Jump to content

User talk:Evarose3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]
Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Evarose3! Thank you for your contributions. I am Matthewrbowker and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 22:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Evarose3. You have new messages at Matthewrbowker's talk page.
Message added 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 22:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 02:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 05:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 19:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

[edit]
Teahouse logo
Hello! Evarose3, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sarah (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Bruce Clark (legal scholar)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Evarose3. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk.
Message added 17:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your article for creation

[edit]

Hello You have created your article on the "talk page" of the project, whereas it should be here... [1] Kind regardsTheroadislong (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

[edit]
The request for formal mediation concerning Bruce Clark (legal scholar), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Lord Roem (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your article has been moved to AfC space

[edit]

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Evarose3/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D. has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism and the lawyer Bruce Clark, Ph.D., this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pol430 talk to me 16:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional question of constitutionalism vs. imperialism

[edit]

Dear Shearonick: Each of those BLPs follows the same organization as the above submission with one major exception. In each of those the man is a bigger than any of his many different famous cases. In contrast in the submission the issue swallows the man and makes him relevant only as the vehicle for showing how the legal system works in practice with regard to the subject of the submission. For this reason the organization of submission could be changed to focus the man as a BLP with the issue as the foil. But that was the way it was when the submission was called Bruce Clark (legal scholar). Then it was criticized for being a coatrack. So it was changed as to title and content to down-play Clark and up-play the infinitely more important constitutional question that has been his life's work. Some people defend imperialism with so deep an emotion it is as if their lives depended on it, and many of course do. Can you lend some support by understanding that both the man and the issue are notable and it shouldn't matter who gets focused upon. It begins to seem I am damned if I do and damned if I don't focus on the BLP vs. just using the man as the foil to reflect the issue. Can you help explain this so I can make some progress to publication? It is beginning to seem perversely bureaucratic and on imperialism's side in the result. Thanks,--Evarose3 (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC) *(post moved from User talk:Shearonink)[reply]

If you look at each of the articles I linked to above, the major difference I see from your draft is that these other articles are neutral in tone. For instance, the Kunstler article says "He was a polarizing figure: Many on the right wished to see him disbarred; many of the left admired him as a "symbol of a certain kind of radical lawyer" and the Dershowitz article states "A political liberal,[4][5][6][7] he is the author of a number of books about politics and law" wheras the constitutionalism/imperialism article states "...the question affects nothing whatsoever since the courts both of North America and the international arena refuse to entertain it regardless of their own constitutions" and "The testimony on offer was that the torment of the big lie causes serious bodily and mental harm within the meaning of the genocide convention. The deception is that the judiciary serves as guardian of constitutional supremacy and the rule of law when the truth is it abuses the rule of law by doing things for political reasons..." The articles are neutral in tone, but the draft resembles an essay with a point to make rather than an encyclopedia article, even though it's true that the title was changed. Also, I posted the above three articles as examples for you to work from in the course of helping at Articles for Creation and would suggest that none of the editors who have tried to help you are imperialistic in the least. Shearonink (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would it help if the title of the submission were revised to read Holocaust of Indigenous Peoples in terms of setting the proper tone? No one expects a writer to give equal treatment to Hitler's technique for genocide and the plight of those in the ovens. He lost the war. We have been engaged in as systemic a genocide against indigenous peoples caused the courts' refusal to address the law the addressing of which would preclude it. Hitler was a man in hurry whereas we have all the time in the world. The result is the same only that his failed whereas ours is successful. You want neutrality?--70.26.30.227 (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As laid out in other editors' comments below, the content at present is a concern not the title. I found some Wikipedia articles with similar subject matter and think the following could be good examples in that they strive to preserve a neutral point of view while presenting sourced information from published reliable sources (which after all, is what an encyclopedia is): Ward Churchill and Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools (or Kill the Indian, Save the Man). For a step-by-step recipe to building better Wikipedia articles I find Wikipedia:Writing better articles, while quite long, to be very useful. It hits the same marks as a lot of the advice being posted here, especially the Information style and tone section. Shearonink (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Nolelover Talk·Contribs 02:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 10:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Evarose, I can see that you are having a frustrating time here. Maybe I can help work out why, and make some suggestions about how you might proceed. The difficulty it seems to me is that you know a lot about the subject area of your interest, and have strong and passionate feelings about it. At the same time, you're not very familiar with Wikipedia and how it works; when it doesn't work the way you want it to you just keep trying harder to do the same things that got rejected the first time!
I think you are trying to be too ambitious with your first set of edits. Can I suggest that instead of starting a new set of articles in a highly controversial area, you maybe begin by learning the ropes with either smaller edits to articles within that area, or starting some new articles in relatively non-controversial topics? That way you'd learn the ropes without being pulled up short by them all the time.
The main problem is that draft articles like this one don't conform to how Wikipedia articles are usually written. Your strong beliefs and values come across very clearly in the article, which is no bad thing in an essay but is directly contrary to the WP policy outlined here. In the draft of your I linked, the summary for example is never going to be acceptable; forms of words like "The holocaust of indigenous peoples can be ended if not by a stronger external force being brought to bear as with the case of Germany then by a resurgence of the legal and ethical values of the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War and Constitution. If this is to be the courts must lead not follow. It can so easily be done by the stroke of pen proving it so much mightier than the sword" just aren't approprate for an encyclopaedia in the way they would be for a campaigning website.
I see you've been trying to write a legal biography as well; you could have a look at some others such as Shami Chakrabarti for example - click the links at the bottom of her page to find biographies of other lawyers. This is the kind of format you need to aim at. It really would be worth having a look at this page which describes the fundamental philosophies of Wikipedia and which if you follow, you won't go far wrong.
One thing I would say: no matter how frustrated you feel, don't resort to intemperate posts like this one. You are not being opposed by a colonialist clique, but by experienced editors who want the articles here to read as encyclopedia articles, not campaign manifestos. If you're having trouble writing in this way, please ask for help rather than assuming bad faith on the part of others.
If you would like help in editing, please reply here with some specific requests. I am afraid I will NOT be able to get your articles published in the form you are writing them; they simply don't conform to Wikipedia norms. But I CAN help you to modify your writing style so that some of the verifiable facts you enumerate could be set out here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evarose3 this is excellent advice and a very accurate summary of the problems.Theroadislong (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - here is what I was about to post to ANI but the discussion was closed before I finished.
Evarose, you need to understand that if anything is binding editors together here, it is our policies and guidelines, policies and guidelines that they are trying hard to explain to you and that you don't appear to understand, although it may be that you just don't agree with them. It isn't do to with the topic so far as I can see. There is nothing unusual going on here and certainly nothing political that I can see. If you wish to edit, and particularly if you wish to create articles, you are simply going to have to understand and follow our policies and guidelines and not expect any exceptions. We do have an adoption program that might be a good way for you to get guidance, if interested, see WP:Adoption. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Reposted from [[WP:AN/I): Is this topic by nature too hot for Wikipedia to handle? If not, then I suggest the treatment given it in my current draft submission meets Wikipedia policy even without recourse to the 5th pillar, and certainly with such recourse! Nevertheless I feel seriously intimidated from persisting with merely stylistic improvements due to the destructive throw-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater criticism left standing in the recently closed attempt to censor my writing. If it is too hot to handle for Wikipedia to handle, please just come right out with it and I can stop futilely trying. Thank you.--Evarose3 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your current draft does not meet WP policy. At this point you need to do one of two things. Either (1) modify your writing style to something much more encyclopaedic and less polemical. Or (2) per your suggestion above, give WP up as a bad job. In your terms, yes WP does find your approach to this kind of topic too hot to handle. You will find other forums better suited to your style.
If you want to go ahead with (1) I'm happy to help. It's not merely stylistic changes that are needed, I fear, but if you would be willing to revise your approach to article-writing I will happily help you to do so. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to write articles on any subject, but 'just the facts,' uncolored by your own opinions. Even if your opinions are really, really important. Wikipedia is, after all, just an encyclopedia. If you want to write for an encyclopedia, you'll have to be content to write 'just the facts.' If you want to write passionate articles that reveal the Truth of important issues, that's a worthy thing to do- it just isn't what an encyclopedia does, so you'll have to do it on your blog or web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evarose, I reverted this edit of yours at WP:ANI for two reasons. One, that discussion has been closed - we have agreed that the complaint against you does not need any administrative action such as a block. Two, if you nevertheless keep on reopening discussion there it becomes increasingly likely that someone will decide that your editing here is contentious and disruptive, and that you should indeed be blocked. In your own interest, please stay away from AN/I. Having said that, if you decide not to heed my warning and post there again I won't revert you - but you will need to put up with the consequences which may not be those you hoped for. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly suggest you listen to Kim, he does have your best interests at heart here, and he is correct. You really don't want to try to get this settled in ANI, trust him. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Denis, I believe it is essential that the issue be settled in ANI. At least, it is if ANI acts as a policy center. Darkness Shines submitted and had accepted earlier today corrupting my title into Genocide of indigenous peoples. She tells me there is no current American empire. Her article is virtually only a sentence long and achieves nothing so much as to exonerate the current empire and the current genocide. If as a matter of Wikipedia policy that sort of grossly misleading misrepresentation thing gets by as NPOV, whereas my own submission that is supposedly biased because it criticizes the current for ongoing genocidal crimes empire does not pass muster, then NPOV really just means how the cabal in place on the imperialism issue feels. If that is what Wikipedia is all about then let's let the ANI say so, and block me. Or rather, just tell me and I will block myself. Otherwise publish my revised submission the same as you did the much inferior and terribly misleading article on the same subject by Darkness Shines.--Evarose3 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI is a "policy centre" only insofar as it can be used for reporting certain violations of policy. The policies themselves aren't developed or changed there. And yes, it is true that our policies (among them WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SOAPBOX) would prevent you from writing an article in which you personally criticize a government. You are free to summarize existing published criticism of a government, however. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANI isn't exactly a "policy centre" anyway. It is more like a place where people are reported for gross violation of policy, where the administrators need to take drastic action, such as blocking users. As Psychonaut says, we do not change policy there, we only enforce them in the worst case scenarios. You don't want to be there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut says I can not in a submission personally criticize a government. Can I record verified facts which, if true, in themselves criticize the government. Or, can I point of the facts as to what is being done juxtaposed against what the constitution enacts is legal to be done, and let the reader draw a conclusion that is critical? That is what the submission does in my view. If it is published and any person shows me a passage that transgresses, then I can either delete it or revise it until it does no longer transgress.--Evarose3 (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't do this, because this would be considered a synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." But if there exists some criticism published in reliable sources which reaches the conclusion you are advancing, then it's fine to summarize and reference it. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidal holocaust of the indigenous nations

[edit]

I created such an article already. See Genocide of Indigenous Peoples. Before editing it howecer be aware that should you add WP:OR or not maintain a WP:NPOV you will be reverted. Read those policy's before editing, good luck. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did you create your article? Why does it exonerate the current American empire while castigating its British and Spanish predecessors? You leave the impression that the genocide is of historical interest only. Was there no outcry against the whitewash when you article was being reviewed? Or was it reviewed? Is User:Darkness Shines a pen name for User:SarahSteirch?--Evarose3 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be daft. I created the article as it is of interest to me, I see no nation being "exonerated" American expansion into the west is yet to be added, that is how it works around here, articles get expanded. BTW, America does not have, nor have ever been an empire. You can add to the article, just read the rules as i asked of you first. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily look at the article history and see that this article was started today, by User:Darkness Shines. I have no idea why you think that someone else created it, but check the history and see for yourself. And please, please, stop being angry at Wikpedia for being an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a calm, dispassionate explanation of facts. It sounds like you're angry because you don't want to write a calm, dispassionate explanation of facts- you want to write a passionate essay about deeply held beliefs. That's a good thing to write. You can write that, if that's what you want to write. Wikipedia is just not the place for it. It's a big internet, and you can find a place to host the kind of writing you want to do. Being angry at Wikipedia for only publishing encyclopedia articles is a bit like being angry at the opera house because they won't let you play football there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evarose3, the article has only just been started, and so it must be expected that it is incomplete at this stage. If you feel the article gives undue weight to the Spanish genocide, then you can solve this problem by balancing it out with similar relevant information for other genocides, such as the one instigated by the Americans. Just make sure that your submission is not polemic in nature. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The genocide article of Darkness Shines was submitted and accepted on the same day. It is grossly inadequate to the subject, virtually a single sentence. How in heaven's name did it get accepted and published, as such, in a single day? In your view does it represent a NPOV of the large subject of the genocide of indigenous peoples? Darkness Shines tells me there is no American empire, so how can it possibly have a role in the ongoing current genocide? None, obviously. I suppose that is the point ultimately being made by my attackers, right? Only they are not "attackers" because they all have labels on them saying they are certified NPOV-type people, right? I am just learning what it means to be a Wikipedian, so will you please correct the mistake in my perception?--Evarose3 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I create do not go through the articles for creation process, this is because I have created a lot of articles. Look, go to the article, and edit it. Nobody is stopping you. A vast majority of articles created are started as stubs and then get expanded upon, that is all you need do, expand on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How did you manage to make your submission a published article all in one day, today even? I have been told any person can do that, but the source to explain how did not explain how. Mine could be a stub, like yours. Anyway, would you mind detailing the steps directly to publish like you did? Thanks.--Evarose3 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genocidal holocaust of the indigenous nations click on that then click create, you will however be wasting your time, it will be deleted as WP:OR & a WP:POVFORK. Why not just add to the article already created? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It really is important for you to read the rules for yourself. I think it would be better for you to learn how to create an article by reading the rules, which explain the process clearly. It isn't even difficult to do. Start at WP:WELCOME and WP:FIRST. It wouldn't be a good idea to teach you how to do it here, so that you can create articles before you have read the rules. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New articles don't have to be perfect, they just have to adhere to the five pillars. Darkness Shines posted the new article straight to article space, which is perfectly permissible, and nobody has called the article as deficient in neutrality or as lacking sources. You're quite right, the article is barely a stub and therefore incomplete - which means any of us can add to it as long as we stick by the rules. Your articles have been much more lengthy and detailed, but I'm afraid they failed to adhere to a neutral point of view and therefore they've not been approved at WP:AFC. You could of course have posted them directly into article space, but you were wise not to as they would have immediately been challenged and slated for deletion because of their polemical nature. I agree with you that Genocide of indigenous peoples needs a lot of work - why don't you use your knowledge to improve it, now you have a sense of the kind of article which will survive here? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Darkness Shines was simply saying that America is, in the most literal sense of the term, not an empire, because it is not run autocratically by a politician with the title "emperor". I don't think he was disputing that there is such a notion as American imperialism, for which we already have a very well-sourced article. If you feel America's contribution to the genocide of its indigenous peoples is not adequately covered by the article Darkness Shines created, and that its omission therefore introduces a particular point of view, then by all means remedy this oversight yourself. You are not only welcome, but actually encouraged to do so (again, keeping in mind the scope of our project, which is not polemical). —Psychonaut (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kim Dent-Brown says above, "You could of course have posted them directly into article space, but you were wise not to as they would have immediately been challenged and slated for deletion because of their polemical nature." Well that is exactly want I want to do; the same as Darkness Shines did! Then he or my other critics can identify a specific passage that gives an opinion that is not substantiated or verified as a fact and, if the criticism is valid, I will revise the article to accommodate it. It is absolutely essential, right now, that Wikipedia maintain a balanced exposition of the issue of the genocide attributable to imperialism as opposed to constitutionalism. Darkness Shines' POV is that the UK and Spain are to be faulted but that leaves the issue as a dead historical matter. That is false and misleading to the people who read Wikipedia. The alternative POV is that the problem of imperialism and the genocide attributable to it is not only current, but remediable. The remedy is the constitution which, by precluding imperialism, prevents the genocide attributable to it. Surely that needs to be published to counterbalance Darkness Shines polemic exculpating American imperialism by necessary implication genocide is only an historical artifact of antiquarian interest. But how do I publish straight in the same way Darkness Shines did?Cheers,--Evarose3 (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to directly create an article. You will learn how to do that as you read Your First Article, and you will learn how to do it well by reading the links in your welcome message. When you create an article, expect other users to read it, make changes to it, or even replace or delete it entirely if it doesn't follow Wikipedia's rules. There's no conspiracy here, and you are equal to every other editor in every way, with all the same abilities, and under the limitations of all the same rules. I can tell that you really, really want to be the victim of oppression, but you aren't- you're just another editor, with your editor-colleagues explaining rules to you that you haven't seen yet, just as you will one day explain the same rules to some other new editor. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that in this situation, it would be more useful to add to, change, or expand the article already under the title Genocide of Indigenous Peoples rather than creating a second article, with a different title, on the same subject. Wikipedia tries to avoid having redundant articles, because that would confuse readers. If you think the title of that article should be changed, that's possible- you should start a discussion on the article's talk page explaining why, and to what. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you requested, a close analysis of Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Genocidal_holocaust_of_indigenous_peoples

[edit]

You've repeatedly stated that you do not understand why this article is in violation of WP:NPOV. It is rather long, so I don't think I can do a close analysis of the whole thing, but I can make a beginning. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<quote>The genocidal holocaust of indigenous peoples is mediated by the legal profession and courts of Western Civilization led by the United States of America, her allies and the international agencies she educates and influences</quote>

  • The title is a problem, because 'holocaust' is an emotionally loaded term- it makes a judgement by directly connecting the genocide of indiginous peoples to the event most commonly known as The Holocaust. Doing this is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS- using the facts to draw your own conclusions.
  • 'is mediated by the legal profession and courts' is a very strange phrase. Are you accusing all lawyers and judges of genocide? This would certainly be a violation of a variety of policies.
  • 'Western Civilization' is a very large number of human beings. Are you accusing every person who lives in a western country of genocide? This does not appear to be verified by any available source, nor, indeed, does it appear to be true.
  • 'led by the United States of America' - You are now stating that all genocides of indiginous peoples that have ever happened were led by the United States. It would not be difficult to find sources verifying that some such genocides happened before the United States was founded, and indeed before anyone but indiginous people lived in the United States.
  • 'her allies' - who, specifically, are the "allies" of the extremely broad group of people that can be described as 'Western Civilization?' I live in the United States. I have an old college roommate in India. But I'm pretty sure she isn't guilty of genocide either.
  • the use of 'her' and 'she' is not customary in encycylopedia writing when talking about nations. 'It' is the correct pronoun.
  • 'the international agencies' - do you mean International nongovernmental organizations? Intergovernmental organizations? Both?
  • 'she educates and influences' - you appear to be stating that every International nongovernmental organization and Intergovernmental organization with any American members is guilty of genocide. Do you have any reliable sources verifying that, for example, the World Organization of the Scout Movement is guilty of genocide?

<quote>It is as supported by society-at-large as was the holocaust in Germany and the areas under her control during the Second World War.</quote>

  • Again you make a direct connection to a different historical event- this is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS.
  • You also make an unverified claim: however, this claim is unverifiable, because, as in the points I raised after your first sentence, you have not clearly defined your claim. In any case, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the business of making claims and supporting them is inherently synthesis, and not within what an encyclopedia article does.

<quote>This will seem like an original and unwelcome thought to citizens of the successful empire but it is trite knowledge to those indigenous peoples who are not entrapped by the Stockholm syndrome or in service as agents and administrators serving the systemic implementation of the crime.</quote>

  • 'This will seem like an original and unwelcome thought' - directly assuming what your readers are thinking is not at all appropriate for an encyclopedia article- it is not a verifiable fact. In fact, as I teach my 7th grade students, assuming you know what your readers are thinking is nearly always a bad idea, especially at Wikipedia, where you are writing for a very broad audience of people you don't know personally.
  • 'the successful empire' is a problematic phrase as applied to the United States, for the reasons discussed by several people above. Simply to call the United States an 'empire' is to violate WP:SYNTHESIS by making your own judgement.
  • 'trite knowledge' is a violation of WP:NPOV. You are making a value judgement about the knowledge.
  • 'entrapped by the Stockholm syndrome' - your statement is that every native person, everywhere, who does not blame the United States for every genocide in history is a person who has a diagnosed mental illness. Are you able to provide a reliable source, preferably a reputable journal of psychiatry, that would verify that statement?
  • 'serving the systemic implementation of the crime.' This is a violation of WP:NPOV; you are making a personal accusation against every indiginous person in the world who holds a job for the United States government or any state government. Do you have reliable sources verifying that every Cherokee schoolteacher, every Navaho police officer, every single person has been convicted of genocide in an international court?

I've only looked closely at the first three sentences, but so far, I haven't found a single sentence- not even a single phrase- which does follow Wikipedia's policies. I hope this was helpful to you in understanding why your approach simply doesn't work for an encyclopedia article. If it was, no further analysis is necessary; if it wasn't, further analysis isn't likely to be any more help, and would only serve to embarrass you, so I'll stop here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are your false words and accusations, not mine.--Evarose3 (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS? Do you have any questions about them? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I'd expect from such an experienced editor, FisherQueen's exegesis is spot on. When I have some time I'll try and offer another way in; I will try and write a section using your sources that doesn't violate policy but does get across some of your points. Will take me a few hours to get time to do this, but I will. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I would like is directly to publish the submission as an article and then to work with you exactly as you propose. Can you inform me of the steps to take to do what Darkness Shines did, publish from submission to article directly. Then we could work on it together to prefect it, piece by piece. I am willing and would be grateful if you were also. Thanks. Best,--Evarose3 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest, in the strongest possible terms, that you don't do this. I predict 100% that if you publish your article to main space it will either be speedily deleted as a duplicate, or sent to WP:AFD because of its highly WP:POV editing. However if you are determined, go to your article draft, hit the edit tab and then copy all the text into your clipboard (highlight all text and hit CTRL-C). Then go to the page FQ highlighted at Wikipedia:Article wizard and follow the instructions there, pasting your text via CTRL-V when prompted.
Your page will appear in article main space and within minutes it will be deleted or slated for deletion (though not by me - I'll steer clear of the process so you can see it happens independently.) We can only advise you of the right way to go so many times, if you are determined to take this path we can't stop you. If it does go as predicted however, would you be willing to take a step back and follow our advice? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll avoid tagging the article for deletion, too - it's easy enough to let some previously uninvolved new-page patroller have an unbiased first look at it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am anxious to get to the juncture where an editor and I can communicate by working down the draft submission section by section starting with the lead. I expect to be flexible and to delete whatever I can not justify, once I understand the specific objection. If the section can not be revised or jettisoned without destroying the submission then I would have no choice but to withdraw the entire submission. I will accept you guidance, Kim Dent-Brown, about the most efficient way to proceed. I hope you can commit to being the editor guide and, if so, what are the marching orders? Thanks. Cheers,--Evarose3 (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evarose, you are already well into the process of having not one, but a number of editors comment on your draft. The folks at WP:AFC who reviewed it and then several people here. FisherQueen gave some very detailed comments on your lead section but understandably didn't go through the whole draft.
I've had another look at your draft and I'm afraid to say I think it's irremediable as it stands. The best way to proceed would be to bite off a much smaller task, such as maybe the article on the Gustafsen Lake Standoff. If you can find any newspaper or similar sources about Bruce Clark's part there (which is currently not mentioned) it would be a useful addition to the story. If you do want to work on your draft (which I do not advise), you could do no better than start by addressing FisherQueen's comments on the first three paragraphs above. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 17:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone back to the article about the Gustafsen Lake Standoff and made these edits to material where the source looks reliable. I have a problem in that I don't have any access to books on the subject, so I can't evaluate them as reliable sources or quote from them. But if you do have copies of books, you could follow my lead. I still can't find any reliable source describing Clark's role which is a shame. Can you suggest anything? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source for Clark and have added it to the article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evarose, allow me to add my voice to the throng; what you have here is a polemic essay, not a factual, neutral article. Polemics are not permitted on Wikipedia, any more than in any other reputable encyclopedia. You are, I believe, operating off of a premise often shared by newcomers to Wikipedia - that there must be some way, if we'd only help you navigate it, for your advocacy piece to pass muster.

    There isn't. Take your Bruce Clark proposal for an example. If you have the reliable sources to do so - an unpublished master's thesis doesn't remotely count - you can certainly write an article about Clark as a notable lawyer and activist on behalf of First Nations peoples, including such details as the notorious cases in which he was involved, his prison sentence and disbarment. You cannot cast him as a noble crusader for downtrodden peoples, who proved to be the victim of smear and dirty tricks campaigns, driven into exile by a corrupt government. As long as you are determined to write advocacy pieces, instead of neutral statements of verifiable fact backed by reliable, independent, third-party sources, then they will be subject to prompt deletion.

    Nor is this a matter of a hostile clique, or us not understanding our own policies and guidelines. The unanimous opinion of every experienced editor who has weighed in on these contributions has been the same. What do you think is more likely: that you alone are right and everyone else is wrong, or that editors with more experience with Wikipedia than you do might have a better feel for its rules than you do?

    No one is telling you, of course, that you can't write advocacy pieces. We're just telling you that such pieces have no place on Wikipedia, and that you must seek other venues for their publication. Ravenswing 02:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

[edit]
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Yunshui 雲‍水 21:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer)

[edit]

I did some work on your article and moved it to article space as Bruce Allan Clark (lawyer). You're more than welcome to work on it, but please keep it well sourced and on-topic. If you should want access to the old version before I started work, it's here. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email

[edit]

I tried, but you seem to have disappeared :( Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evarose3&oldid=1145843202"