User talk:The Four Deuces

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Left-Wing Politics[edit]

Terrorism is been a part of history since the beginning of humanity, some worse than other. It is equally important that We The People use transparency and be neutral when we add or delete a portion of history. If the left-wing politics history had no terrorism than I would agree that it should not be part of the equation, however, in order to be transparent and unbiased history should be told regardless if is positive or negative.

It seems that you don't want the left to be tainted as terrorist, but it did happen in the past and it is everyone's right to know the truth. If you look at the Right-Wing Politics it had terrorism as well and it is mentioned. Why do you want dismiss left wing terrorism? As the creators and improvers of Wikipedia we should make this place a neutral and unbiased. If left wing terrorism just like the right are part of an ugly past it should be not be omitted or censored. Many aristocrats in the past tried so many times to destroy history this is why the world keep repeating the same old mistakes.

In good conscience we should expose the truth whether we like it or not. Wikipedia should not be a biased instrument

AttentiontoDetails (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not presume what my motives are. Indeed terrorism has been used by the Left as it has been for every other ideology. In fact more terrorist actions were carried out by the Patriots in the American Revolution, yet I do not see you trying to add it to that article. But the issue is weight. Why do you think we should have an entire section about a few dozen people in 1960s American, while Maoism, Trotskyism, and Stalinism get a sentence or two at most? The world does not begin or end in the land of We the People. Also, your writing does not explain the connection between terrorism and left-wing ideology of these U.S. groups. That's tendentious because the assumption is that it is a normal part of left-wing activity. We are discussing the issue on the talk page and I suggest you continue the discussion there since inclusion or exclusion of material is a matter for all editors to determine. TFD (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean that we should erase and forget that part of history because of a few terrorist in the 1960s has no value in history. Let's say that we add the others that you mentioned, would you be able to come to an agreement You are mentioning the Patriots in the American History and why I am not saying anything about terrorism there. I can't believe you mentioning that, the simple answer is that I am not involved with that topic at this time. Let's stay the course. If you are imminent about living that portion off so be it. The left wins again. If you feel the Patriots of the American Revolution are terrorist as you said, why don't you try to write that in. (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is not "erasing" history. We have an article about Left-wing terrorism which I created by the way. The issue is how much emphasis we give to any issue in articles, which is governed by "Balancing aspects", which says, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." This issue is routinely ignored in the literature as for example, The Left In History: Revolution and Reform in Twentieth-Century Politics, which does not mention terrorism. As such, it would be tendentious to have an entire section.
And no, I do not feel the Patriots were terrorist, but that reliable sources have described some actions carried out by them as terrorism, such as attacking government property, officials and supporters and their property other than as normal actions in a war. Literature on terrorism mentions it, but it generally is not described as terrorism in literature about the Revolution, which is why we do not have it there.
TFD (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Seth Rich BLPN[edit]

Hello. I want to let you know I moved "up" one of your comments underneath mine [1], where I believe it was originally situated. If there is a problem with this, then please move it back. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about neoliberalism[edit]

Thank you for your input. I have rewritten the section. I hope you can engage in the discussion. Dryfee (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fame at last[edit]

Not sure I wish to be cited defending the Mail in my national press. Although of course the point being made by both of us was more about the broader principles than the Mail per se ... (which I hope comes across) N-HH talk/edits 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I had not seen that before. Maybe we can start an article about the Daily Mail ban? TFD (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Reasonable question about Daily Mail[edit]

You asked, "Can anyone provide examples of where using Daily Mail articles has resulted in inaccurate information being presented in Wikipedia articles?" I've examined about 15 citations of it, and found one example where the Daily Mail got it wrong, and consequently Wikipedia got it wrong.

Buriganga River states "According to the Department of the Environment (DoE), 22,000 litres (5,800 US gal) of toxic waste are released into the river by the tanneries every day." For this it cites: Brady, Tara (24 March 2014). "Working themselves to death, the Bangladesh men and women tanning leather for a pittance in one of the world's top 30 most polluted locations". Daily Mail. Every day, the tanneries collectively dump 22,000 litres of toxic waste ... into the Buriganga ... according to the environment ministry. 

Unfortunately the Daily Mail is off by a factor of 1000. The daily toxic discharge is 20,000–22,000 cubic meters (22,000,000 liters) according to a large number of sources, all of which seem to get their information from a 2001 Department of Environment report. So far I haven't located the report itself, but the cubic meter figure is in line with 1998 and 2001 articles in peer reviewed academic journals, using older data, that say 14,910 cu m and 15,800 cu m.

This example is a better illustration of why one should cite peer reviewed scientific papers rather than newspapers for scientific information than it is an indictment of the Daily Mail in particular. All sources sometimes make mistakes, and it's worth noting that the Daily Mail is not alone in flubbing the units. A Malaysian newspaper did the same, The Guardian said 22,000 "cubic" liters, and another newspaper reported the volume in "square" meters!

Nevertheless, it is an example where an error in the Daily Mail made it into Wikipedia and has persisted for nearly 3 years. Before the citation to the Daily Mail was added in response to a {{citation needed}}, Wikipedia's article had for years said 20,000 tonnes, which, if water, would be 20,000 cu m. So Wikipedia seems to have had it more-or-less right until a well-meaning editor used the Daily Mail to correct Wikipedia. --Worldbruce (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. The figure was also used in the Daily Star[2] and was posted on Digital Journal as an article from Agence France-Presse (AFP).[3] The Daily Star however reported the figure as 21,000. So this appears to be an error in a wire service story that was repeated by multiple media. While I would fault the Daily Mail and the Daily Star though for not attributing their articles to the AFP, I would not fault them for not fact-checking the source. Of course it may be that the error was in the DOE report.
I agree that we should be using peer-reviewed sources for this type of information. News media are the only sources we have for what happened yesterday, but poor sources for anything else. I notice you have replaced Daily Mail cites with the Daily Star. While I am sure it means reliability, it appears to be even more sensational. "Human race descended from Martian ALIENS claims UFO boffin" for example has pictures of aliens, while the article merely says a SETI scientist says that the first microbes on Earth may have come from Mars. It then provides pictures of "Extraterrestrial objects spotted on the Moon and Mars."
TFD (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing that piece from Daily Star (British newspaper). Now thet ah knows th' TRUTH ah gots t'improve me some Wikipedia!!! The replacement I've used for some Daily Mail cites is The Daily Star (Bangladesh), a completely unrelated broadsheet that is more or less The Times or The New York Times of Bangladesh (my area of focus), in the sense of being the most reputable and professional non-foreign news organization in the country. Of course they're still only reliable for things for which news media are usually reliable. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I should not have assumed. TFD (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)