Islamic bias, Jagged 85 rfc Options

[Peter Damian]

I only just noticed this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...mment/Jagged_85

For years have noticed with annoyance this editor's involvement in the medieval philosophy and logic and science articles. The RFC is telling indeed. The problem has finally been noticed, and the scale of it is huge. Practically all the contributions of this guy should be deleted, in my view.

[edit] But they guy has handled it in exactly the right way:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=357598892

That is, express sincere apologies (for 60MB of blatantly slanted editing), deny it was deliberate, and accept 'mentorship'. The cult will welcome him back with open arms.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

A shame this post got submerged, as it represents a systematic bias on a scale I have never seen before. Also, a 'breaching experiment' of audacity that outreaches even Gregory Kohs' noble efforts.

I have written about it at my philosophy and logic blog here

http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html

and have contacted other academic bloggers.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Moulton]

Perhaps Avicennian Logic can now be defined to be that curious branch of pseudo-logic in which any desirable thesis is "proven" by means of appealing to a non-existent authority or reference, or by citing a source which, upon closer examination, is found not to actually contain anything probative of the thesis in question. And then you can honestly credit Mr. Jagged as inventing that branch of (pseudo-)logic.

[Peter Damian]

Well I'm pleased to note at least that a search on 'Avicennian logic' now returns my blog at third place, which may help to dispel some of the blatancy of it all.

Thank you for visiting, Moulton.

[Moulton]

Thank you for visiting, Moulton.

You're welcome. Oddly enough, I visited your blog just yesterday, whilst looking for a suitable link to support a reference to the Argument Culture.

By the way, I once caught FeloniousMonk engaging in "Avicennian Logic" and called him on it. (He responded by arranging to have my whistle-blowing call deleted.)

[thekohser]

A shame this post got submerged, as it represents a systematic bias on a scale I have never seen before. Also, a 'breaching experiment' of audacity that outreaches even Gregory Kohs' noble efforts.

After reading just two minutes' worth of Jagged 85's user talk page, I conclude:

Troll is trolling!

Bravo!

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/applause.gif)

[Peter Damian]

One of the more responsible of the editors there has conceded the scale of the problem.

Indeed, the damage he has done is immense, and it extends far beyond the history of science. Democracy, Human rights, Women's rights, you name it, there isn't a single article or section involving the history of an idea that he hasn't contaminated with his POV. I am very grateful to you for publicizing the situation on your blog, and you hit on all the main points. The good news is that the RfC was successful: He has gone on an indefinite wiki-break as a result, and knows full well that should he return and resume his past behavior, he will be banned in short order. So the damage is done, but it has at least been contained, and now the cleanup begins. There are a number of editors who are working on cleaning up after him, each one within his own specialty. I am delighted to hear you specialize in logic and the history of logic, as these articles definitely need some cleanup, and they are far from my specialty so I cannot do it myself. The extent of the damage is such that it is too much for one person to undo, but if a number of editors do their part within their specialty, then we can roll back a lot of it. So feel free to edit those articles, and do not worry about Jagged, his days of wreaking havoc on this encyclopedia are over, one way or another. Athenean (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...52624#Jagged_85

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[EricBarbour]

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Well, was it you or not?.....(note that I am not taking Fram's side. Fram is a complete Belgian asshole.)

[Peter Damian]

Are those days over? Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Well, was it you or not?.....(note that I am not taking Fram's side. Fram is a complete Belgian asshole.)

Yes of course (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[thekohser]

Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Good old lovable Fram. He'll do anything to keep a banned user's content out of the encyclopedia, especially if it means preserving stupidity in the encyclopedia.

[Peter Damian]

Someone just reverted one of the more egregious edits of this user http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=367153592, and was promptly indef'd. By Fram of course.

Good old lovable Fram. He'll do anything to keep a banned user's content out of the encyclopedia, especially if it means preserving stupidity in the encyclopedia.

Looks like they've opened a sockpuppeting case, where some poor user (a rather good contributor in the area of analytic philosophy) is under the spotlight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Soc...ns/Peter_Damian

Well, there's not much that can be done here. Revert, if you must. Blocking the dynamic IPs is pointless. The point he makes is, I believe, acted upon. Amalthea 21:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's not been acted upon. There are thousands of edits by Jagged 85 still on Wikipedia. Jagged 85 is not banned. I am banned, and another entirely innocent user will be blocked also. This is Wikipedia at its best.

[edit] Also, having now had experience of the checkuser system close up, it is true how arbitrary it is. A lot of these are genuine socks, naturally, but quite a few have nothing to do with me. They must be wondering what happened.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

A lot of these are genuine socks, naturally, but quite a few have nothing to do with me. They must be wondering what happened.

Watching the Wikipediots torment innocent users on the basis of their having stumbled upon a previously-used dynamic IP address is one of my favorite things to watch. Also, contemplate the enormous amount of time spent by them trying to seal the leaky hole of "anyone can edit" -- all to ensure that a highly productive and intelligent editor is kept out of the fold, because he came too close to evidence that a cover-up took place to protect the reputation of another editor who publicly revealed his passion for human-canine intimacy.

Priorities, folks. Priorities!

[Peter Damian]

Watching the Wikipediots torment innocent users on the basis of their having stumbled upon a previously-used dynamic IP address is one of my favorite things to watch.

That is the thing. My ISP (btinternet) is incredibly dynamic. It changes at least once a day. I often check it on Wikipedia - occasionally I find some quite nasty racist edits that could easily be blamed on me if I had been editing at the same time. The system really is completely mad.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

The science historian James Hannam just got in touch with me about an article he wrote in The Spectator last year.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml

I read it, and recommend it.

[A User]

The same thing happens with articles on musical instruments. Sourced information is removed and the Romans and Indians are discredited, and instead the instruments are supposedly invented only by Arabs, even so far as editors making racist remarks about Indians being lazy and thieves etc. The editing appears more to do with pan-religious nationalism than good history. Wikipedia is a joke, and a bad one at that.

[Peter Damian]

The same thing happens with articles on musical instruments. Sourced information is removed and the Romans and Indians are discredited, and instead the instruments are supposedly invented only by Arabs, even so far as editors making racist remarks about Indians being lazy and thieves etc. The editing appears more to do with pan-religious nationalism than good history. Wikipedia is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Then it's about time the donors learned the truth about this. See my other posts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=240968 . We are past the time of chatting on an internet forum like this, which will get nowhere. Direct action is needed.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[A User]

See my other posts http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=240968 .

'Sorry, the link that brought you to this page seems to be out of date or broken.' (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

[papaya]

One can pretty much discount any statement about the origin of ideas in Wikipedia if it doesn't endorse the establishment claim thereof, not so much because the establishment is always right, but because the competing claims are almost always put there by various nationalist partisans. The ugly truth is that even if the claim of priority were true, the idea didn't go anywhere.

[Milton Roe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chemical...isusing_of_refs

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 7 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)


(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

Shocking. Simply shocking.

[The Adversary]

Peter D started a thread on it here.

Mods; could we possibly merge?

[Jagärdu]

From Peter's Blog ...

For example: Google 'Avicennian logic' (including the quotes) and it returns 6,000 sites (the top one being the Wikipedia article on 'Avicennism', where the phrase originates). Yet I am sure there is no formal system of logic known to scholars as 'Avicennian logic'.

Peter,

In your blog you pick on "Avicennian logic" and suggest that it doesn't exist as a formal system of logic. Yet, the reference used in the entry on Avicennianism, which is linkable through the entry, suggests that there is something that scholars would refer to as Avicennian logic, whether or not it actually fits the criteria of a "formal system of logic". Apologies for the long quote below from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

The Arabic influence in logic is thinner than in other disciplines (apart from ethics), because only a few works of Arabic logic were translated into Latin. The most influential translations were the Isagoge part of Avicenna's summa The Healing (ash-Shifâ’) and al-Ghazālī’s Intentions of the Philosophers, the first part of which is a reworking of Avicennian logic. Ramon Llull produced an Arabic compendium of al-Ghazālī's text, which he himself translated into Latin (Lohr 1965). To these sources one may add al-Fārābī's Enumeration of the Sciences, which transmitted much material on logical disciplines. Hermannus Alemannus's translation of Averroes' commentary on the Poetics was important because it remained the only source on Aristotelian poetics available in the Middle Ages and had a rich manuscript transmission (for its influence on Petrarch's negative judgement about Arabic poetry see Burnett 1997). Other translated texts remained largely uninfluential, such as William of Luna’s translations of five commentaries by Averroes on Aristotle’s logical works, or the translations made from Hebrew in the Renaissance. In sum, this means that the Latin West was not aware of the more innovative parts of Arabic logic, such as in syllogistics (Street 2005).

Of particular influence in scholastic philosophy was Avicenna's theory of the subject matter of logic, with its related doctrine of first and second intentions. Avicenna's basic claim is that logic deals with second-order concepts. This is discussed in the logic part of The Healing, but spelled out in technical vocabulary in the metaphysics part (Metaphysics I,2): "The subject matter of logic is the secondary intelligible concepts (al-ma'anî al-ma'qûla al-thâniyya, intentiones intellectae secundo), which depend on the primary intelligible concepts with respect to the manner by which one arrives through them at the unknown from the known". In this sentence, "concept" (ma'nâ) is rendered in Latin with the term intentio.

A brief note on this term is at place: In Arabic-Latin translation literature, intentio is very often used to render ma´nâ, with the consequence that the term intentio took on a similarly broad semantic range as its Arabic counterpart. In the writings of Avicenna, ma'nâ may mean "concept", but also "meaning" of a word, or something "intelligible" by the intellect, or "perceptible" by estimation but not by the external senses (on estimation see section 5.1). In Averroes' epistemology, the term ma'nâ has a specific meaning as the object of memory and a broader meaning as the abstracted content of sensory, imaginative or intelligible forms (Black 1996, 166).

In Avicenna's theory of logic, second intentions are defined as the properties of concepts which these concepts acquire when used in attaining knowledge, for example: being a subject or being a predicate, being a premise or being a syllogism. Avicenna thus confirms that logic has a proper subject matter, and hence becomes a full-fledged part of philosophy, and not only a tool for the philosophical disciplines (Sabra 1980, 752–753). Avicenna's definition of logic appears already in Dominicus Gundisalvi (De divisione philosophiae 150). Further Latin writers to adopt Avicenna's thesis that the subject matter of logic is second intentions are Roger Bacon and Thomas Aquinas, followed by many subsequent authors such as Pseudo-Robert Kilwardby, Radulphus Brito, Hervaeus Natalis, Peter Aureoli, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham (Knudsen 1982; Maierù 1987; Perler 1994).

It was a matter of dispute how first and second intentions differ, what they refer to and what their ontological status is, a dispute bordering on epistemology and the philosophy of mind. Important participants in this discussion are Roger Bacon, who defines intentions as intelligible species, that is, mental likenesses of things, and Hervaeus Natalis and Peter Aureoli, who (apart from disagreeing on many issues) both hold that intentions are neither identical with extramental things nor with qualities of the intellect; they have their own "intentional being" (esse intentionale), which is the result of a cognitive act (Perler 1994). This position was criticized both by nominalists and realists: William of Ockham objected against the reification of intentions and held that intentions are always natural signs in the mind; second intentions are natural signs which signify other natural signs (Summa logicae I.12); the realist author Walter Burley rejects the idea of a special being of intentions and argues that second intentions are part of extramental reality (Knudsen 1982). Logic as the science of second intentions continued to be a philosophical topic well into the sixteenth century, especially among Thomists and Scotist authors.

I have no doubt that this Jagged fellow has been doing some very sloppy and probably biased editing but this strikes me as an exceedingly sloppy example to be picking on. I hope the irony is also not lost on anyone here that no one is bothering to fact check the sloppiness of a WR contributer. It would also be nice to see some evidence of Jagged's misinformation actually making it into the rest of cyberspace. I don't see this, all I see is the mere fact that "Avicennian logic" turns up Google hits but then again it's used in the Stanford Encyclopedia so what does that prove? The real problem here is that the encyclopedia drives off people with actual expertise in subjects like this, and then someone arrives with good intentions and writes junk entries about subjects they have no business covering. The solution is of course for people who do have some knowledge in these areas to go about fixing the entries instead of wasting time discussing them. If Jagged has provided a very distorted picture of Avicenna's contributions to logic lets see it fixed.

Addendum -- Digging even further into the references on the entry produces an even more suggestive entry from the Stanford Encyclopedia regarding whether or not Avicennian logic can be described as a "system" or at least "school" of logic. Again this was easily linkable through the entry.

But the work on logic which was both technically advanced (and therefore unlike Ghazâlî's) and influential on later Arabic logicians (and therefore unlike Averroes') was done by Avicennan logicians who had begun to repair and reformulate Avicenna's work. Just as Avicenna had declared himself free to rework Aristotle as Intuition dictated, so too Avicenna's school regarded itself free to repair the Avicennan system as need arose, whether from internal inconsistencies, or from intellectual requirements extrinsic to the system. A major early representative of this trend is ‘Umar ibn Sahlân as-Sâwî (d. 1148) who began, in his Logical Insights for Nasîraddîn, to rework Avicenna's modal syllogistic.[13] It was to be his students and their students, however, who would go on to make the final changes to Avicennan logic that characterized the subject that came to be taught in the madrasa.

Sounds like a "system of logic" to this layman. I remain perplexed here.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[Kelly Martin]

So the real problem here is that editing Wikipedia to favor the contribution of 12th to 15th century Islamic scholars is in contradiction with Wikipedia's house POV, which generally holds that Islamic societies are inferior to western Judeo-Christian ones. This has nothing to do with truth or neutrality; it has to do with enforcing the house POV. Amazing it got as far as it did without being noticed.

[Moulton]

I need an algorithm (or some kind of algebra) with which to calculate the house PoV.

[Jagärdu]

I need an algorithm (or some kind of algebra) with which to calculate the house PoV.

I'm not entirely sure that there is a "House POV" on the contributions of Islamic civilization, and I honestly think this Jagged guy seems to have been very well intentioned. What I think we all need is a better understanding of the accuracy of the actual content he produced. Clearly there are mistakes there, probably a bias, but in the end we are just reproducing the same problem that we're critiquing -- a bunch of non-experts making claims about a topic we know nothing about.

[Cedric]

Peter D started a thread on it here.

Mods; could we possibly merge?

Moderator note: Done.

[The Adversary]

So the real problem here is that editing Wikipedia to favor the contribution of 12th to 15th century Islamic scholars is in contradiction with Wikipedia's house POV, which generally holds that Islamic societies are inferior to western Judeo-Christian ones. This has nothing to do with truth or neutrality; it has to do with enforcing the house POV. Amazing it got as far as it did without being noticed.

I´m not sure I fully agree here; it is a bit more complicated. If you take the average POV-pushing pro-Israeli who has his (only in a few cases: her) knowledge more or less just from googleling: virtually nothing happened during the time between, say 8th century and the 18-19 century (=influx of Jews) in the Middle East/Palestine.
Oh: except the Crusades.

You have a zillion Zionist/Israeli/Jewish web-sites which shows the area *only* in Jewish light, and this is fatefully copied to WP (Typically, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) is the town Lydda: Of its history between 1170 and mid 19th century it only say: "there was one Jewish family living there in 1170." In fact; for rest of the time it was an Arab/Palestinian city: but that is not mentioned/noted....as none of these partisan web-sites notes it. 6-700 years of history is simply written out. Puff!)

So, if there is a "house POV" here, it is not so much that Islamic science/societies was inferior to western Judeo-Christian ones...it it more that, well: it didn´t really exist. (At least not in Palestine.)

Also, typically: those who finally noticed Jagged inferior sources are not part of the usual Israel/Palestine crowd...(I did not know a single name of those involved (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) ), instead, it was editors with a background (?) /interest in science, and science history, AFAIK.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm not entirely sure that there is a "House POV" on the contributions of Islamic civilization, and I honestly think this Jagged guy seems to have been very well intentioned.

I tend to agree with you on this point; it is generally the case that Western sources understate the significance of the contributions of Islamic scholars of the 12th through 15th centuries. However, what needs to be noted here is how Wikipedia reacts to this situation: by calling the conduct of the editor into question. Rather than attempting to create a collaboration between Jagged and other interested editors with divergent points of view with hopes toward creating a more neutral presentation, the Wikipedia-organism seeks to eject Jagged, and presumably his point of view, entirely. I realize the RFC accuses Jagged of "misrepresenting sources", but I haven't personally checked that allegation and it could easily be untrue. Some of the links offered as evidence by Jagged's accusers seem to commit the same offenses as Jagged is alleged; for example, Athenean (T-C-L-K-R-D) charges Jagged with "[n]ot giving page numbers when citing a source", then commits the Wikipedia analog of linking to the entire history of one particular article to supposedly reference one supposedly offensive edit by Jagged. Sauron's Disease, perhaps?

Like most conflicts in Wikipedia, it is quite likely that this is a witch hunt, with both sides guilty of acting contrary to the best interests of the encyclopedia. albeit in different ways.

The only one of the certifying editors I recognize is Hipocrite (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and my general sense of Hipocrite is negative. It's fairly obvious that Hipocrite is angling for a ban here, and I imagine that's going to be the end result, even if it does take a while to accomplish that. Wikipedians are only happy when their enemies have been banned, after all.

[Moulton]

The only one of the certifying editors I recognize is Hipocrite (T-C-L-K-R-D) , and my general sense of Hipocrite is negative. It's fairly obvious that Hipocrite is angling for a ban here, and I imagine that's going to be the end result, even if it does take a while to accomplish that. Wikipedians are only happy when their enemies have been banned, after all.

It's interesting that you single out Mr. Hipocrite here, Kelly.

Backchannel scuttlebutt has it that Mr. Hipocrite has confessed to some of his other identities and machinations, and that I might well be familiar with him under another name, in another time and place.

I know of no way to confirm any of the scuttlebutt, but it appears that Mr. Hipocrite may be at the stage in his career where he is prepared to write a memoir of his legendary charades.

This post has been edited by Moulton:

[The Adversary]

I haven´t looked deeply into the Jagged affair, but I did seem as if the people who criticized him had set a pretty high standard. I just wish the same standard was kept everywhere (Try argue with some people that a book by Vilnay, aptly named "Legends of Palestine", should not be used as of it is "The Truth™" about the history of the land...and you will probably fail.)

I did not see this as much as a "house POV", more a collision of groups within WP who normally do not interact much, & where the "science crowd" keep a higher standard than the "I/P-crowd" regarding sources.

[Kelly Martin]

I haven´t looked deeply into the Jagged affair, but I did seem as if the people who criticized him had set a pretty high standard.

What I thought was interesting is that they didn't even keep that same standard in their criticisms of Jagged's editing. I certainly didn't check all of the links offered as "evidence" of Jagged's malfeasance, but at least some of them failed to adequately support the allegations made. That sort of hypocrisy really rankles, and while I suppose a few errors of this sort can be chalked up to carelessness, I would think that a public disciplinary proceeding in which someone's professional ethics are being questioned would be the last place where carelessness on the part of the prosecution would be even remotely tolerable.

[Peter Damian]

[Kelly Martin]

So the real problem here is that editing Wikipedia to favor the contribution of 12th to 15th century Islamic scholars is in contradiction with Wikipedia's house POV, which generally holds that Islamic societies are inferior to western Judeo-Christian ones.

[…]

Western sources understate the significance of the contributions of Islamic scholars of the 12th through 15th centuries

I never knew you had an interest in the influence of Islamic philosophy on the 13th century Latin West?

The Wikipedia house POV is to systematically downplay the contribution of the West, and to overstate the contribution of Islamic sages to scientific scholarship. See my entry here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html , and the Spectator article by James Hannam here http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml .

The Wikipedia Review house view, by contrast, is the assumption that anyone banned from Wikipedia (such as ‘Jagadu’ here) must be a saint, because Wikipedia is evil. Though I can see the politics of this.

In my post here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html I made allowance for the fact that Avicenna wrote logical works, and I am aware (as any medieval scholar is aware) of the enormous contribution made by Islamic civilisation to the Western philosophical tradition. But (in logic) Avicenna’s contribution was slight.

“Avicenna in fact wrote many textbooks on logic and also made some minor departure from Aristotelian logic .. However, Avicenna’s work on logic being a concatenation of the schools of Western logic, namely the Peripatetics (who developed the logic of classes) and the Stoics (who created the logic of propositions) in no sense could be called original. … Avicenna himself does not claim originality … in the introduction to Danesh-Name in fact he states that ‘though never regarding myself as an expert in this science (logic) I obeyed the order of my master in writing a logic book”. (From the introduction to Farhang Zabeeh’s translation of a logical work by Avicenna).

[…] I honestly think this Jagged guy seems to have been very well intentioned. What I think we all need is a better understanding of the accuracy of the actual content he produced. Clearly there are mistakes there, probably a bias, but in the end we are just reproducing the same problem that we're critiquing -- a bunch of non-experts making claims about a topic we know nothing about.

And what was your Wikipedia user name, Mr Jagadu? I went carefully through the RfC, and I am personally meeting one of the editors involved in it later this month, as we are both members of the Warburg institute. I wouldn’t call him a non-expert. Another expert is James Hannam. Read his article here carefully. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml

I haven´t looked deeply into the Jagged affair

And?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[lonza leggiera]

... Some of the links offered as evidence by Jagged's accusers seem to commit the same offenses as Jagged is alleged; for example, Athenean (T-C-L-K-R-D) charges Jagged with "[n]ot giving page numbers when citing a source", then commits the Wikipedia analog of linking ....

I presume the link you're referring to here is the one numbered 73 in Athenean's contribution to the Rfc. Of the 50 diffs he provided that's the only one which does not link to just a single edit. What amazing luck that you merely happened to stumble across it!

... of linking to the entire history of one particular article ...

Not quite. Unless you're a logged-in Wikipedia editor who has reset the appropriate variable in his profile to some weird value, the given link will list only the last 50 edits to the article (of which there are only 81 all up in any case). As it is, it took me all of 2 minutes to determine that Athenean was almost certainly referring to this sequence of 9 edits. It seems likely to me that he had actually intended to provide this diff, but simply made a cut and paste error. I know from experience that this is very easy to do when trying to compile a long list of diffs, and Athenean did make at least one other such error. His link numbered 57 was supposed to be a link to one of Jagged 85's edits, but in fact appears to be a link to the edit which reverted it. Again, however, it took me all of 2 minutes to determine that the diff he had very likely intended to give was this one.

On the other hand, in the examples Athenean gave of Jagged 85's not giving page numbers (in his links numbered 30 and 31) the cited reference was a book of 322 pages with (as far as I can tell) no electronically searchable copy conveniently available. Thus, it sems to me like drawing a rather long bow to cite this as an example of one of Jagged 85's accusers committing the "same" offence as he was accusing the latter of.

... to supposedly reference one supposedly offensive edit by Jagged. ...

"Offensive" is your word, not Athenean's. He referred to the 9 edits cited as "comical" and singled out one in particular for special (but fairly mild) ridicule. In the circumstances the ridicule was probably inappropriate, but, then again, the edit in question (viz. this one) was rather ridiculous.

... Like most conflicts in Wikipedia, it is quite likely that this is a witch hunt, ...

Well, if the single dubious example you have provided is the best you can come up with as evidence for this conclusion, I'd say your argument is looking pretty sick.

... The only one of the certifying editors I recognize is Hipocrite (T-C-L-K-R-D) ...

Pedant point: Hipocrite wasn't one of the certifying editors. He was a (supposedly) "uninvolved" editor who endorsed both the "cause for concern" and Jagged 85's response.

Disclaimer: I was one of the editors—not Athenean—who did certify the basis for the dispute.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Peter Damian]

Welcome, Mr Leopard.

[lonza leggiera]

Welcome, Mr Leopard.

Thank you—although I have to confess that I chose my user name more for its symbolic than for its literal meaning.

[Peter Damian]

Welcome, Mr Leopard.

Thank you—although I have to confess that I chose my user name more for its symbolic than for its literal meaning.

No I saw that. una lonza leggiera a presta molto.

[A Horse With No Name]

Thank you—although I have to confess that I chose my user name more for its symbolic than for its literal meaning.

Does that mean you are really a big ol' pussycat at heart? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[lonza leggiera]

Welcome, Mr Leopard.

Thank you—although I have to confess that I chose my user name more for its symbolic than for its literal meaning.

No I saw that. una lonza leggiera a presta molto.

Ah, well spotted then.

Thank you—although I have to confess that I chose my user name more for its symbolic than for its literal meaning.

Does that mean you are really a big ol' pussycat at heart? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

Maybe. But a bunny rabbit or guinea pig might be a little closer to the mark.

This post has been edited by lonza leggiera:

[Subtle Bee]

Ah, well spotted then.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[The Adversary]

I haven´t looked deeply into the Jagged affair

And?

Hmmm. Did you read the rest?...and it "did seem as if the people who criticized him had set a pretty high standard. I just wish the same standard was kept everywhere".


Now, I have only come across the ..eh.. shall we say the "Anti-Islamic-bias-group" on one article, namely Al-Muizz Lideenillah (T-H-L-K-D), as they wanted to remove a link to this article. The argument was to remove all references to the site http://muslimheritage.com/ from wikipedia. Based on the (slim!) discussion here.

In this specific case the argument was that the site only added an "unnecessary secondary citation for the quote". ...and "it failed to cite the Bosworth article correctly".

As to the first argument: the Bosworth quote which is cited is in an academic journal not available to most people. As for the second argument: not quite correct, as the muslimheritage.com cites a book .....where the said article is printed.

I still think just a link to the muslimheritage.com-site would be an improvement, but I cannot bother nit-picking with them; they are on a crusade.

What really bugs me is this: I have edited in the I/P-area on and off for 5 years now; where I feel at times as if I´m wading waste-deep in muck. Seriously; I have to argue (!) against using neo-nazi-sources for BLPs(!) -or "old" nazi-sources, for that matter. Presently, there are 327 references to frontpage.mag and 1600 to Jewishvirtuallibrary.org on Wikipedia; both with stuff much worse than anything I have found on muslimheritage.com.

I asked Dialectric (T-C-L-K-R-D) what s/he would do about that, and s/he said " I will take a look at Jewish Virtual Library; if it has similar issues (flawed citation practices, no peer review, self published), then it may well be an unreliable source and its removal could be justified."

Hah. That was nearly 3 months ago. And s/he has done exactly.....nothing. (Or has s/he found the site quite acceptable, just forgot to tell?) To repeat: "I just wish the same standard was kept everywhere"

Another expert is James Hannam. Read his article here carefully. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml

Yeah; but an expert on wp he is not. When he list the length of articles here, it really sounds as if he expect the size of the article to reflect the importance of the subject? Jeez, hope nobody tells him about David Icke (T-H-L-K-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(Gosh, reading that spectator-article it sounds as if Hamman actually thinks wikipidia is a...a.....an encyclopedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Another expert is James Hannam. Read his article here carefully. http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5482...sociology.thtml

Yeah; but an expert on wp he is not. When he list the length of articles here, it really sounds as if he expect the size of the article to reflect the importance of the subject? Jeez, hope nobody tells him about David Icke (T-H-L-K-D) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

(Gosh, reading that spectator-article it sounds as if Hamman actually thinks wikipidia is a...a.....an encyclopedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif)

I believe he was under that impression. His concern, and mine, is that a lot of educated people think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is a risk that they will take some of it seriously. Probably not much of a risk, I agree.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: