User:Cs32en/Archive/Talk/004

"Controversial" on Williamson article

I am not going to get into an edit war. The narrow definition of "controversial" is whether the opinion is debatable (which it really isn't), so I understand your point regarding the idea that Williamson's statements aren't controversial, since it is indisputable that six million Jews and 12 million in total (give-or-take) were murdered by the Nazis. However, my reason for the edit is that he is a controversial figure and that his general point of view creates controversy. Although the definition of controversial matches your edit, the general, if technicall incorrect usage, would match mine. It is not worth an edit war, and I am not going to revert, but I wanted to explain why I made the change. I 100% agree with your other edits. Interestingly, the person that "strongly agreed" with your edit actually previously argued that the number murdered by the Nazis was much lower than six million/12-million. So, he essentially contradicted himself, since to him, the figures are controversial.Sposer (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we generally agree on the status of Holocaust denial. What is considered controversial by some is whether Williamson actually denies the Holocaust (I'd say yes.) What is obviously controversial is how others should react to Williamson's statements. I wouldn't object to the inclusion of a statement that says that his views created a controversy. We might even state that his views are controversial, if we do not refer specifically to the Holocaust denial. (His views on all sorts of religious questions are controversial.) I have looked briefly at the talk page and couldn't find a statement from Goodmorningworld where he says he himself believes that the Nazis murdered much less than 6 million Jews. Williamson seems to try to avoid blatantly false statements, he seeks to induce people to believe in lies constructed from a slight misunderstanding of the exact wording he uses. It's a difficult call whether we would want to present these statements in a detailed way, or whether we should mainly rely on the interpretation given by newspapers. I would favor the former, if there is a (scholarly) source that would allow a source-based detailed description of his positions and their implication. If there is no such source, the risk of WP:OR is significant, and we better stick with what newspapers say. For criticisms, we need to look for how the majority of reliable sources present the issues, as it's a BLP article. (There may well be a majority of such sources stating that Williamson is a Holocaust denier, not just that he is accused of Holocaust denial, but I'm too lazy to do a detailed analysis of the sources.)   Cs32en  23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It is more semantics anyway, and to be honest, Williamson isn't worth the trouble from you or me. As far as GoodMorningWorld, I do not see the bit on him saying that the number was not millions on the discussion page either, but that might have been by private email. He did "blacklist" me, because he wanted to interpret the articles and interpret what Williamson said in his own way. If he never questioned the number, then I apologize to you for leading you to waste you time, and to him for putting words into his mouth.Sposer (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I discovered this just now. For the record, I did not as Sposer claims "want to interpret the articles and interpret what Williamson said in his own way" but to ensure that WP does not republish false accounts of what Williamson said. What he said can be easily verified by anyone who understands English and views the Swedish TV interview for themselves, no interpretation whatsoever required. Also for the record, I never made the distasteful claim about the number of dead that Sposer ascribed to me in any medium and I still have every e-mail exchanged between Sposer and me should proof be required. Sposer, your apology is accepted but you really need to be more careful about misquoting people. Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have nominated Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

List of people from California

Regarding your readdition to the List of people from California of Richard Gage (architect), I would like to discuss with you and other interested editors who are willing to maintain a NPOV, on the aforementioned article's talk page, whether Richard Gage should or should not be included in this list, and if a compromise could be reached on this inpass rather than getting into an editing war (which is not what I seek). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just writing a comment on the talk page there. We should also discuss this on the policy page for lists of people, so that we get more input and more viewpoints from people who have worked on other such lists. I have made a bold addition to the guideline, to start a discussion. I think we need some specific advice on the BLP1E cases, but I'm not sticking to a particular wording.  Cs32en  09:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

baz and research

Is there research that helps resolve this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth#The_Bazant_Language_has_always_been_misleading_and_unencylopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 03:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

AE 911 - "The scientific community has rejected..."

Hi Cs32en. Just wanted to let you know that a possible compromise is currently being discussed regarding revision of a controversial line in lead paragraph at AE911. (The line is "the scientific community has rejected controlled demolition...") I let you know as a courtesy because you've put so much work into the article. If you have any thoughts on the compromise, please chime in on the discussion page (The Bazant Language Has Always Been Misleading"). Thanks. Doctorhoneydew (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)