User talk:Rkrichbaum

Welcome

Hello, Rkrichbaum, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-A

If you'd read it in full why did state: "If you believe otherwise, provide the quotes verbatim. I asked you before" after I had already done so? I'm sorry, I'm tired of this; you're randomly picking a part diction as it suits you.

"Undifferentiated: Having no special structure or function; primitive; embryonic." An undifferentiated attack or censure of the U.S. would, by definition, apply to the country per se. "I hate America and Americans" is undifferentiated and qualifies as anti-Americanism. "I'm appalled by Guantanamo" is differentiated and doesn't qualify. I actually think it's a very fine word to get across that nuance.

"However," plus "coherent" posits a contradiction. Change coherent if it bothers you so much. Really.

And suggesting something doesn't exist until we have a name for it is semantic sleight-of-hand. That's it's as old as the country isn't misleading in the slightest, unless you have a better label for "I am willing to love all mankind except an American" (Johnson) and numerous sentiments like it from the 18th century onwards. Marskell 12:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Americanism, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible..

The request will be posted shortly; I'm doing the notifications first. Follow the link and agree to mediation if you like. Marskell 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compliments

You're right - that is a better edit on the 9/11 Scholars article than my wholesale deletion. Vizjim 16:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War

I see you and another user keep going back and forth of the stats and if they include terrorists or not. I know the source you got your information from, About.com, does not list terrorists. However the source they list as where they got their information from does recognize terrorists as a group within insurgents. PDF You can see the Iraq Index has Al Qaida fighters and foreign fighters as members of insurgency, you can follow their sources or see it in sections like "Estimated Strength Of Insurgency Nationwide" where the footnotes clearly indicate that terrorists are put into insurgents. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try and understand what I was doing: I removed unsourced claims, and claims that were directly refuted by the cited sources ...

It seems obvious to me that some people are hell bent to put the label "terrorists" on this page. Despite the fact that this is a very loaded term and, interestingly, the sources quoted by these very people even deny that the label is appropriate.

As to your new source: "Terrorist(s)" are mentioned 7 times. Five times in a table that is sourced to "Country Reports on Terrorism, United States Department of State, Office for the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, April 2006", and the other two are headlines from AP and NYT, citing a single incident, respectively. To use these quotes at Wikipedia in order to state that the number of dead insurgents includes "terrorists", rather than "alleged" or "suspected terrorists", is obviously in violation of NPOV. No one has convicted them in a court of law. Their status is not clear. The source does not state any numbers of "dead terrorists". The categorizations of the State Department are notable, but not independently verifiable. They cannot be cited as fact. Rkrichbaum 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not count the words terrorist, if you look at how they arrive at the numbers as I have explained to you, you will see that Terrorists are categorized alongside insurgents. Also the link that was there, that you seemed to be reffering to listed this document as its source. So I got this source to see its content, and it in fact lists terrorists with insurgents unless specifically reffering to foreign fighters. I also cannot take you serious if you are gonig to argue that noone has convicted X unknown people of being terrorists, a fact you are also unaware of. Can't we also argue that some of the civilians then could have been insurgents, or some of the insurgents could have been men disgruntled about not getting their morning newspaper? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 21:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I listed the uses of the label "terrorist" in your own source - in a table provided by the US administration, and in two news articles on isolated incidents. I am surprised that you feel it appropriate to use the label for other participants of the insurgency, such as "foreign fighters" or alleged "al-Qaeda" fighters, when your very own source uses those much more neutral and more specific terms. It would appear that summarily labelling such fighters "terrorists" is equivalent to inserting a POV into the description, "terrorists" being a catch-all for the "enemy" as stated in the current US administration's policies. Why is it so important for you to do that? And no, I am not aware of convictions by a court of law of those who are among the dead insurgents listed in the info box. Rkrichbaum 21:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you debate the source then remove the numbers entirely, you cannot use the About.com source then, because it derives from that source. See the problem? Iraq Index lists terrorists and insurgents together, until it is specifically talking about distinguishable groups. Do you think no terrorists were arrested or killed in Iraq? As for POV, since you do not know why they are calling certain people terrorists, you cannot really debate if they are wrongly doing it, can you? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 22:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think you lost me there. I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you refer to anything I said or did? Rkrichbaum 22:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a political point, as you did here. Including the fact that some believe the war in Iraq is part of the GWOT, along with the note that this assertion is disputed, is the soul of our WP:NPOV policy, which I must insist that you read and adhere to. If you believe the description of the Iraq War as part of the Global War on Terror (disputed) is not accurate, please raise that issue on the talk page of the article - do not engage in stale revert wars, ever. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please inform yourself before making baseless allegations. I have extensively discussed this issue on the relevant page (linked from Iraq war talk) that you apparently are unaware of. What "some believe" may be of concern to you but is irrelevant in the context of an encyclopedia with strict rules not to represent opinions as facts. I gave an explanation for my single edit - as opposed to those who chose to falsely represent the Iraq invasion as part of the "war on terror". I have no idea what you are talking about re "stale edit wars". Finally, if you feel inclined to leave messages on my talk page in the future I would ask you to tone it down a bit. Thank you very much. Rkrichbaum 22:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that you have made three (plus one minor) edits on this particular issue within the last 24 hours. I think they were quite reasonable, although one might argue that they constitute participation in a, shall we say, minor edit disagreement. I am very much looking forward to your further edits and also to your comments on talk pages of those who revert them. Rkrichbaum 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War article

I see you provided a source, but it does not speak about the "Peace Movement" nor cite its importance. Is the quote suppose to verify that the Peace Movement existed or was noteworthy, or that some countries did not join the conflict, which is already noted? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source needed was for the claim that traumatic WWII memories are still alive in Germany and a reason for an anti-war stance. It is self-evident that this is the case, but someone said it was OR so I provided a source - speech by coordinator of German-American relations in the German Foreign Office at the time. He explicitly mentions this, just read it. If you seriously ask for sources that the anti-war movement was strong - well, I guess Americans don't know much about Germany if they haven't been stationed there - no problem. Schroeder's anti-war stance led to his re-election, that is an undisputed fact. Rkrichbaum 18:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What some label "Consensus"

I noticed you told me to take it to the talk page, and I have [1]. I didnt see your objections there, you are certainly welcome to voice them. Rangeley 17:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to overlook that you never responded to my and others' numerous objections. I guess that is how you think a consensus is reached, LOL.

Wondering what you thought...

Hi, Rkrichbaum. I noticed you haven't replied to my question at Talk:Iraq War#Response to proposal. I wonder if you missed it in the shuffle maybe, and whether you could maybe let me know what you think about the ideas I was offering there. I appreciate your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of The CIA and September 11 (book)

I have conducted a reassessment of this article for the GA Sweeps process and have found one minor concern which needs addressing. You can find the review at Talk:The CIA and September 11 (book)/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]