User talk:WLRoss/Archive 2

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020

Hi WLRoss - we're planning a third meetup in Adelaide sometime in the coming weeks, and would love to have you there. If you can, please help decide a location, a date and a time here. Thanks! ~ Riana ⁂ 12:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

David Hicks charges source

Hi, I think The Australian also moves articles to a pay/subscription site after a period of time. The ABC seems fairly stable though. SmithBlue (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it does I suggest that having both cites wont hurt as there appears to be a difference in the wording of the charges when comparing what was reported in the U.S. to the version released by the DoD in Australia. As Hicks is an Aussie it is appropriate that our version is used in the article. Wayne (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Maximus charector

If he was based on Pompaianus >>> then he would be much older

--Blain Toddi (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Request for change in consensus: Change title to "Franklin Coverup Incident"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

Request for Comment: Change title to more neutral "Franklin Coverup Incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostle12 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Apostle12 (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take Two: Request for change in consensus

Take Two: Request for change in consensus. Change title to "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"

"A small group of editors can reach a consensual decision, but when the article gains wider attention, others may then disagree. The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined."

The existing title "Franklin Coverup Hoax" is, in the opinion of many who have commented (Gyrofrog, Awfultin, Wayne, Tom1976, Conexion, Apostle 12), fatally biased. To start out saying that the subject material is a "hoax" is indefensible, especially when that point of view is hardly universal. A specially called county grand jury used the word "hoax;" that is all. And there is ample reason to believe that those who comprised the jury had a vested interest in protecting local people.

In the previous section, various editors commented on their support for, or opposition to, a name change to "Franklin Coverup Incident." Those who commented over the space of several days included Sherurcij, PopeFauveXXIII, Wayne, Orange Mike, Apostle12, and Rosicrucian.

Orange Mike came up with a suggestion: How about "Franklin Child Abuse Allegations"? Neutral, takes no position regarding "hoax" or "coverup" claims.

I support this newly proposed title change and am asking for additional comments at this time from concerned editors. Apostle12 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: the discussion of name change to "Franklin child abuse allegations"

I understand, Wayne. But Rosicrucian is correct regarding the redirects; everyone who types in "Franklin Scandal" or "Franklin Coverup" will arrive at the article, whatever we decide to call it. There may be a limit to what we can achieve here through consensus. Would you reconsider your opposition, please?Apostle12 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

9/11

Hi,

you might want to look at the list I (we) are compiling at: Talk:9/11#NPOV / missing_facts. I appreciate any addition or criticism you can make. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It's is not a genitive

I don't want to be a grammar nazi, but "It is POV to use it for a legal determination based on it's own opinion." shouldn't have an apostrophe. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Adelaide Wikimeetup 3

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020

Hi WLRoss - after some planning we've decided to hold the third Adelaide Wikimeetup on Sunday, 17th February, 2008. The meeting will be held at Billy Baxter's in Rundle Mall at 11:30AM. Further details and directions are available on the meetup page. Please RSVP here by 20:00UTC on 15th February 2008 (that's 6AM Saturday for our time zone) so that we can inform the restaurant about numbers. Hope to see you there!

You are receiving this message because you are in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia or are listed at WP:ADEL#Participants. If this has been sent in error, please accept our apologies!

On behalf of Riana ⁂, 11:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Revised

Hi Wayne - since Sunday is inconvenient for many people due to church, we are rescheduling for Saturday. I hope you will still be able to attend! Best, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Fred West

Hi, the "New Criminologist" link doesn't really support the contention with regard incest in the West family, it's only mentioned there as an "it is believed". You'll be aware of WP:BLP, and although that doesn't apply to West, he may have living relatives to whom it does. Do you have a more concrete source for this? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty of sources. I was deciding which to use but you adding cn tags within seconds of my edits prompted me to use the first ones I put my hands on. The second edits reference also confirms the first edit I believe. The article is too sparse and incomplete so I want to do a major rewrite, expect a lot of stuff moving around and having no cites for some paragraphs for short periods. Wayne (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Jainism Questions

Hello, since I'm doing a school essay thing on Jainism, and you seem to be a Jain (atleast according to your userbox), I'd like to ask if you could answer some questions about Jainism, which i wonder about and which weren't in the article, so if you'd like answer em, here are the questions: (in all questions "you" = you as in "all Jains")

1. If i get the article right, you believe that the universe was never created, but has always existed, does that mean that you believe the Earth and all animals on it have existed all time, or just the Universe it self, which means that earth and animals etc. have formed due evolution etc.
2. It seems like you are not allowed to kill plans or animals for food, i would like to know how far this goes, ive heard it goes as far as you not eating carrots etc, is that true? Does killing a plant include a part of it, i.e. are you allowed to pick an apple while not killing the tree? Also, if someone else would kill an animal for you to eat, would that be OK?

Follow up: If you are not allowed to pick apples, or kill animals, and are not allowed to accept killed food so to say, what do you eat?

1. Is being homosexual accepted within Jainism? (i know, seems simple, but wasn't in the article)
2. What do you think is the most important thing in Jainism?

I'd be really nice if you could answer most of them, since having an inside look of the whole thing is always good ;)

Thanks! Yzmo ^talk 15:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There are many degrees of Jainism and I'm rather liberal and have a western viewpoint rather than the traditional eastern one. This means I follow the Jainism faith much as a Christian follows the teachings of their faith. In other words I "break" some rules just as Christians break some of the ten commandments however the main difference is that I suffer more for breaking them and try much harder not too. Jains also are not dismissive of other religions. It may be a hard concept to understand but we believe all religions are valid because their aims are basically similar to ours though the path and beliefs to get there are different. Gods are only role models for us not beings to be worshiped.

1. The Universe existing always is compatable with current science. The Universe can for instance be born in a "Big Bang" die then be reborn in another Big Bang. Evolution also is compatable with humanity progessing from it's worst to it's best in cycles. Who is to say what is meant by worst? We are definately better than humanity was thousands of years ago.
2. Monks are very strict about what they eat and only eat milk, fruit and nuts. The rest of us should be vegetarians to some degree. This is tied to not hurting living things. For example eating a carrot requires you to kill the plant so you shouldn't do that. People that are sick are exempted. Self defense allows limited exemptions for hurting or killing as well. This area is where I fail the most. You are expected to comply as much as you are able so there is some leeway. If you are not a strict vegetarian then you are punished by bad Karma. Very strict Jains are called Digambaras and go to the extreme of not wearing clothing as it requires you to hurt a plant to get the material. I believe they only eat food that a plant has dropped but are not a very large group and you would not see them except in India. Monks often wear nets over their mouths so as not to inhale insects and will strain water to remove even microscopic life. As for myself, I live in a normal house in a capital city of Australia. I will not remove a spiderweb if it has a spider in it. I wont kill ants if they enter the house. I catch mice by offering a box with food, closing the lid when they enter and then free them outside. I will go to extremes to avoid stepping on insects. Mowing the lawn bothers me and if the grass gets too long I will cut it with shears instead of using a mower in case there are insects or lizards etc in it. But I am still not really as strict as I should be.
3. Homosexuality is discouraged but acceptable as long as it hurts no one. In fact no type of sex is actually prohibited but it results in bad Karma as any sex does if used for any reason other than procreation so homosexuality is on the same level as sleeping with your girlfriend before marriage. Most Jains accept some bad karma for it but the ideal is that as you progress spititually you have less sex and eventually none (when you reach the highest stage).
4. Karma is very important to me (I love "My name is Earl") but most important are the five principles or "Great Vows" which I follow closely.
   Ahimsa:Non violence. This means in thought, actions and even verbal against human, animal, or vegetable. You get bad Karma which affects your future life.
   Satya:Means you can't lie for any reason. If telling the truth will hurt someone then you can try to avoid it without actually lying. This often causes me trouble. People know when I go silent that I'm not replying because i can't lie. I get pulled over by the police and I admit everything lol.
   Asteya:No stealing. Self explanatory.
   Brahma-charya:Monogamy. Faithful to your partner.
   Aparigraha:Only have what you need.If you don't need something don't buy it. If you only need a $20,000 car for your family you don't buy a Rolls Royce even if you can afford it. You don't buy a second house for an investment etc. I have three TV's, one for my kids, one for me and another in the room with my computor. When my youngest moves out he will take one as I will no longer need it. Again there is leeway. Rule of thumb is "do you need it?". If a charity calls I look in my wallet and work out what I need to buy for the week then give what is left.
   This is only a quick reply but I hope this is of some help to you. Wayne (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this is very useful, thanks =) --Yzmo ^talk 19:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One last question

I hope i'm not bugging you to much but since you talked so much about Karma, and it getting better or worse, what are the consequences of getting a bad Karma? I couldnt really find a good answer to that in the article, atleast none i could understand. Thanks again ;) --Yzmo ^talk 13:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Karma is a very difficult concept to explain. Most people think Karma is just an insubstantial "do good and good will happen to you" thing but it actually has a physical existence according to strict Jain teaching.
A soul is created "pure" and Karma "contaminates" it. There are two types of Karma. Physical Karma are invisible (very small) particles of actual matter that combine with your soul according to your actions while abstract Karma are the thoughts and feelings you experience from your actions. Karma prevents what the west would call "sainthood". It doesn't actually physically hurt you as its effect is in making it harder for you to be liberated (or good) rather than making things happen or not happen to you. The first step towards shedding Karma is when you understand that all pleasure and pain you experience are the results of your own actions. Sounds simple but who has not blamed others for their problems? This is where the "do good and good will happen to you" concept comes in, if you are good it is more likely good will happen rather than good WILL happen which is really common sense rather than a set in stone cause and effect. Once a person has reached the highest level of "good" they no longer have any Karma and can no longer attract it. Although it sounds like all Karma is bad, there is really no good or bad, it just is. A soul normally attracts Karma by your actions whether they be bad or nuetral and even by doing nothing at all. Right actions not only do not attract Karma but can negate some of what you have (so "good Karma" is the negation of Karma not a real thing). This is linked to the cycles of rebirth as these will end only when you no longer have Karma. I suppose it is similar to the Christian belief of going to heaven. For Jains only saints will go. The rest of us must wait until we can become saints, which is why Jains are so extreme in their practice of not hurting living things. Each person is responsible for their own Karma or in other words God/Gods if they exist do not "interfere" with anything we do (although they might listen and comfort us, they do not answer prayers or make things happen because that will interfere with our free will and slow the process of reaching "sainthood"). Karma has 4 stages. The first is a normal everyday person who attracts Karma. The second is the loss and negation of some Karma. This is reached by right thoughts and actions. The third stage is when most Karma is gone and the fourth when it is all gone. These two are the stages that need a lot of effort and involve discipline and austerity. Don't forget that this is my interpretation. For example Christians interpret their faith similarly, one may see some things a little differently than the one sitting next to them in church. Wayne (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot.. this is very much appreciated =) --Yzmo ^talk 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

khazars

Thanks a lot! It's important to know that I'm not alone in seeing some of many POV problems with article (I noticed on the Talk page that past "edit wars" on this article have made it to external media organizations! The History page is indeed impressive!) Your modification is fine. I only added a qualifier to the sentence in the main body of the article because I did a thorough research on the issue and I didn't find any other evidence to support the precise claim (i.e. that Jews fled to Khazaria as a result of Byz. persecution) apart from the one cited. In scholarly work that amount of evidence does not warrant certainty (More generally, in scholarly work it's better to err on the side of hesitation rather than too much certainty.) Also, listing all these names of specific emperors and then adding "and other emperors" seems like trying too hard to make a point. One of the two options (specific names or something like "several emperors") is enough. As a user of Wikip. I appreciate that you took the time to check the sources. Schlcoh (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I agree with you that the wording should stay the same but I let the last edit pass as a compromise aiming at breaking the impasse. I thought that the current version at least carries accross the information that we don't know very much about Jewish-Byzantine relations. On the other hand, the important and undisputed fact that Byzantium simply did not experience the anti-semitic horrors common in the West at the time is lost in this way, so you may be right to insist. Schlcoh (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't know if you've followed the latest on the Khazars article but it turns out that my willingness to make concessions to reach a compromise failed miserably. I think Briangotts et.al. saw that as a sign of weakness and only tried more aggressively to push through their POV. So, the question is where we go from here. Arguing on a rational level with them has proved to be totally useless. A general and quite discussion is simply labeled "red herring" (see Talk)! Given that I'd hate to reduce myself to an exchange of insults, the temptation to simply give up is very strong. On the other hand, I think it's unethical to give in to fanaticism. Any suggestions? Thanks! Schlcoh (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Very helpful. Unfortunately, a new editor started reverting again. I suggested to the editor that seemed more reasonable to restore the yesterday version, but there has been no response. So, I think we have no other option but to ask for WP Arbitration. Schlcoh (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Here's how it's done.

Step 1: Explain your position, and see if someone apologises anyway.

Step 2: Explain that you think you were misunderstood / wronged, and see if they apologise.

Step 3: If they don't apologise, ask for an apology

Step 4: If they refuse, shrug your shoulders and wander off. You can't force one, and there's no point trying because all you'll do is make them dig their heels in. A forced apology is no apology anyway.

Hope this helps, Guy (Help!) 23:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Medcab 9/11 statement

I felt it was necessary to remove your comment after the acceptance. I wouldn't normally do this, but two editors had taken issue with it. I don't know if this was the right thing; personally, I think that there is too much heat with this topic. There are trouts to hit me with if you think this was wrong. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have the statement archived, along with my reply to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs) 04:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Have you got a link for the State Department article? Thx  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here tis [1]. Wayne (talk) 07:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

---

this is also interesting for me. Do you have the rejection text?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 23:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

request your input in a consensus survey re 9/11

Dear WLRoss,

At Talk:9/11#defining consensus I started a survey to get a better picture on how editor's opinions are varying with respect to the following statement:

"The current form of the 9/11 article is at odds with the WP:NPOV policy, and the proposed inclusion of the fact that Michael Meacher alleges the US government of willfully not preventing the attacks, would make the article better, in stead of worse.

I would appreciate it when you could take a look.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 16:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have named you as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#9/11 conspiracy theories. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK § 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Australia incorporation meeting

Hi there WLRoss! As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation has recently approved Wikimedia Australia as an official chapter. In order to acknowledge this, and to appoint an interim committee, approve our statement of purpose and our rules, and appoint a Public Officer, Wikimedia Australia will be having a meeting at Computerbank in Melbourne. For those of us who are located in other cities, we shall be holding conference calls to the main meeting. The meeting will be held at 2:30PM on Sunday, 20th April 2008, Adelaide time. In order for us to organise this meeting, we need your help! Please drop by at our meta subpage with suggestions as to venues, conference calling services, etc. It will be at 2:30 so we can meet up for lunch beforehand if anyone's open for that! Hoping to see you there! ~ Riana ⁂ 01:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC) You are receiving this message because you are an active Wikimedian in Adelaide and are on this list. If you think I've missed anyone out, please feel free to copy-paste this and send it to them too!

Your evidence at the 9/11 arbitration

Hello, Wayne. I was wondering if you could post some reliable sources for the claims you bring up about sceintific consensus at the arbitration. The reason there are complaints about editors is that they have pushed for mentions of conspiracy theories without reliable sources showing notable scientific support for the theories. If there are such secondary sources, please show them and we'll get them onto the article.

Please note that popular opinion polls are not signs of scientific support and are not a qualification of inclusion in this context. However, again, if there are secondary sources showing anything more than tiny scientific acceptance of the theories, please share them. Okiefromokla ^questions? 16:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick note

I wish to apologize for my edit here[2]. Awkwardly, I saw a "WLRoss" editing under a section created by "Wayne" and thought they were two different people. This whole debate has gotten me a bit keyed up and I jumped the gun on this one. Sorry. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary was self explanatory so I took no offense. cheers for the apology but none needed. Wayne (talk) 06:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Further to this, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, "impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." The full remedy is located here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 15:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What cracks me up

Is that Jain is nobel and toleranet religion which has many noble ideas about not harming others. hamas on the other hand is not very tolerante. I think you should spend some times in gaza and see for your self. I hope that they don't treat Jain as they do Chrstians. Zeq (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hamas is no more intolerant of Israel than Israel is of Palestine. I no more would condemn the good Israel does based on their bad behaviour than I would do for Hamas. I suggest you research what Jainism is about. Jains practice detachment through rational conduct. This means we accept that there is bad but work to help improve the situtation and avoid showing ill will toward others regardless of their actions. We also practice Anekantavada. This is looking at things from the POV of both sides to avoid a bias towards either side. Wayne (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Every religion seek first to correct the bad within one self. This is clearly the first thing for you to look in trying to explain to yourself how come you view Hamas and Israel in the same light. Israel is far from prefect. Israel violate many int'l prinicipals However, Israel is a democracy which tries to operate within normal parapmerts in very complex situation. It doesa poor job - I fully agree. We need however to look at the big picture: Is there wilngness in Israel for spliting the historic "bigger Israel" in order to get peace ? Clearly there is. Israel already gave up land for peace and recognized the right of the Palestinians to control an indepnedent state on part of the land israel view as it's anciant homeland. Fatah has done the same (at least partially). It is Hamas who refuse to budge an inch because of religious issues that it place above all others.

In Israel there are groups like this, those are the exterme settler groups who don't want peace and would like not to give an inch of the land. You have seen how the goverment of israel used force to removed those people from gaza. So when I see hamas using force to remove palestinians from within israel that is the time we can start talking about moral equivalnency. Zeq (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The way i see it is that if HAMAS provides something that can be used to further a peaceful solution then we must take advantage of it. If HAMAS is willing to now recognise Israel with conditions then instead of being rejected out of hand or even ignored, it can, with the help of world opinion, be the basis of negotiation. At the very least it is clear that HAMAS has reduced violence considerably over the last few years and may end it completely if serious talks are offered. I know there is considerable support in Israel for negotiation but it is Likud (and U.S.) policy that prevents it. Wayne (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For consistently striving to improve the level of conduct and decorum on 9/11 articles, and for being willing to step up and make a good faith effort to resolve conflicts civilly. Haemo (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot

I remember the interview. I'll find it (got broadband...). It's a pleasure working through this with you.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done (check out and see whether I got it right). Also, I've left a comment on the talk page. The Glanz and Lipton article tells an intersting story of the history of the investigations. That might be a better place to put all this FEMA vs. NIST, Robertson vs. SKilling stuff.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Appeal

Hi Wayne, thanks for your support. Yes, it was very quick. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Clarifications_and_motions#Request_for_appeal:_Topic_ban_of_Thomas_Basboll. I think Raul was a bit hasty overall, as has been already been pointed out, and it would be possible to overturn the ban on technical grounds (no warning, no constructive suggestions, etc.). But I am hoping that ArbCom actually evaluates the decision to ban (which would involve looking a bit at my contributions over all). If they maintain that my editing is tendentious (and to a bannable degree) then so be it. I have met criticism of my approach since day one (especially from MONGO of course) but I have never found it convincing. I have always believed that I understood the unique spirit of Wikipedia. I doubt anyone can explain to me what I should do differently and still present this project as an interesting thing to contribute my efforts to. Maybe I'll just have to shut up and sing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy to help. To paraphrase: I may not agree with your edit but I'll defend your right to edit in good faith to the death lol. I'd do the same for MONGO if he was unfairly treated. Wayne (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

David Irving

I enjoyed reading your search results from google on the David Irving talk page. Thanks for sharing. I imagine that took quite a lot of time and energy. In any case, others might not say anything, but I wanted you to know that at least one other editor reading the page appreciates your effort. Best wishes, J Readings (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Molten steel

I've answered on my talk.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Lillian Gish's surname

Lillian Gish's father was James Gish, his father was David Gish, etc, back to their German immigrant ancestor Matthias Gish (1710-1757), who settled in Pennsylvania in 1733. There is no evidence whatsoever that the family surname was ever "de Guiche". The "de Guiche" claim is a classic example of WIBS (Widespread Internet Misinformation). Please do not reinforce this error by repeating it. It's embarrassing, and it undermines credibility, when a biographical article doesn't get the subject's name right.

Nedwik (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Lillian Gish's official website which is run by her estate her birthname was Lillian Diana de Guiche. However it is believed that although it was not in fact really her birthname, Lillian herself believed it was as she had no contact with her fathers family and relied on her mother who was obsessed with geneology and the families upper class conections and may have bent the truth. Lillians first movie bio lists her birth name as de Guiche. While her fathers name was indeed Gish the first Gish who emigrated to the USA was Matthias Gisch. Wayne (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lillian Gish was well-acquainted with her grandmother, Diana Gish, and she lived for a time around 1911 with her uncle Grant Gish in Oklahoma. Lillian had no reason to believe that "de Guiche" was her birthname, and she never claimed that it was. In fact, the "de Guiche" birthname nonsense did not appear until years after her death. It was repeated frequently on the internet, and has taken on a life of its own, but it is certainly not true.

The so-called "official" website is actually run by CMG Worldwide on behalf of the Gish Estate. Their editors got her birthname wrong for the same reason you did: internet research. I repeat, for emphasis, that there is no evidence whatsoever that her surname was ever "de Guiche".

Nedwik (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The name de Guiche predates her death. Lillian herself claimed in 1922 that her family name was originally de Guiche. Later the movie studio added it to movie bios as her being descended from a "Duke" de Guiche. The Charles Affron bio makes the claim that she may have believed her family name was originally de Guiche and most official bio's report this claim. Wayne (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see some real evidence (specific citations, at least) that Lillian Gish's birthname was "de Guiche". Also, do you really believe that any actress would change her name from the romantic "de Guiche" to the mundane "Gish"? Not likely.

Nedwik (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arizona Republic 9/11 conspiracy theory column edit war

I was the editor that put the item in the article. You then deleted it and then another editor put it back in. I am writing to your talk page because my reasoning for originally putting the item in differs from the editor who reverted your delete. I felt the column was representative of as the title of the section says "Media Reaction". Also his reasoning is common among anti conspiracy theory arguments. Expertise is not needed for a "Media Reaction" section just media reaction. The "Criticism" section below it handles expert reaction. The "plausibility" of an argument should never ever be a factor as to whether a cite is article worthy.

In an unrelated 9/11 conspiracy theory article subject I also expected most editors to be favorable towered the conspiracy theories and am surprised that most editors are virulently anti 9/11 conspiracy theories. I did start a talk page discussion on the topic but you probably have to go digging in the archives to find it Edkollin (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being presented as representative of how the media view CT's but It currently reads as an attack on CT's by an uninformed writer who has not even investigated what he is talking about. I'll check and see if I can reword it to make it obvious it is a representative view. Wayne (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an attack on CT's and I have no idea how much investigative work went in to it but for arguments sake lets say very little investigative work went into it. Columnists do have this weird niche is the newspaper business in that their work is expected to be opinionated with a human angle the only restriction if any is not get the paper sued. This differs from the op ed writers who have to make step by step arguments. In this respect they and cable TV newschannel hosts have similar jobs. I do not know how this helps you reword things. The Wikipidia article on columnists describes editorial columnists not this type. Edkollin (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories - cell phone calls

I don't understand your revert on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Are you saying that there is scientific proof that cell phone calls cannot be made from airplanes? --Richard (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sirbu's expert opinion was made 3 days after the 911 attacks at which time there had been no research into cell phone use in aircraft. Dewdney conducted the research 2 years after 911 and although it confirmed the basic opinion of Sirbu that calls were possible it contradicted the details of exactly how possible they were. This actual research, which is accepted by the scientific community, must take precedence over an earlier unresearched opinion. If Sirbu had commented since Dewney's publication based on the new facts then that would be acceptable. To use Sirbu's earlier opinion no matter how expert it was to debunk later actual research is POV pushing. Read Dewdney's paper as it does not claim that calls are impossible but gives the percentage chance of a successful connection which is directly related to both the height and speed of the aircraft when the call was attempted. Wayne (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bentham Open

There is an ongoing discussion about the "Bentham Open" article by Jones, et al. Is there a way that this can be resolved through AGF. Tony0937 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why it is disputed. Peer Review is the standard and it can't be rejected on the grounds of WP:I Dont Like It. If the article supported the official theory I bet it would be accepted no matter how dodgy the source. All you can do is argue that Peer Reviews can not be held to separate standards based on personal beliefs. Either they are all acceptable or none are. Wayne (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. This is a kind of "Kill the messenger" kind of debate now and it makes me sick. Tony0937 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested in a reliable source supporting CT's try this Swiss national newspaper.
Partial Translation:

Sept 15, 2006, Blick newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed them. In the meantime scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
Raising questions along with military and terrorism expert Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".
"There are three theories, which we should treat equally":
1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.
2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimise a series of wars.
3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.
The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already!

Whether there was a conspiracy or not, asking these questions instead of censoring them is the ONLY way to debunk or proove conspircy theories. Wayne (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This may interest you

Hi, I see you have contributed to Jesus' sexuality; you might like to look at Gender of God where an ownership problem seems to exist (read the history and the talk page). Good luck! Abtract (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARB9/11

I have written about your editing at WP:AE. Please reply there. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)