User talk:Herrschmetterling

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Enhanced interrogation techniques. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Closedmouth (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Herrschmetterling, you are not removing loaded terms or wording, you are adding qualificatives about people opposed to torture, typically labelling them "leftists" (which is probably at least inaccurate in many instances), or even "polygamy-advocate, gay marriage activist", which is completely irrelevant (but quite telling as to what you consider to be liable).

The part "It is up to a discerning public..." is completely editorialistic in nature, containing no information whatsoever about the the so-called "Enhanced interrogation techniques‎". It contains information about you (notably your views that "a sixty year old Norwegian court case" is not relevant about today's world, which as a side-effect constitutes an interesting defence of Nazi war criminals), but Wikipedia is not a soap box. Rama (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your article cites six individuals, all of whom -- according to Wikipedia -- have either made patently leftist statements on the issue (documented on Wikipedia) or taken public action in defense of incontestably leftist causes (also documented on Wikipedia), who in turn cite a man who is universally better known for his criticism of monogamy than for his authority on constitutional law (again, see the relevant Wikipedia page), while also including Salon.com's (Wikipedia: "liberal" website) take on the issue, evidently for good measure. And all this to support the labeling of government policies as fascistic. Your corrective lecturing on what does and does not constitute "editorializing" is misdirected.

The idea that my pointing out the more subjective/misleading elements of this article is in some way tantamount to a defense of Nazi war criminals does indeed speak volumes, but not necessarily about me. My inclusion of the fact that Sullivan is better known as a gay marriage advocate highlights the basic absurdity of your citing him in support of an issue of constitutional law. This absurdity is something that you apparently would like not to be appreciated by your readers.

Your personal soap box is what Wikipedia evidently is. And that's what she said.

Will you honestly claim not to know that Salon.com is the leftist equivalent of National Review online?

First, "leftist" is not interchangeable with "left-wing". Now, as you say yourself, the political leanings of these individuals are documented on their respective articles; it is not necessary to repeat these opinions unless specifically relevant, which they are not. I note that you did not label John Yoo to be right-wing, in spite of his documented links with the American Enterprise Institute.

My point about 60-year old cases is that by attempting to discredit this particular decision because it is 60 years old, you also cast a discredit on the Nuremberg trials. Also, I fail to understand how the laws of physics and physiobiology would have changed in 60 years in a way that would make the Norwegian case irrelevant.

I claim nothing about Salon.com. On the other hand, I do claim that merely stating facts in an arbitrary manner, even accurate ones, can bring you anywhere. As it is, the Wikipedia article does not want to follow you where you evidently want to go. Rama (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)