“Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities.” ~ Alan Bloom
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates his duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-- Thomas Paine(1737-1809)Source: Dissertation on First Principles of Government, 7 July 1795
The problems with wikipedia on controversial issues seem to be that many of the US users and others have a thoroughly conservative view on history as well as economics. In this respect they seem to believe that any attempt at even remotely displaying signs of the actual controversy that has in fact occurred throughout the years _must_ somehow just be POV.
I don't know if this has something to do with the US educational system, the US media, or just the users of wikipedia, but it creates a huge gap between europeans views of what is a fair and balanced view of history, and the US version one meets on wikipedia.
No serious debate is generated and there seems to be a grave lack of understanding what the history subject is all about in some cases. Often encyclopedic form is used as an excuse although huge amounts of wiki articles on current entertainment industry pieces are far more extensive and cover several scores of pages and references and supplimentary pages.
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page in a nutshell: When dealing with experienced users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template.
These templates serve to explain the various policies to new editors. When novice editors breach policies, it is quite possible (if we assume good faith, which we must) that they are unaware of them, and educating them is helpful. On the other hand, most editors who have been around for a while are aware of these policies. If you believe that they have broken (or are about to breach) one, it is frequently the result of some disagreement over the interpretation of the policy, or temporarily heated tempers. In such situations, sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil.
Template warnings are very generic, and sometimes out of date. Sometimes a template says never to do something which is nevertheless allowed in certain circumstances. Sometimes Wikipedia has multiple policies which are contradictory. If a policy violation is not clear-cut, an amicable resolution to the problem is going to require a human explanation, not an automated template. However using a pre-existing template as a guide, re-wording it or adding a personal message to it, is allowed.
A personal message tends to work better in these situations. If you have a question, why not ask the experienced user your question? You may begin a dialogue that will prove much more effective than a template. This is especially true when you find the urge to place multiple copies of the same template on a user's talk page. Doing so without an explanation is almost never a good idea. Instead, why not combine the multiple warnings into a single personalized note?
Note, however, that templating at all — to regulars or newcomers — may be taken as rude by being impersonal (biting the newbies). No one likes to feel they are being bureaucratically processed and that is why writing what the template says in your own words, with reference to the particular situation, is more likely to communicate well if the editor is amenable to reason.
John J Chapman's Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900[edit]
"When I was asked to make this address I wondered what I had to say to you boys who are graduating. And I think I have one thing to say. If you wish to be useful, never take a course that will silence you. Refuse to learn anything that implies collusion, whether it be a clerkship or a curacy, a legal fee or a post in a university. Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose. If you can take this course, and in so far as you take it, you will bless this country. In so far as you depart from this course, you become dampers, mutes, and hooded executioners. As a practical matter, a mere failure to speak out upon occassions where no statement is asked or expect from you, and when the utterance of an uncalled for suspicion is odious, will often hold you to a concurrence in palpable iniquity. Try to raise a voice that will be heard from here to Albany and watch what comes forward to shut off the sound. It is not a German sergeant, nor a Russian officer of the precinct. It is a note from a friend of your father's, offering you a place at his office. This is your warning from the secret police. Why, if you any of young gentleman have a mind to make himself heard a mile off, you must make a bonfire of your reputations, and a close enemy of most men who would wish you well. I have seen ten years of young men who rush out into the world with their messages, and when they find how deaf the world is, they think they must save their strength and wait. They believe that after a while they will be able to get up on some little eminence from which they can make themselves heard. "In a few years," reasons one of them, "I shall have gained a standing, and then I shall use my powers for good." Next year comes and with it a strange discovery. The man has lost his horizon of thought, his ambition has evaporated; he has nothing to say. I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.
-- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900
On its archived discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Money_Masters I can find several people who just state that the article ( the film ) is "not noteable" without even justifying their claim. After which they go on to "disagree" with the content of the film. An Encyclopedia entry is not subject to wether or not one likes or agrees with the content. One does not remove articles
about nazi germanys films by Leni Riefenstahl on the argument that its content isnt noteable.
Completely erroneous and libelous claims such as:
"The film is full of anti-jewish racism, and is propaganda for white nationalists and fascists". Added by 76.69.104.23
Not true and hence does not suffice as a "reason" or argument for deletion. Such claims do not hold water and are just so much more smear. But even if the film, like Riefenstahls films, really was racist, it would make it only more noteable and worthy of refuting and hence publicity making people aware of its controversial nature.
The notability of the film lies in that it has been growing steadily over the years and is now a prevalent phenomna
and because it has steadily increased in its spread throughout the internet, now has several million references throughout the internet. On that note itself it is a phenomena worthy of noting in wikipedia.
I have tried several times to conduct a civil debate on this, I added the hangon tab, I provided verifiable arguments and pointed out that I do not care about the views in the film. the views presented in the film are not what is in question here.
Some of the most crucial and verifiable arguments for its inclusion go as follows:
The existence and widespread usage of and references to this documentary is a verifiable fact.
Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena (spanning two decades now) and has a large "following" no matter its content.
This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
The film gains several hundred thousands of independent hits throughout the english speaking world in google searches
It's content is also reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online), no matter wether one agrees with such views or not. This makes it noteable in itself as a source for finding out what and where the rationale for such movements come from!
Any argument just stating "only 50.000 sold dvd's" or "the film is not noteable", " I dont consider it noteable" can not pass for justified legitimate arguments.
I expect serious sincere responses conducted as adults and not the slapping on of wikipedia guidelines to pretend that this user has not read guidelines and using that as an argument for deletinon. The issue here is the article, and not this user or my abilities or errors as a wikipedia contributor .
Again, remember, we are not doing this to review "views", we contribute here to inform people around the world. Wether we like or agree with the information or not.
sincerely, Nunamiut (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I request a serious discussion on the validity of removing a internet phenomena. Behave like adults! It should be possible for adults to discuss rational points! This is below Wikipedia. Does noone here have the sincerity or the sufficient interest in conducting a civil debate? Are you here to censure free open discussion as well?? Deleting my discussion posts?? This is preposterous! Nunamiut (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The existence of the documentary in question is now a historic fact.
Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena , and has a large "following" no matter its content.
refrences to the film can be found throughout the internet, more so than for most documentaries of any kind.
This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman
Its content is even reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movements, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online)
All these points were ignored ( none of them adressed, countered or discussed in anything that resembled serious academic, scientific or adult manner. The two people intent on having the article silenced showed up as well as two "by-passers" who had not taken part in any debate earlier. The whole process was utterly ridiculous and farsical to say the least. The level of adult behaviour and the level of discussion tactics so utterly disgusted me as to refrain from contributing anymore or even bother voicing any arguments anymore at any discussions. If admins do not bother to have the courtesy of using mediators when they are in a dispute, disagreement with others then I have no interest in discussing or showing them any courtesy back.
The deletion of the history-economic documentary film "the Money Masters" from wiki[edit]
The 1995 Historical-Economic documentary The Money Masters now has such a large reference throughout the world that it borders on the laughable to pretend it does not need a wiki page, it is linked to and postet thousands of times on youtube and googlevideo each of which have had several tens of thousands of hits if not hundreds of thousands. It has recentley been available full length on both google video and youtube. It is actually and even probably (more probable than not) among the most widely referenced film in alternative economics debates ever at this point in history. Its bordering on lunacy to pretend anymore that its not intellectually dishonest to try to silence and pretend that this movie does not exist.
Just a quick google of the money masters now gets it over 115 000 hits/references, as opposed to a few years ago. By this logic alone, at _least_ ten to fifity thousand people were neded just to _create_ these pages ( and please dont try to dishonestly imply that these are somehow bot-created pages or otherwise automatically generated. Googles own system of verifying linkages lends such an attempt at explaining it away no honesty.
If the current deletion is continued I suggest on the basis of the same rationale that we delete all wiki pages that concern musicians that have less than 50.000 sold cd's. That would be the same rationale. Or lets just delete all information that we conservatives ( insert your favorite political/personal view -ism or party) find useless, such as not well known actors, musicians, politicians, any book that has sold less then 50 k , any dvd that has sold less than 50 k. in fact, by the same rationale; lets just move to delete all information that less than 50 thousand people are aware of. Let's decide "democratically" to never let anyone know of information we don't approve of.Nunamiut (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
So you are in fact pretending that a film no matter how much it grows in popularity over the years should not be included on wikipedia?
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.»
-- Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791
“The fundamentalist mind, running in a single rut for fifty years, is now quite unable to comprehend
dissent from its basic superstitions, or to grant any common honesty, or even any decency, to those
who reject them” -- Henry Louis Mencken quotes (American humorous Journalist and Critic of American
life who influenced US fiction through the 1920s, 1880-1956)
Edward R. Murrow:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of
America dies with it."
"I'm sure you meant that term 'conspiracy theory" as a term of derision since what you descibe is an "affinity of the ignorant", implying that there is something YOU know that they don't." --unknown
Propaganda from the Middle of the Road The Centrist Ideology of the News Media
(a five paragraph exerpt from a 29 paragraph long 1989 fair.org article By Jeff Cohen)
the original article at www.fair.org: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1492
"There is a notion -- widely believed in the mainstream media -- that while there is propaganda of the left and propaganda of the right, there is no such thing as propaganda of the center. In this view, the center doesn't produce propaganda, it produces straight news. Mainstream journalists typically explain: "We don't tilt left, we don't tilt right. We're straight down the middle of the road. We're dead center."
When mainstream journalists tell me during debates that "our news doesn't reflect bias of the left or the right," I ask them if they therefore admit to reflecting bias of the center. Journalists react as if I've uttered an absurdity: "Bias of the center! What's that?"
It is a strange concept to many in the media. They can accept that conservatism or rightism is an ideology that carries with it certain values and opinions, beliefs about the past, goals for the future. They can accept that leftism carries with it values, opinions, beliefs. But being in the center -- being a centrist -- is somehow not having an ideology at all. Somehow centrism is not an "ism" carrying with it values, opinions and beliefs."
[...]
"Another hallmark of centrist propaganda is to affirm, no matter what the [amount of contrary] evidence, that U.S. foreign policy is geared toward promoting democracy. Journalists are not unaware that the U.S. helped overthrow democratic governments, for example, in Guatemala in '54, Brazil in '64, Chile in '73 -- but these cases are considered ancient history, no longer relevant. (In centrist ideology, since the system is constantly fixing and renewing itself, U.S. abuses -- even against democracy -- become distant past overnight.)
Mainstream journalists respond to such criticism by explaining that articles for the daily press are not history texts and cannot include everything. That's true, but centrist propaganda finds space for certain histories and not others. [..]
Logic
"A common discussion-killer is the declaration: "You can't prove a negative!" Immediately the conversation screeches to a halt and people turn to other topics. Is there really nothing more to be said? A: Fairies don't exist. B: You can't prove a negative. A: Okay, fair enough. So how do you like this pizza?
Does it have to be this way?"
May 27, 2009
Response from Peter Smith on May 30, 2009
"I'm reminded of the exasperated Bertrand Russell faced with the young Wittgenstein: "He thinks that nothing empirical is knowable. I asked him to admit that there was not a rhinoceros in the room, but he wouldn't. I looked under all the desks without finding one but Wittgenstein remained unconvinced." It is Wittgenstein here who is being obtuse and in the grip of a silly theory. Of course we can establish empirical propositions both positive and negative – for example, that there are five desks in the room and no rhinoceroses.
By any sane standard, it is just plain false that you can't prove a negative, and that supposed "discussion-killer" should itself be promptly killed off.
Response from Richard Heck on May 31, 2009
"Perhaps part of the problem is the word "prove", which also tends to get used when talking about such things as the existence of God. (No-one can prove that God exists, we're often told.) As our erstwhile leader, Alex George, has often pointed out, however, outside mathematics, one can rarely "prove" anything. So to be told in that sense that no-one can "prove" a negative is unhelpful. One can't "prove" a positive in that sense, either.As Peter said, more or less."
Since wikipedia seems to act more like a conservative think tank these days , you have to click "show" on the pink lines to see what some critics have written. Lately it has become customary for some of the gatekeepers at some crucial wiki articles to just label your entry "POV", as if all views are not points of view, or any other label, if you do not subscribe to a conservative US version of world history and events.
The latest fashion the last month has been "the pink line", but more often than not one just gets deleted. I have had Nobel price winners as sources and then got the "not notable enough" reason for deleting my entry. Also US congress representatives I have quoted have suffered the "not notable enough" deletion, so I'm starting to wonder if its any use "contributing" to wikipedia at all, as it seems to firmly in the grip of a thoroughly mediocre view of the world.
So I would not recommend wikipedia as any source whatsoever for serious information on any critical historical events to say the least. ... See More
It kind of goes without saying of course, but I _had_ really hoped for a bit more serious treatment of subjects such as history by wiki admins, as I had thought that they were capable of peering each other, but there does not seem to be enough admins interested in critical history or economics, without someone making a juvenile attempt at some form of labeling anything you have documented however thoroughly as "original research" primarily due to their own lack of knowledge and/or inability to use google. Or simple refusal to read your documentation of course, use links and follow them.
Oh well, tonights little sigh on this insane/biased infested world, take your pick. I think I'll go join one of the rabidly "insane" left wing foras on history or edit Anarchopedia again ( http://www.anarchopedia.org/ ) I think.
(around 16 December 2009)
It Seems examples are abundant these days of how a few well meaning wikipedians can wipe out entire sections of world history with little or no understanding of it.. Even before it gets to mediation, discussion etc. And the whole sorry POV accusation / blame game is useless, that much must be obvious by now. If you or I put something into, say a historical article, then yes of course it is because we ourselves personally think it should be there and therefore want it in there, but how in the world does it disqualify the entry in itself, solely on that simple basis?? There _must_ be a cohesive emphasis, throughout wikipedia, on _other_ and _better_ arguments than "it's just your POV", "no, no, it's _your_ POV to keep it out" etc. on wikipedia. Nunamiut (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
