonstrating that the Austin Powers villain Goldmember was really German rather than "freaky deaky Dutch". Since I had to waste a good deal of my own time trying to ensure neutrality on these matters, I'm rather reluctant to have the perpetrator's work linked from my page. I don't think it contains any particularly dazzling insights in any case. --Folantin (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonetheless a relevant essay. I do not say we should endorse it or advertise as the top quality material, but as a see also it is relevant - simply that, nothing more, nothing less.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"common knowledge"

Who says it's "common knowledge" that Nader admired Genghis Khan? Genghis Khan is viewed as an antagonist in Iranian history. I seriously doubt the validity of this claim, please provide a citation. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article: "After the Persians had forced the Uzbek khanate of Bokhara to submit, Nader wanted Reza to marry the khan’s elder daughter because she was a descendant of his hero Genghis Khan, but Reza flatly refused and Nader married the girl himself". Read the linked Encyclopedia Iranica article: "Nader's career now entered a new phase: the invasion of foreign territory to pursue dreams of a world empire that could resemble the domains of Chinghis Khan and Timur". --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. I thought the assertion was made solely based on the fact that he held a Kurultai, which would have been original research...As for Caucasia, he actually controlled the entire Transcaucasus. Is that incorrect? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he ever took western Transcaucasia. --Folantin (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Wars

Yeah, the debate has got a bit long and confusing but some clear ideas have come out of it. I think everyone who commented there supported the creation of an "Ethnic Warring Noticeboard". I'm still waiting to see if this official, "in camera" group [2] comes up with anything, but in the absence of any response from them over the next month I'll start a petition to set up such a Noticeboard. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox classical composer

This was recreated and I've put this up for deletion (and blocking) see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Infobox_classical_composer. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera talk page

Thanks for your reply. I really need to get a consensus here so I can proceed without opera project members criticizing me for removing the opera project tag from these articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Day

Thank you for your interest. What is to do about the issue? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've got no plans to go much deeper into this issue mainly because I don't have the leisure at the moment. I've been aware that there has been dispute over the Baltics and the Soviet Union for some time now. While both sides of the argument have behaved rather badly at various points, I'd say the idea that the Baltic states weren't forcibly incorporated into the USSR against the will of the majority of their inhabitants in the 1940s is rather "fringe", not to say downright inaccurate. Of course, much of this debate has focussed on hairsplitting arguments about the precise meaning of words such as "occupation". I'd say this is just one of those areas that, by its nature, Wikipedia doesn't do particularly well. And, as I said before, unfortunately I don't really have the free time to go into this in more detail. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sad :(

Thank you for your counsel. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "both sides of the argument have behaved rather badly at various points"

What's this about? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been various wars, mostly between Estonian and Russian (or Russophone) editors, some of which have ended up at ArbCom and resulted in sanctions for one or two of the editors involved. --Folantin (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested. Can you give me the links? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the main one [3]. There may be others. I haven't followed Baltic-Soviet stuff too closely. I usually deal with other areas of conflict. --Folantin (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is some saga! It will take weeks for me to read it all. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's complicated. Now you can see why I don't have the leisure to deal with it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eh?

An olive branch of peace!
I was just perusing DHMO's RfA, and noted that you linked to the GA nom (from just over a year ago) to Berber people. You made disparaging comments about the nominator (i.e., me). Wait! Nope! I'm not at all offended. Not here to attack you, nor push your buttons, nor insult your lineage, etc. My pulse rate is exactly the same as it was before reading your post. If anything, I'm a little amused (in a pleasant way).
You said that I lectured you. Sorry. I am trying.. usually.. to live by WP:DGAF. In fact, my strenuous Oppose to the Giggy/DHMO nom is the least DGAF I've been in a while, but... a little more is at stake. And there are complicating issues, which I won't go into here.
I do have one... mildly, very very very mildly negative remark. I mean it in a non-confrontational way: if you hold onto grudges this long, you'll worry yourself sick. Besides, the encyclopedia needs peace among its editors, whenever possible.
Uh no way would I nom that article today, in the shape it was in at that time. :-) I also don't think it was collusion. There was a comment by the reviewer (whose name doesn't ring a bell; I don't think I have any lengthy relationship with him/her) about "fast-tracking" it. I think he/she said that because he/she liked it. That was a year ago. I do not claim to share that sentiment today.
I wish you well. I hope some day we can wash away the negative feelings. I don't mean that in a hippy-dippy way, but in a matter-of-fact one.
Best regards, ~~the useless nominating idiot~~ Ling.Nut (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I love Moreschi's link to the GA reviewer's comment, "Why didn't you tell me you were an admin?" I'm gonna share it with User:geometry guy. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you hold onto grudges this long, you'll worry yourself sick". I don't hold onto to grudges. My beef is with the GA process and the GA project. Earlier this year I worked on an article which my collaborator put up for GA. It was failed twice for the flimsiest of reasons despite matching the criteria. So after over a year of "reform" by a project with around 200 members, GA quality control is still totally random.

The only reason I noticed the Berbers GA is because I was planning to work on Berber history earlier this year. In other words, it was pure coincidence, rather than the result of pursuing some kind of grudge against you. I was very surprised the article had made Good Article status, given the complete lack of citations for statistics (which is one thing I believe must always be referenced without exception). I was even more surprised to see who had nominated it, less than a month after the debate over the Agrippina GA. As I say, quality control appears to be non-existent at GA. If I'm to assume good faith, I'd have to put this down to incompetence rather than corruption but there are one or two cases (including the notorious example at the current RfA) where the latter seems at least plausible. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Typically it is incompetence. Highly atypically, it may be corruption. What is to be done? You can be intolerant of others' shortcomings, or you can help others overcome the same. You can slash-n-burn GA, or you can improve it. I would choose the latter, assuming I continue to contribute to it. I have been advocating a training program for GA reviewers for a long, long time. What a huge service that would be to them, and to the community! Alas, the zeitgeist has not yet caught up with my brilliance. :/ Anyhow, if you are still bitter about Agrippina, my comments, etc etc then I do apologize. But I also suggest... a gentler road than the slash-n-burn option. Best regards, Ling.Nut (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"if you are still bitter about Agrippina". This is why I find talking to you (and many other GA reviewers) a waste of time. You dismiss criticism by "psychologising" it or regarding it as a personal attack. I simply find it inconsistent that you nominated a deeply flawed article like Berbers for GA shortly after making a statement like this:

I wanna say publicly, to the world at large, and for the record: the bigshots at Wikipedia are constantly making statements about the need to improve citation. That includes the apparently revered Jim Wales (who I think is just another techie guy, but that's another story). I would like to say, for the record, that there is a shift in the culture at GA taking place, and citations are receiving more emphasis. We are simply taking GA more seriously than others may perceive is necessary. And I don't wanna sound... snooty or whatever... but I can only think that this is a good thing. I know it distresses people. I apologize. But we want a GA to be somewhat less than an FA but much, much more than a userbox. I am aiming for GAs to be roughly 80% of an FA; but that's my personal goal. Others are more strict than I am; still other are less so.

But of course, this is my own personal bitterness speaking rather than any wider concern for the good of the encyclopaedia.

As for GA, I'd simply abolish it and concentrate on reforming the FA process. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le postillon de Longjumeau

Hi. My understanding is that the 'g' spelling is a variant used in English-speaking countries. Grove give 'Le postillon de Lonjumeau' ('The Coachman of Longjumeau'). --Klein zach 10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it back (if that's possible). So long as there's a redirect, I don't mind.--Folantin (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. --Klein zach 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Well, the term is awfully ambiguous. When a nationalist is merely somebody advocating the idea of a nation state, which is not at all unsound (if it is going to be implemented without ethnic cleansing), such nationalists are rarely problematic. After all, many problems with former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union stem exactly from the fact that neither they nor most of their constituent republics were nation states.

What is dangerous is a blend of collectivism and supremacism often associated with the term nationalism (and characteristic of fascism, religious fundamentalism and other similar ideologies as well). Such a doctrine of nationalism, a belief in the superiority of a nation over the individuals comprising it (important and often overlooked feature) and over other nations, tends to coexist with imperialism, the exact opposite of the nationalism in the first sense.

E.g. in Russia the first kind of nationalist would be somebody insisting that the Chechen Republic should be left to itself and kept as independent as possible (and in this sense I am such a person, though I have never identified myself as a nationalist), while the second kind of nationalist would advocate its complete subordination to Russia, Russification, if not levelling to the ground. Dbachmann's list and some other similar essays strike me as something that mixes up the things, especially as to Spain. Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing to Byzantium, in leg irons

Hi Folantin -- do you know if this editor is the same one I just blocked for legal threats? (btw, he's making more threats on his talk page, and now is back with new IPs on the Byzantium article: I sense either range-block or article protection may be in the works.) Antandrus (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury

Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of Trial by Jury here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon of Wantley

Hello. I just saw your opera space and note that this opera does have a page. Oddly enough I went to a performance of this opera in Cambridge, directed by Peter Holman. I'm still trying to remember the English baroque opera I attended at the same time in the Naval Academy in Greenwich (usually off bounds, but a marvellous setting): Tamsin Greig, famous as Debbie Aldridge in The Archers, had one of the speaking parts. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it there if you like. You might also want to get in touch with User:Smerus, who has shown an interest in writing an article on this very opera within the past few weeks. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am an editor in good standing who has made great efforts to prevent Wikipedia being swamped by nationalist NPOV-pushing. I became engaged in a dispute on Chechen people when I noticed that User:Kuban kazak was questioning referenced material and inserting tendentious unsourced material of his own there. He proceeded to add citations which blatantly misrepresent the material they are supposed to back. In other words, we have a case of flagrant falsification by a user with a history of nationalist edit-warring. Even though he knew the reference was a hoax, he kept reinserting it into the article as well as other dubious material. He also removed content sourced from reliable sources. All this information about the dispute has been clearly available on ANI for the last seven hours. During that time not one admin has taken any action. I had no alternative but to revert KK's edits which clearly violated WP:V and WP:RS. When a user is aware he is re-adding content in blatant violation of our core policies, he is evidently a vandal. As I have said, admins have been aware of this problem for hours now and they have done nothing. KK goes to 3RR and suddenly I'm blocked. There is no way that the blocking admin can have read the relevant details behind the case in the time it took to block me. Yesterday, I wasted a good deal of my time trying to read the referenced pages in Russian (not my native language) to investigate their reliability. Now I'm rewarded with this. I request immediate unblock, not so I can return to the article immediately, but out of common courtesy for my attempts to ensure core policies are met. --Folantin (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

The article which was the subject of the edit war has been protected, so the block may be removed early. However, edit wars over other articles, or any incivility toward other editors, including User:Kuban kazak and User:Log in, log out during this content dispute will result in a renewed, longer block.

Request handled by: Papa November (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two years and 10,000 edits and all I got was this

Any chance of some service round here? --Folantin (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There again, I've been asking for somebody to take action here [4] for five months now. Obviously our wonderful admin corps is too busy wetting itself over Giano's latest "misdemeanour" to bother about things like encyclopaedic content. --Folantin (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still blocked?

Still can't edit, not even my own user page. How long does an unblock take? --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be instant I think. Try clearing the cache in your web browser maybe? Papa November (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restarted my computer and I'm still blocked. --Folantin (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, I've tried reblock/unblock. Better now? Papa November (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, still blocked. I've attempted to purge my editing history from my cache but I don't want to delete my saved log-in preferences. --Folantin (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've just lost a document I spent two whole hours working on this afternoon as a result of messing around with my computer to try and solve this. Great. --Folantin (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but did you clear your cache? This isn't Wikipedia's fault. 64.178.97.27 (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are autoblocked, I noticed the blocking admin never unblocked the autoblocked ip address. [5]Dance With The Devil (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be it. I get a message along those lines. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-ip|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.

Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing.

Re: 3. I don't want to reveal my IP to all and sundry. I've been stalked on the Internet. --Folantin (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can email it to me if you like. Alternatively, I can delete the latest version of your talk page straight after you post it. Papa November (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll send what I think is the IP via e-mail. --Folantin (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sent. --Folantin (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Papa November (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, cheers. Thanks for all your help. Does this thing usually happen?--Folantin (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether the blocking admin sets an autoblock or not - by default autoblocking is switched on. Autoblocks clear automatically after 24 hours, but the software's a bit quirky! Papa November (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<- Not really, the blocking admin told the mediawiki software to autoblock you, which is generally the recommended practice. However, the software is supposed to automatically take care of things after that. After I unblocked you, for some reason it didn't turn off the autoblock. As I said, the software doesn't always do things you expect! Papa November (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone needs to sort this mess out. I've lost valuable material because of this. Not your fault, you've been very helpful, but I should never have been blocked in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I'm very sorry that this happened to you. Why didn't the blocking administrator bother to read WP:AN/I or give you a warning? I am quite shocked. Mathsci (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sympathy. This has been a major failure on the part of the admin corps. --Folantin (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Yes I am. 5 users in good standing, acting in good faith on behalf of the community, is my criteria. Thanks. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ridiculous of me to apologise for making a supported block. Thanks for taking the time to ask though, I'm sure it was worth a shot. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the time and effort to protect Wikipedia's content, jobsworth. --Folantin (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thar

I just wanted to let you know I know how you feel. I got my nom for admin shot down by 1 user who who came back to inject the venom just a little bit more. And it seemed that no one was listening to me. Controversies on Wikipedia can suck because you can't just scream and yell - which makes it even more maddening! I'm posting this as much to help you as for me to vent on that... As I said before, the whole situation makes my brain hurt so I don't really "known" what's going on. I just thought you might want to hear that others have been though similar stuff. Good luck with whatever happens. mboverload @ 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the usual old national POV-pushing fun. Any uninvolved editor who's stupid enough to wade in there and try and make it a bit more neutral (by using, like, books and academic stuff to reference facts) ends up incurring the wrath of some organised group of agenda-driven users and getting the "treatment". If they kick up enough fuss, they manage to scare most admins from intervening. As for Irpen, he's well known for this kind of thing. Here's an ArbCom "finding of fact" about him [6]. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin: warning

Folantin, your personal attacks on Irpen based on nationality are shocking. And right on the admin noticeboard..! And against a respectable, hard-working editor..! I did a double-take when I saw your "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back." Your behaviour is completely unacceptable. Just take a deep breath and stop it. Now. Not one more xenophobic attack. I mean it. I have copied this post from WP:ANI. I mean it there, too. Bishonen | talk 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

And that would be blatant admin abuse. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you are now posting useful diffs rather than mere anger on ANI. Good to see, thank you. I do understand that Wikipedia is frustrating sometimes. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It's too late for that. I posted useful differences at the very start of the thread concerning blatant violations of core policies WP:RS and WP:V. Where were you and your fellow admins then? Of course I'm "angry". You only turned up when your friend Irpen was "attacked". And if you think POV-pushing on Wikipedia doesn't divide along predictable ethnic chauvinist lines then I don't know what to say. --Folantin (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back". I'll certainly apologise for saying that. It's an insult to some of our good faith Russian editors who aren't here to push a POV. --Folantin (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that you're constantly worried that people who disagree with you at ANI have a nationalist agenda. If you go through dispute resolution, then there are so many people there, you don't need to worry about nationalist editors taking over. Papa November (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've removed the specific nationality. It's quite irrelevant to my point. Papa November (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 331: / Line 331: @@
 ::I note that you are now posting useful diffs rather than mere anger on ANI. Good to see, thank you. I do understand that Wikipedia is frustrating sometimes. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
 :::It's too late for that. I posted useful differences at the very start of the thread concerning blatant violations of core policies [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:V]]. Where were you and your fellow admins then? Of course I'm "angry". You only turned up when your friend Irpen was "attacked". And if you think POV-pushing on Wikipedia doesn't divide along predictable ethnic chauvinist lines then I don't know what to say. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin#top|talk]]) 10:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
+:::"It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back". I'll certainly apologise for saying that. It's an insult to some of our good faith Russian editors who aren't here to push a POV. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin#top|talk]]) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 :It means that you're constantly worried that people who disagree with you at ANI have a nationalist agenda.  If you go through dispute resolution, then there are so many people there, you don't need to worry about nationalist editors taking over. [[User:Papa November|Papa November]] ([[User talk:Papa November|talk]]) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)