[WikiEN-l] Can we ban 172 now? And VV too!

Sigh. Below taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/172#Outside_view ==Outside view== ''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.'' I completely disagree. 172 has shown considerable restraint, given his professional expertise in this field. Meanwhile, I see little evidence that the other parties to the dispute really understand the content as well as him. I can only wonder if they are really interested in the quality of the encyclopedia or just having their own voices heard. Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): # [[User:Danny|Danny]] 00:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|&#167;]] 00:09, 22 May 2004 (UTC) #[[User:Mirv|&#8212;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']] 02:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 17:12, 26 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Tannin|Tannin]] 01:57, 30 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Markalexander100|Markalexander100]] 03:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<font color="#ff6996">+</font>]] 07:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 07:08, 30 May 2004 (UTC) #[[User:G-Man|G-Man]] 11:59, 30 May 2004 (UTC) ''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.'' Below taken from See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&oldid=… ==Another poll== Is the assertion of U.S. backing for the coup misleading or controversial in [[Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version)]], even in the presence of the footnote? :This is loaded phrasing. I do not consider it misleading, but the simple fact that this discussion is taking place is proof that it is controversial. [[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC) ::Ec, this is asking whether or not the assertion is controversial, as opposed to an undisputable fact, not whether U.S. actions were 'controversial'. [[User:172|172]] [IMO "even in the presence of a footnote" should not be in the question, because some of us do not want a footnote even if we think it goes some way towards clearing up the NPOV issue. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] ] :::AFAIC, this shouldnt be considered "controversial." -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:34, 22 May 2004 (UTC) '''Yes:''' # By 172's own definition (see the discussion in section 10) the possible meanings of "backed" include "aided", so the word is misleading. 172 should also note that readers of this article are unlikley to look up every word they read in a dictionary, and should take the context of the word into account (as VV points out in his previous comment). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] #:My own definition to "back" (v) is ''American Heritage's'', which is to provide support, assistance, '''''or''''' encouragement for (a contending force). It does not necessarily entail the provision of "aid." Cadr is putting words in my mouth; I said "or" as opposed to "and" when I has written the word "aid" once (very hastily). [[User:172|172]] 11:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #::The fact that you said "and" instead of "or" is of no significance, as I've pointed out already. If one possible meaning of "US-backed" is "US-supported" or "US-assisted" ''or'' "US-aided" (going on 172's earlier, different definition), the word is misleading. (There is no conclusive evidence that the US assisted/aided the actual 1973 coup). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] # The US didn't back the coup. Am I missing something here? Why would we say they backed it if they didn't? POV perhaps? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=e… '''Spade''']] 12:21, 19 May 2004 (UTC) ## Actually the US did back the coup. Nixon even said so [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB110/#docs on tape]. Welcome to 'Real US Foreign Policy, le�on 1.' -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC) '''No:''' #I recommend that respondents look up the dictionary definition for backing (n) or to back (v). [[User:172|172]] 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) "Backing" does not mean "instigated," "initiated," "orchestrated," "engineered," etc. [[User:172|172]] 11:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #This entire debate is utter nonsense. The historical record is clear: Nixon and Kissinger wanted Allende out and the CIA went about engineering it by funding the opposition, spreading FUD, and the like. The day of the coup, the American reporter Charles Horman was in Vi�a del Mar, near the port of Valpara�so, which was a key base for both the Chilean coup plotters and US military and intelligence personnel who were supporting them. He spoke with several US operatives and took notes documenting the role of the United States in overthrowing the Allende government. Several days later he was arrested and executed by the Chilean armed forces. His family believes this was because he (accidently) bore witnesss the US role in the affair. 'Backing'? Yep, I'd call it backing, although perhaps we could debate how active a role the CIA et al played in the coup, but nobody is claiming that the CIA itself bombed La Moneda -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 16:03, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #:OK, so where is all the evidence for this? (I expect it's all correct, but so far no-one has linked to any hard evidence.) [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] #::Cadr, this is a poll, not a debate. Please allow other users to chime in. [[User:172|172]] 18:17, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #:::Erm yes...and this is not an argument ;) Other users are free to chime in, anyway. [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] #::::cf: ''Missing'' by Thomas Hauser (1982) ISBN 01400.64532 (Sorry, not everything in the world is online) -- [[User:Viajero|Viajero]] 19:57, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #:::::OK, so is there any evidence in it more concrete than the beliefs of a reporter's family? (Again, I would not be at all surprised if it does contain such evidence, ''but no-one has yet explained what it is'', even vaguely.) [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] #I thought that the U.S. (unofficial but institutional) support for the coup in Chile was widely known and uncontroversial. Are people disputing the facts or the choice of words? Certainly this issue must be in the article. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] 15:27, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #*See the discussion if you want to know what the controversy is. (That is, you should have already.) [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #*It deals with [[Augusto Pinochet/intro (succinct version)|the wording in this version of the intro]], which VeryVerily and Cadr deem &quot;controversial&quot; and &quot;misleading,&quot; regardless of the footnote and the definition of 'backing'. [[User:172|172]] 15:50, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #*:I don't find it particularly misleading with the footnote, but I don't like the footnote for independent reasons (i.e. that it would be far better to replace it with a proper explanation of US involvement, rather than trying to clarify single vague adjective). [[User:Cadr|Cadr]] #[[User:Wik|Wik]] 15:33, May 19, 2004 (UTC) #[[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|&#167;]] 15:35, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #[[User:Infrogmation|Infrogmation]] 15:48, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #Like Slrubenstein, I'd never thought this was controversial until I saw the argument here. [[User:John Kenney|john]] 16:06, 19 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 16:32, 19 May 2004 (UTC) No, it's the other way around. It's an issue of Wikipedia's credibility outside of the US. (Inside the US I recognize that not so few citizens, ignorant of US foreign politics, could deem this issue controversial &ndash; I know such people myself.) #*Yes, yes, more about us dumb ignorant Puritan Americans and how we lack the sophistication and wisdom of you European intellectuals. Now, any ''substantive'' counterarguments, perchance? (P.s. You acknowledge "not so few"; see how that connects to NPOV policy?) [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #**Puritan yes &ndash; dumb no, not except for in your rhetoric above. Since I was 17 and started full-time apprenticeship, I admit to have studied the foreign language of the country where I live in any way resembling school. "Intellectual" - just the right accusation to throw at me! Common Americans being more ignorant of their country's foreign politics than the electorates of other democracies, that's a fact. The arguments are very well presented by plenty of others. There is no need to repeat those. I added what I hold for the most important, i.e. that of Wikipedia's credibility (outside of the US). [[User:Ruhrjung|Ruhrjung]] 17:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC) #***Supposed credibility over neutrality? Once again, I think you confuse your own personal opinions with those of the "rest of the world" (i.e., not the US). Which electorates of other democracies do you refer to, anyway? India? Nigeria? Oh no, wait, I know which you mean. P.s. I can't make head or tail of the "I admit..." sentence. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 07:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC) #[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 16:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Even conservative analysts admit the US was involved in the coup. The only reason for claiming this question hasn't been settled is POV. #[[User:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] 17:07, 2004 May 19 (UTC) Not misleading. Under protest against using polls as a way to establish facts. #[[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 19:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #[[User:Hajor|&ndash;''Hajor'']] 20:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC) Not misleading; certainly not controversial in my neck of the woods. But not particularly happy about voting to establish facts, or about call-outs to footnotes in articles. Uncle Ed's suggestion below would be useful, if only we could get the right quotes (doubtful). #[[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] - I had no idea people still disputed this. #*Welcome to the outside of the box. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 21:31, 19 May 2004 (UTC) #I wasn't going to vote on this, because I thought the poll question missed the mark. The issue isn't whether a particular wording is misleading, etc., but rather what's the best way to present the subject. I don't like the footnote. I thought the best approach was an in-text summary in the introduction, avoiding the word "backed," even though living with some nuance made for a longer intro. To that end I essayed a revision of the first-created sandbox. I tried to meet Cadr's objection to my initial version. Now, however, I find that VeryVerily has edited it so as to eviscerate any discussion of this issue in the intro. <br>It seems, then, that each side has its own sandbox and the two sides continue to talk past each other. With regard to the intro, 172 wants a flat statement of "backed," somewhat qualified in a footnote, while VV wants a mere allusion to what "many believe," with no indication in the intro that they have any factual basis for their beliefs. ''As between those two extremes'' (CIA role stated as fact versus CIA role stated as mere unsupported opinion, albeit opinion of "many"), I prefer the former, although the specific wording of the footnote would need some work. <br>I still think the footnote is, by its nature, an inelegant solution. It would be better for the text of the intro to state a few key evidentiary points, including the CIA's denial, rather than present the conclusion as an established fact. If other people agree with me, and say so and/or restore key data to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet/intro original intro sandbox], then perhaps we have a chance of reaching consensus on that approach. Until then, I'm going to turn my attention to editing the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet/intro_(succinct_version) "succinct version"] of the intro.<br>Finally, on the issue of recruitment: 172 did urge me to vote in this poll. I ignored his urging for the reasons stated above. I have now been "recruited" to vote by VV's edit, not by 172's electioneering. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 00:13, 20 May 2004 (UTC) #*It's your vote, but puzzling reasoning: you're not voting on the question asked in the poll. Anyway, the whole point of the sandbox is to experiment. I gave my reasons (several times) for my edits, which (perhaps ironically) largely come to succintness: the ''intro'' does not need to lay out the evidence, that's what the ''article'' for. The intro serves to summarize. Fercrissakes, look at the [[Augusto Pinochet|article]], nearly ''half'' of which is now about the CIA. [[User:VeryVerily|V]][[User talk:VeryVerily|V]] 00:36, 20 May 2004 (UTC) #**My vote is that the wording being polled is not misleading (the question asked in the poll) but that the wording also isn't good. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I agree that the intro should summarize, not present the whole discussion, but it involves striking a balance between, on the one hand, going into too much detail about the facts, and, on the other hand, simply saying "many believe" with no allusion whatsoever to the facts until later on. I don't think your edit version makes any attempt to strike that balance. Your version isn't a summary, it's a reference. My idea was that something taking up nearly half the article, as you put it, deserves a bit more space in the intro. I tried to put in a few critical points that would, for example, in response to SamSpade's inquiry, show that there are indeed references available, while also noting the CIA's denial and leaving the full elaboration for later in the article. My hope was that we could work out a consensus summary. Perhaps I was unduly optimistic. [[User:JamesMLane|JamesMLane]] 02:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC) # I like the internet, and how people can talk on it and stuff. -[[User:Stevertigo|Ste]]<i>[[User_talk:Stevertigo|vertigo</i>]] 03:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC) # [[User:Warofdreams|Warofdreams]] 17:08, 25 May 2004 (UTC) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger