User talk:Ttiotsw/Archives/2009

Stuff for 2009 here.

Articles on 'Islamic' inventions

Hello, I saw you were engaged at one time about the sense or nonsense of the article series which has been created in recent times. Now the issue is up again. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline of modern Muslim scientists and engineers [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inventions_in_the_modern_Islamic_world] Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi there, Ttiotsw. Thanks for bringing in some fresh air and (fresh) sense into the issue on the War on the Vendee. Mamalujo is a good editor, but in my humble opinion extremely biased whenever it comes to anything touching on any type of agression or victimisation of Catholics. Being a Catholic himself I find it understandable, but not a good attitude when it comes to editing certain articles on history Dr Benway (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mmm but wouldn't categorise anyone as biased by their religion and I don't think he categorises me/us (compared with say User:Windigo216 who just went off the deep end). Technically I subscribe to my version of Anarcho-transhumanism and that may bias which articles I look at but not the spin. What I do think he does do odd is throw in the odd bizarre redlink [1], delete refs without preview so we get broken ref ids [2], edit as an IP without logging in [3], fail to preview and fix spelling mistakes, plus synth of references (see my talk in State atheism on changing could -> were. I'm always of the opinion that if what he writes makes sense then it should stay and if it is not right then it should go or be edited. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Human image

Thanks for contributing a suggestion at Talk:Human/Image! If you think this image should be seriously considered as a candidate alternative to the plaque, feel free to bring it up for debate on Talk:Human or Talk:Human/Image at some point. I appreciate the effort to find something less anatomically misleading; it's true that if we're going to go for a "symbolic" depiction at all, we should make it obviously symbolic so that people don't mistake it for a true anatomical diagram. Although you know that I think (for reasons of NPOV, relevance and clarity) we should be going for a completely literal and straightforward picture rather than a 'symbol' for all mankind, and I think the Arecibo image (which, like the Pioneer one, was not intended for human audiences, but only extraterrestrials) would confuse more viewers than it would educate, at least it can be said that Arecibo is devoid of significant bias or censorship of any sort (although unfortunately at a severe cost in accessible visual information).

Also, I appreciate all the critiques you've provided of my points. I realize I can be quite verbose on these Talk pages, and apologize if I'm come across as overly pushy or thick-skulled at any point. I think my fundamental criticisms of utilizing the plaque to 'represent' humans remain valid, however, and I haven't yet heard any serious problems with images like File:Akha cropped.png at all (the worst that can fairly be said about it, methinks, is that it's a little bit boring — which, in this context, is probably an advantage :)). I'd appreciate it if you would reconsider using a simple photograph, of the sort we use for other species articles. In exchange, I'll gladly help try and find candidates that you feel minimize the risk of perceived bias and maximize the image's utility and relevance. For example, even though I don't think our main criterion for appropriateness should be genetic, I've still spent a lot of time over the last few days trying to find a suitable free-use image of one of the tribes you mentioned. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a single free-use !Kung, and I've only been able to find one Aka picture (which I don't think is quite what we're looking for). Still, I think simply having this discussion about the merits of various photos is an important, productive beginning to resolving this little controversy. Thanks again for the feedback! It's helped me greatly with refining me arguments, and seeing the issue from very different perspectives. :] -Silence (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, in some respects I'm playing devils advocate: I'm going to try every trick in the book that I've spent learning over the past 3 years so if you do survive my arguments then I'll support what you suggest as a solution. When considering alternatives over the past 24 hours I too am bemused why we have so few photos of such basic and so well researched groups of people (with the San/Kung peoples). A huge amount of research has gone into genetics of these people in the investigation of Mitochondrial Eve but few take photos of the expression of the genes !. Ttiotsw (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, I can partly understand the lack of urgency — a photograph isn't likely to tell us much, since some of the most interesting and ancestral segments of the genome may be non-coding, or may code for extremely subtle biochemical traits which are completely invisible at a macroscopic level. Even if we had dozens of great photos, most people wouldn't be able to pick out which tribe was the most 'primitive' one, and if they were told which it was they wouldn't learn anything about human evolution just from looking at the tribe in question (though, sadly, they might infer incorrect things about human evolution, if they leapt to assume that the tribe in question must look particularly like our ancestors, compared to neighboring tribes...).

Mind you, I too would love to have lots of these photos, for every genetic isolate — but it's probably more urgent to sequence their genomes and study their cultures, since merely knowing what they look like tells us next to nothing compared to knowing what actual genes they possess, and knowing about their culture (which is what will probably constitute the vast majority of their uniqueness relative to other humans). So, all I'm saying is, I understand why it's a low priority compared to other projects. :) It should still get done, though.

And I'm amused that you admit you're using a "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" debate strategy, since that's precisely what I'd been suspecting. :p Even though you haven't convinced me, I must admit that your arguments have been by far the most creative and unique array I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Hopefully once we've resolved the Pioneer issue we can work together on improving this article (both with images and text), perhaps someday even to FA-class. It's gonna take a looot of work. :) And if you think this has been rancorously controversial, you ain't seen nothing yet. -Silence (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, writing for the enemy I still think a strategy of using genetics is a way to break the impasse as it is objective. Once the impasse is broken then other images could be considered because the imagination of the editors would have been altered to a new photographic baseline - which I think is the barrier that has to be overcome. Perhaps a more accurate anatomical drawing first so that a picture is then a small step (though a giant leap for the article). Pictures of modern examples of genetically significant L0/L1 peoples I think is also a valid strategy to break the impasse but as we know its actually quite hard to source. I know there are commercial images out there from sources that are sympathetic to the actual peoples (from a humanitarian point of view) - but getting free copyright is another matter. Ttiotsw (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, although we disagree a little on particulars, I think it's a pretty minor disagreement; whether or not we use genetics as a selection criterion isn't going to make a huge difference, and doesn't obviously call into question any of Wikipedia's core policies (as making our main anatomical illustration a picture with an uncensored penis and an excised vulva does). I agree with your 'baby steps' suggestion: Part of the reason I chose the Akha image was because it is a photograph that has similar contents to the Pioneer image (i.e., a man and woman standing side by side). Other "transitional" photos, like a different, uncensored anatomy image, would be perfectly acceptable as a means of diffusing the current conflict and generating some productive discussion from new readers. (I think that actually changing the image on Human is also the very best way for us to get fresh voices to chime in on their views, since people will only be suitably outraged by an article change once they can actually see it. ;)) -Silence (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Recommended action

I've given up trying to mediate at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army, however other admins will keep a silent watch and will extend protection if consensus isn't reached. In the meantime if things don't improve it is likely appropriate to take this dispute, along with the actions of certain editors to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 09:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved 3rd party who has never edited a Irish related subject (nor British I think either) I haven't seen such incivility before. The approach to contentious subjects and incivility is to use short blocks to clear the air but probably too late to start on that now so I think the fix is to get more inclusive sources for the information we have placed in the lead. I've never been blocked and I'm quite indifferent to whatever anyone can say about me (Zen and the Art of Wikipedia Editing) but if anyone else is reading this then I would suggest following WP:DR rather than redefining the boundaries of what is acceptable language for WP:CIVIL. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad

Just in case I wasn't clear, I actually support the original text, which I believe is yours. But unlike so many of those who criticize the article, User:Notedgrant is both civil and articulate, so I'm trying to make extra effort to discuss with him. Certainly I wouldn't accept any wording which blurs the line between historical fact on one hand and religous belief on the other. However, I've seen the same complaint made many times, and unlike the topic of images in articles (which is always a non-starter), it seems possible that here we might find a phrasing that would be accurate from our perspective while somehow being less jarring to Muslim readers. Then again, I thought you had done that already, with the current wording, so maybe I'm unduly optimistic. Anyway, thanks for participating. Doc Tropics 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That's OK - it was the indentation - I should have placed my reply before yours and did two indents. The original text probably isn't mine though it is what I support but I also support the Muslim POV too if someone can tell us what they want. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Speedy deletion

I'm not attacking any group at all. In fact, my redirect is completely appropriate and doesn't break any Wikipedia policies. If you want to delete the Wikipedia biases redirect, you might as well delete the hundreds of redirects similar to it which serve a similar purpose (for other articles). -- ΙΧΘΥΣ T  C 00:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that you posted comments on the Intelligent design talk page in which you stated that "The sheer amount of bias is disgusting " and then within an hour or so you slapped up 3 redirects for various combinations of "Wikipedia" and "bias" I am pretty confident that your redirects are for WP:POINT rather than to help Wikipedia readers disambiguate searches. For instance "Wikipedia is bias" top hit in Google has a link to Yahoo answers that says that "I suppose Wikipedia is bias against made up bullsh*t."... Thus I'll be putting up the redirects for discussion and will work out a better target - probably to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as that is the higher weight destination. There are so few examples of bias in Wikipedia given the many millions of pages and edits. A few cherry pick examples from partisan sources isn't a systemic bias that justifies your "redirect bombing". Following on from the bullsh*t theme if we count the ghits for say "wikipedia is bias" then we get 2730 google hits whereas if we say count ghits for "bible is crap" then I get 63,500 hits (heck "wikipedia is crap" gets 29k hits. Now do you honestly think that "wikipedia is bias" should remain whilst we have no redirect for "bible is crap" ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)