FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2933 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) FORUM WARNING [2] Division by zero (Line: 2943 of /srcsgcaop/boardclass.php) The Bickering Isles -
They and others, including a disgusting Irish ip, are being bravely rebuffed by those defenders of the empire, LemonMonday (ace user page) and LevenBoy as they fight against the despicable removal of all things British, especially our beloved British Isles, from the pedia.
I wonder how many Irish buggers there really are - 1 or 2 at most. Socking is the order of the day here. Snowded stands on his own but the others are one and the same like as not. Makes you puke doesn't it. How about this one: Eliaspalmer. It reeks of socking! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)
I see Jimbo takes "no position" on the so-called (total bullshit non-existent) British_Isles_naming_dispute. He should take a position. His pedia is being used to promote POV OR bollocks of the highest order. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
WP simply does not have enough vapid nationalist disputes. This needs to be rectified. Suggestions: -Texas and Hawaii: sovereign nations illegally annexed into the U.S.? Are they still nations that are also states?! -U.S. Guano Islands: sovereign territory or anti-avian imperialism? -Alsatian Liberation Front: Various pro-French/German groups can just fight on all aspects of this. -Jerusalem: Still technically the capital and property of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem? - El-Aaiún: In Morocco, Western Sahara or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? - Jefferson Davis: The real US president during the Civil War?
Not to say there aren't nationalist flavored disputes with real merit, just that these need to be ignored in favor of more ludicrous issues.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 19th April 2011, 7:56pm)
-Texas and Hawaii: sovereign nations illegally annexed into the U.S.? Are they still nations that are also states?!
I'm guessing you've not been to Texas lately? "Y'all know Texas is only in the USA voluntarily?" is right up there with "Y'all Yankees talk funny" and "That Brokeback Mountain were all lies". (48% of Republicans supporting secession as of 2010.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 12:21pm)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 19th April 2011, 7:56pm)
-Texas and Hawaii: sovereign nations illegally annexed into the U.S.? Are they still nations that are also states?!
I'm guessing you've not been to Texas lately? "Y'all know Texas is only in the USA voluntarily?" is right up there with "Y'all Yankees talk funny" and "That Brokeback Mountain were all lies". (48% of Republicans supporting secession as of 2010.)
I'm from Texas. I keep telling the neo-traitors that the Civil War is over.
I invite you to go on. I guess we can - possibly - dismiss Bjmullan, though stranger things have happened and he does follow HK around a bit - but yes, what are your thoughts on the other possibility?
I invite you to go on. I guess we can - possibly - dismiss Bjmullan, though stranger things have happened and he does follow HK around a bit - but yes, what are your thoughts on the other possibility?
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
I invite you to go on. I guess we can - possibly - dismiss Bjmullan, though stranger things have happened and he does follow HK around a bit - but yes, what are your thoughts on the other possibility?
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined:
Member No.: 7,007
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 9:25pm)
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:21pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 9:25pm)
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
Never heard of him before now. No idea at all where this idea has come from—I don't think I've ever once expressed an opinion on the British Isles, nor ever had anything to do with Ireland.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:27pm)
QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:21pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 9:25pm)
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
Never heard of him before now. No idea at all where this idea has come from—I don't think I've ever once expressed an opinion on the British Isles, nor ever had anything to do with Ireland.
But Ireland is part of the British Isles, or are you saying it aint ya Fenian scum?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined:
Member No.: 7,007
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:27pm)
Never heard of him before now. No idea at all where this idea has come from—I don't think I've ever once expressed an opinion on the British Isles, nor ever had anything to do with Ireland.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Tue 19th April 2011, 2:54pm)
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:27pm)
Never heard of him before now. No idea at all where this idea has come from—I don't think I've ever once expressed an opinion on the British Isles, nor ever had anything to do with Ireland.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 9:25pm)
That I find it hard to think of two people on Wikipedia who have less in common, and can't see what on earth your line of thinking is, since one is Irish and writes about Irish history and cheese, and the other is American living in England and writes about 19th century civil engineering and the early history of eating disorders?
I'd say that's a perfect match. You could eat too much cheese, causing an eating disorder, or conversely have a disorder that manifests as a craving for cheese. As for Irish and American, maybe you're an Irish-American if there is such a thing. Hold on, isn't Alison an Irish-American? Now we're getting somewhere ...
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Detective @ Wed 20th April 2011, 4:49am)
As for Irish and American, maybe you're an Irish-American if there is such a thing. Hold on, isn't Alison an Irish-American? Now we're getting somewhere ...
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(gomi @ Mon 25th April 2011, 1:23am)
[Modnote: Split the off-topic silly name-calling to the Tar Pit.]
Looks like you didn't follow HK's link just above. Or maybe you did. It's all silly name calling, and just another thing that WP fails to be able to deal with intrinsically, at least in some small part because WP is American and won't piss off the Oirish, and also because it has only the smallest-possible interest in resolving anything at all. It's all a big-money mud wrestling game. Big money to those who make it that is.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
Did this topic just get split or have posts removed? There was a member of this forum here being involved, wasn't there?
Yah, one individual having the power to slap indefinite "it is not a ban" blocks around in a complex situation such as this one is another example of the misuse/failure of the Wikipedia system and should not be done/allowed.
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:41pm)
I believe the technical term is "could not give two fucks". Nor, I imagine, could anyone else outside Ireland.
I looked at this one briefly. It is pretty obvious that no more than a couple of insanely obsessed Irishmen have locked their Borderline Personality Disorder onto the words "British Isles" and are seeking to eradicate it from the Wikipedia. But what can one do about it?
What is it all about? There is a small minority of Irish who are attempting to make politically uncorrect the word British Isles because they have confused in their minds an age old geographical term with the suggestion that the loathsome British Crown therefore owns their bit of Ireland (Eire) if it is used. It is an example of how the Wikipedia is being used not to document reality as it is but as a tool of changing popular conception of it.
Of course, you cannot use the term "Ireland" without falling into a centuries deep pit, another ARBCOM war which the Irish lost, and tripping up over many of the same players. Do you mean Eire, Ireland, Republic of Ireland (which 'DOES NOT EXIST' except the rest of the world thinks it is), Ulster, Northern Ireland (... give us back our name), United Ireland, or 'the bit the Bastard Brits stole from Us and we are going to get back'? A more wonderful Wiki-dilemma real life could not have brewed up which is, of course, all the Brits fault. Of course, the Scots, who originally comes from Ireland anyway, blame the English for it except for the Scots who went back to Ulster and now think they are Brits instead and, like you say, even most of the real world Irish DNGAF either.
Confused? Exhausted already? Exactly ... do you really want to invest your life fighting them for Wiki-territory?
There is on-wiki support from Canadian Republican/s who have a similar Anti-Queen Elizabeth stance but the similarly blighted Australians really could not give two fucks ... even the Monarchy of Australia is accused of "being written from a Canadian point of view" which I suspect really means from the point of one of the players in this area, GoodDay (T-C-L-K-R-D)
... and the alliance of a Welsh Nationalist Snowded who, laughingly, was born in Essex. "Essex" is in England and is the butt of many a joke for being dumb/inbred/racist whatever ... kind of like what the Appalachian Hillbillies are to New Yorkers. (Google or even Wiki: Essex girls jokes).
As the Irish generally are tarred with the brush of being thick in politically uncorrect jokes, the idea of Englishman from Essex obsessed with being Welsh is wonderfully absurd. What do you call a Welshman who was born in Essex? Dave Snowden. What is strange is that this guy has a real life and yet still plays on the Wikipedia.
It is one of those situations where the Wikipedia wastes huge amounts of time, energy of it volunteers for the lack of any proper editorial structure. Mob Rule, and therefore the most dedicated idiots, rules.
Eventually there will be no one else but them inhabiting the place zombie, never seeing the light of day, living in basements and only coming up to protect "their" territory.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 44
Joined:
Member No.: 23,009
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 25th April 2011, 8:53pm)
Is there a one- or two-sentence description of what this dispute is about?
First speaker for the negative: The British Isles don't exist. And even if they did they wouldn't include Ireland. Wikipedia's pages must never be polluted by any mention of them. Ever.
First speaker for the affirmative: The British Isles are one of God's finest creations. They comprise several countries—and especially Ireland. Whenever Ireland is mentioned on Wikipedia it must be pointed out that it's part of the British Isles.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Mon 25th April 2011, 1:52pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 25th April 2011, 8:53pm)
Is there a one- or two-sentence description of what this dispute is about?
First speaker for the negative: The British Isles don't exist. And even if they did they wouldn't include Ireland. Wikipedia's pages must never be polluted by any mention of them. Ever.
First speaker for the affirmative: The British Isles are one of God's finest creations. They comprise several countries—and especially Ireland. Whenever Ireland is mentioned on Wikipedia it must be pointed out that it's part of the British Isles.
Or something like that.
That is a magnificient summary. Now I understand. And I understand why it will never be resolved in Wiki-land.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 25th April 2011, 12:37pm)
What do you call a Welshman who was born in Essex? Dave Snowden. What is strange is that this guy has a real life and yet still plays on the Wikipedia.
Years ago I had a friend who I always knew a Paddy he never divulged any other name. Since died as he became diabetic but much preferred injecting amphetamine then insulin, he was frequently carted of to hospital in a coma. Later he took to trying to balance it out by take several days worth of insulin in one go. One day he misjudged the amounts. and he's no longer with us. Anyway he had this wonderful southern Iris accent, and everyone knew him simply as Paddy, I recall one day someone asking him "What part of Ireland do you come from Paddy?" his response "Devizes!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Mon 25th April 2011, 1:52pm)
First speaker for the negative: The British Isles don't exist ...
First speaker for the affirmative: The British Isles are one of God's finest creations ...
Having looked at this one, and knowing a little about the facts and history of it, I have to disagree that it is so simple and that those defending the fair use of the term are motivated in such a manner. It is also another example of how tiny group of individuals can skew the Wikipedia.
It is a typical problem of the Wiki-mindset, there can only ever be two binary options; any third or fourth voice must be pushed into "the other camp" (... by which ever camp their statements do not favor). Unlike the other nationalist disputes, there is no such thing as "British Islianist or Islianism". It is not UK, or England, versus Ireland. I cannot think of any party proposing the re-unity of the UK and Ireland.
If there was any simplistic dichotomy, it would be 'Geographers versus whatever-the-Irish-Nationalist-equivalent-of-Zionism-is-called'. I mean, some of the tripe they have come up with is stunning, like arguing that an alternative name for the British Isles is "These Isles" simply because some one found such a reference half way through an article. I think the reason the British Islianists are losing is that it lacks any nationalist appeal.
The spanner in the works, Peter, is that legally the Isle of Man is neither in the UK nor Ireland and Channel Islands are basically in France ... yet both are in the British Isles.
I have to say that in this case, the problem lies entirely with the obsessive Paddies attempting to use the Wikipedia change consensus instead of building the Wikipedia base on the documentation of life as it is. I suspect it is only Royalist and Colonial England's widespread unpopularity, that allows them to do so ... and, just to confuse matters further, generations of Americans who think England is Britain and don't know what or where the hell the microscopic Isle of Man and Channel Islands are before they get writ out of existence.
QUOTE(lilburne @ Mon 25th April 2011, 2:55pm)
"What part of Ireland do you come from Paddy?" his response "Devizes!"
Nationalism sucks. There is no one more Irish than ...
Question: How many potatoes does it take to kill an Irish person?
Answer: None.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 25th April 2011, 4:23pm)
Unlike the other nationalist disputes, there is no such thing as "British Islianist or Islianism". It is not UK, or England, versus Ireland.
That would seem to be simply the Empire versus Ireland.
Just out of curiosity, is there no English nationalist movement, which is to say, a republican movement? I have seen editorials from time to time in the English press espousing such a view. There have got to be more than a few who are appalled at the vast expense and media adoration around the Royal Weddingâ„¢, coming at a time when vital social services are being slashed.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 26th April 2011, 1:34am)
Just out of curiosity, is there no English nationalist movement, which is to say, a republican movement?
There is an English National Party, but I don't think it is in any way republican; it is strongly in favour of keeping the monarch. There is a British republican movement, but it isn't English; it is strongest in Scotland and Wales.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 26th April 2011, 1:34am)
Just out of curiosity, is there no English nationalist movement, which is to say, a republican movement?
Do you mean British or English? I find the English people's addiction to the monarchy and empire absurd ... foreigners out, bring back slavery, serfhood for all! ... Especially now as its future Queen's only job was as an accessory buyer for a cheap high street clothing chain. But it gives their lives some kind of meaning.
It seems the big irk with this 'British Isles' versus 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is that British Isles includes the Isle of Man (who have their own 1,000 year heritage of self governance) and the Channel Islands while 'United Kingdom and Ireland' forgets their existence.
I doubt none of the ban hammering admins bother to consider the accuracy element, the only alternative for British Isles would be to replace it with 'United Kingdom, Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands', or argue eternally over which bits exactly the data refers to, which is what they seemed to do for a while but have now gone back to their territorial stealth campaigns ... "did he ever player snooker in Jersey?".
I would give anyone arguing with Irishmen being thick little hope ... needling the English is one of their few (racist) pleasures in life. (I fall in neither camp and think the Brits ought to have kept out of Ireland).
Well, I suppose it is better than them doing mortar attacks in County Armagh
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:52am)
It seems the big irk with this 'British Isles' versus 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is that British Isles includes the Isle of Man (who have their own 1,000 year heritage of self governance) and the Channel Islands while 'United Kingdom and Ireland' forgets their existence.
Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on this as well, because I have the impression that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function very much as colonial possessions due to their "offshore banking" status. Of course, it could be argue that the City itself is an "offshore banking haven."
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:52am)
It seems the big irk with this 'British Isles' versus 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is that British Isles includes the Isle of Man (who have their own 1,000 year heritage of self governance) and the Channel Islands while 'United Kingdom and Ireland' forgets their existence.
Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on this as well, because I have the impression that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function very much as colonial possessions due to their "offshore banking" status. Of course, it could be argue that the City itself is an "offshore banking haven."
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,735
Joined:
Member No.: 3,301
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:52pm)
Perhaps you could enlighten me a bit on this as well, because I have the impression that the Isle of Man and Channel Islands function very much as colonial possessions due to their "offshore banking" status. Of course, it could be argue that the City itself is an "offshore banking haven."
The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands aren't (and never have been) part of the UK; they're independent with a shared monarchy. (Think Canada, Jamaica, Australia…) The UK has responsibility for defense, and in the IoM's case a theoretical ability to overrule their laws, but I'm not sure either provision has ever been used. (The only time it's been tested in living memory, in WW2, the UK steadfastly ignored the Channel Islands and they remained occupied by the Germans for even longer than Berlin.) Describing Guernsey as part of the UK is akin to describing Pennsylvania as part of New York.
QUOTE(Eva Destruction @ Tue 26th April 2011, 4:47pm)
The UK has responsibility for defense, and in the IoM's case a theoretical ability to overrule their laws, but I'm not sure either provision has ever been used.
There was a case where an international court ruled that public birching of criminals on IoM violated some treaty, and the UK had to defend the IoM in court then (when they lost) persuade the IoM Government to change the law, but I don't think they forced them to make the change.
Falsely. Oh you are a tickly tease. Yawn - boring - etc, look at me, look at me. There is so much socking and meat puppetry on each side that is has completely defeated Wikipedia, as I've said on here before and tediously will no doubt say again.
Semi-involved dancing tarts like Sir Fozzie (you really are a twat, do you know that?) won't allow WP to simply respect sovereignty via some obvious guidelines, and recommend editing per WP policy/guidelines from there on, because 1) that means pissing off the plastic paddies and maladjusted twenty somethings who think they fighting the old fight, and 2) It fits in with Wikimedia wanting WP to forever be on the verge of success but always needing more 'help'.
And for 3) - people can't currently 'edit on' from any point on WP because A) guidelines like 'weight' etc mean jack shit to most admin and admin bitches, B) hardly anyone still on Wikipedia has the skill to write per policy, and C) guidelines are deliberately ambiguous or deliberately non-existent in these kind areas when they have been problematic on WP.
WP has simply ring-fenced 'the troubles' (which can pretty much cover everything Birtish/Irish in the minds of people like Sir Fozzie), and come up with comments like that abysmal tosser just has. If you get involved and complain about something they genuinely call you a fool for even dipping your toes in.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 25th April 2011, 2:00pm)
QUOTE(lonza leggiera @ Mon 25th April 2011, 1:52pm)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 25th April 2011, 8:53pm)
Is there a one- or two-sentence description of what this dispute is about?
First speaker for the negative: The British Isles don't exist. And even if they did they wouldn't include Ireland. Wikipedia's pages must never be polluted by any mention of them. Ever.
First speaker for the affirmative: The British Isles are one of God's finest creations. They comprise several countries—and especially Ireland. Whenever Ireland is mentioned on Wikipedia it must be pointed out that it's part of the British Isles.
Or something like that.
That is a magnificient summary. Now I understand. And I understand why it will never be resolved in Wiki-land.
Quite. Believe it or not, that really is how some people see it as being seen. In reality it's a genuinely simple Ttroubles' issue. If Wikipedia can't deal with basic nationalism then theoretically it can't deal with anything, and shouldn't exist.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:53pm)
British Isles/Ireland.
Do you know how happy I am to say I will gladly recuse on anything in that area should it reach ArbCom? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
By which you mean the UK and Ireland. That's the spirit. Glad to know that no votes were wasted on you, lard arse.
Gee, I wonder how you would have reacted should I have not recused in the area, considering my long history in the area, especially as I've worked against both sides here?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:52am)
It seems the big irk with this 'British Isles' versus 'United Kingdom and Ireland' is that British Isles includes the Isle of Man (who have their own 1,000 year heritage of self governance) and the Channel Islands while 'United Kingdom and Ireland' forgets their existence.
You keep saying this, but it's actually only The Truth on Wikipedia.
All the big encyclopedias make it clear that the term can include the Channel Islands, and they all give it as some form of secondary definition. Ie they have an effective guideline all their articles can adhere to. Which in practice is to keep it sensibly archipelago-only, and not include the Europe-connected Channel Islands.
The reason why the extreme Irish nationalists insist on the Channel Islands being included in the definition of British Isles on Wikipedia (per a few 'Verified Sources' of course) - no matter what other encyclopedias do - is that when the term does include the CI's, it proves for them that the term is plainly 'illogical' as a so-called 'geographically-only' term - because the Channel Islands are geographically part of mainland Europe.
The claimed 'absurdity' of the inclusion of the 'Channel Islands' helps their ultimate aim of creating a WP guideline that strictly demands the use of an alternate term, such as the 'Atlantic Archipelago'. Their rationale is: If BI is not an archipelago-based 'geographical only' term (and how can it be with the Channel Islands in it?) then it simply has to be a political term, and hence inherently anti-Irish. After all, so many Irish object to it. (there is actually surprising little evidence of this, on the internet anyway). So Wikipedia must not allow such an illogical and offensive term to be used at all. Unsurprisingly, the admin class is simply not interested in going this far.
The problem is that if try and deal with the Channel Islands 'enforced inclusion' issue, a small group of more ridiculous BI supporters spring up claiming that it IS a political term, based on old Empire boundries (even if originating from the ancient past) - and that because the term is in constant use every day (and it genuinely is on UK TV - it's used all the time), then the Irish nationalists should simply "grow up" and deal with it. When you listen to them go on about Empire, some of those people are so surreal that they almost appear like they are invented by the other side.
They make it impossible to get consensus.
As usual passing admin and arguments never connect - and all of them shy away from 'judgement', and they eventually run away from the sock madness, chastising those people who are mad enough to stick around.
And yet again we see Verified Source = Universal Fact on Wikipedia. Someone using 'British Isles' in a sense that includes the Channel Islands = "The British Isles includes the Channel Islands". Context and meaning drift in various sources are, as usual, totally ignored on Wikipedia - the encyclopedia of grossest stupidity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 8:57pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:53pm)
British Isles/Ireland.
Do you know how happy I am to say I will gladly recuse on anything in that area should it reach ArbCom? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
By which you mean the UK and Ireland. That's the spirit. Glad to know that no votes were wasted on you, lard arse.
Gee, I wonder how you would have reacted should I have not recused in the area, considering my long history in the area, especially as I've worked against both sides here?
Why should you be allowed to recuse? You who have actually had (though several years ago now) some experience. What if there is an issue about the USA - do all the Yanks 'recuse' if they have been involved in the area somehow? You are and ill-minded fool in a kindgdom of sheepwits. And you are probably afraid of Sarah777 as well. You are an ill-fitting, lilly-livered prick.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Detective @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:49am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 26th April 2011, 1:34am)
Just out of curiosity, is there no English nationalist movement, which is to say, a republican movement?
There is an English National Party, but I don't think it is in any way republican; it is strongly in favour of keeping the monarch. There is a British republican movement, but it isn't English; it is strongest in Scotland and Wales.
The ENP hasn't existed since the 70's as far as I know. There is a far-right BNP (British National Party) of course, who I imaging have agonisingly mixed feelings over royalty, like they do over Hitler.
Any kind of republican 'movement' is intellectual as far as I know. Always be careful about comparing Scotland and Wales - they have very different views on both devolution and republicanism. The monarchy (alas) is still very popular across the UK, but in terms of the cuts, it's seen as a price worth paying, simply because other countries genuinely look up to the UK because we have this often-bizarre family. Daft as that is, no one can deny it isn't a fact. The wedding is going to be the biggest media event in history - something like 5 billion potential watchers I think. And the whole thing makes people feel 'British', which various little voices keep telling us is a bad thing to do.
In my view, the passing of the (now 85 I think) Queen will see the end of the sovereign as head of state. Her kids and grandchildren just aren't as interested - the main reasons she has never past the crown on. And in terms of the Big Show, nothing will change. Why should it? I just don't want them to have constitutional powers, whether they ever get to use them or not. Apparently Will and Kate hate it all, but I doubt they'd hide away too much if we have those subtle constitutional changes that we actually seriously need to move on as a country. Sending a royal family to countries lacking a history of democracy was always incredibly bad taste. Cheap bananas though.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 5:22pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 8:57pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:14pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 19th April 2011, 10:53pm)
British Isles/Ireland.
Do you know how happy I am to say I will gladly recuse on anything in that area should it reach ArbCom? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
By which you mean the UK and Ireland. That's the spirit. Glad to know that no votes were wasted on you, lard arse.
Gee, I wonder how you would have reacted should I have not recused in the area, considering my long history in the area, especially as I've worked against both sides here?
Why should you be allowed to recuse? You who have actually had (though several years ago now) some experience. What if there is an issue about the USA - do all the Yanks 'recuse' if they have been involved in the area somehow? You are and ill-minded fool in a kindgdom of sheepwits. And you are probably afraid of Sarah777 as well. You are an ill-fitting, lilly-livered prick.
You know, you really have to be more up front and outgoing, holding in how you feel like this can't be good for your blood pressure...
Now that I've got the obligatory wisecrack out of the way:
Why should I recuse?
Personally, I worked in that area as an uninvolved administrator for years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles .. Four years ago.. sheesh). I'd possibly post evidence, or my thoughts on editors in that area, but it's safe to say I have significant history.
and well, if I didn't, the sides would be too busy pointing out why I'd (supposedly) be biased against (insert side here) to focus on a case. It'd be a sideshow, chaos. Good for those here who love a good old-fashioned Chaos Carnival here, but would it fix anything on WP? (yes, I set the over under at 32 minutes for the first "HAR HAR, nothing ever gets fixed on WP" post)
As for Sarah, I haven't interacted with her in any significant way (that I can remember off hand) in the last three years since I blocked her for undoing a series of merges on "Year X In Ireland" articles. I haven't "kept an eye" on her or her editing, but I do note that she hasn't been blocked in the last couple years. Whether that means she's moderated her behavior since then, or other administrators have not found her behavior to be problematic, I can't say. So I'm not scared of her, but again, with my history in the area, there's probably better people to take action as necessary.
BTW, mods, looks like the Email-A-User-there's-an-update function is b0rked up.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 4:59pm)
Study your history, royalty endures for a reason.
Well, there is an awful lot of money involved.
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 4:58pm)
BTW, mods, looks like the Email-A-User-there's-an-update function is b0rked up.
Yes, I see that... the handy MySQL table repair feature doesn't seem to be getting the job done today for some reason. I'll keep trying... Hopefully I won't have to wipe anyone's e-mail posting-notification settings. Indeed, hopefully I won't crash the whole thing!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 10:58pm)
blurb
Sarah would immediately claim you are 'involved' and shouldn't be there, and you would need the guts (or should I say the balls) to explain to people that experience is always a good thing (providing you are able to actually arbitrate fairly at all), and it is also your right, and no one else's call.
Or you can be snarky and cop out, leaving the traditional negative vibe with people who have little interest in or idea about it all. Real value for money that, hey.
You are just proving how stale, cynical and negative arbcom is.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 5:08pm)
Royalty and the aristocracy endure in these modern times because the majority of the middle classes aspire to be them.
Why else do you think Prince William is marrying a nice middle class girl.
So it's a kind of mega-lottery for hot, single middle-class women, except instead of giving you the money outright, you have to have sex with some inbred white guy?
Sheez, I'd rather just pay the $1.00 and take the 175,000,000-to-1 odds!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
QUOTE(Somey @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:14pm)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 5:08pm)
Royalty and the aristocracy endure in these modern times because the majority of the middle classes aspire to be them.
Why else do you think Prince William is marrying a nice middle class girl.
So it's a kind of mega-lottery for hot, single middle-class women, except instead of giving you the money outright, you have to have sex with some inbred white guy?
Sheez, I'd rather just pay the $1.00 and take the 175,000,000-to-1 odds!
Think of it more as a starring part in an international soap opera with an audience of 100's of millions.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 6:12pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 10:58pm)
blurb
Sarah would immediately claim you are 'involved' and shouldn't be there, and you would need the guts (or should I say the balls) to explain to people that experience is always a good thing (providing you are able to actually arbitrate fairly at all), and it is also your right, and no one else's call.
Or you can be snarky and cop out, leaving the traditional negative vibe with people who have little interest in or idea about it all. Real value for money that, hey.
You are just proving how stale, cynical and negative arbcom is.
Ok, one other reason:
The Troubles, and its requisite personalities and trying to manage the constant conflicts on Wikipedia cost me a considerable amount of stress, stress that eventually exacerbated a spat of ill health I was going through at the time. Combine that with the frustration and annoyances that the editors had been at times, and I burnt out. I turned in my mop, and disappeared for six months or so from Wikipedia.
I came back, and despite my desire to stay out of that area, I did try to moderate the people in that area for a bit, but then I found out something. It was very, very, VERY hard to not overreact. It was hard not to say. "Right. You, you, you and you, all of you are banned from the topic., Go fight your battles elsewhere, because I've had enough, the administrators have had enough, and the Encyclopedia has more than enough of this crap!"
Yeah, it sounds strange that something we do as a freaking hobby (was going to say volunteer, but god help us all if you say THAT word with related to the Troubles) can have real life health effects, but it did.. just from sheer frustration.
So please forgive me, but I'm not going to A) Stick my head into that meat grinder again voluntarily, and B) It's probably for the best (for the editors and the Encyclopedia) that I don't. Everything I've tried hasn't done a damn thing, maybe someone else will come up with the magic bullet for this area. (even if it's cleaning out each and every entrenched editor in this area, and seeing if the "next generation" of editors are quite so infuriating.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:22pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:18pm)
And what part of "in my view" makes you want to be so abusive?
You thought that was abusive?
Maybe the internet isn't the place for a delicate flower like you.
Of course I did! Just try properly reading my posts first if you are going to say I'm "either naive or an idiot." You have completely misunderstood not just the political role of the Windsors, but the fact that nothing need change (or indeed should change) if someone who deserves to be a head of state (ie on merit) gets that role instead of some king or queen. Plenty of countries have devolved monarchies, and if you really knew about our royals (combined with our intelligentsia), you'd realise that it's only a matter of time before we do too. Aside from anything else, they've all been through loads of shit, and the post-Elizabeth generation don't want the double pressure of being Royal representatives combined with being legally-bound civil servants. They want to get more time off, and to be able to sue people etc.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:36pm)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:22pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:18pm)
And what part of "in my view" makes you want to be so abusive?
You thought that was abusive?
Maybe the internet isn't the place for a delicate flower like you.
Of course I did! Just try properly reading my posts first if you are going to say I'm "either naive or an idiot." You have completely misunderstood not just the political role of the Windsors, but the fact that nothing need change (or indeed should change) if someone who deserves to be a head of state (ie on merit) gets that role instead of some king or queen. Plenty of countries have devolved monarchies, and if you really knew about our royals (combined with our intelligentsia), you'd realise that it's only a matter of time before we do too. Aside from anything else, they've all been through loads of shit, and the post-Elizabeth generation don't want the double pressure of being Royal representatives combined with being legally-bound civil servants. They want to get more time off, and to be able to sue people etc.
In my view.
No I didn't misunderstand you.
I do completely understand what you are saying.
You just happen to be so utterly wrong it's almost laughable.
As for the UK's intelligentsia, well they have about as much influence on popular opinion as my pet labrador does.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:27pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 6:12pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 10:58pm)
blurb
Sarah would immediately claim you are 'involved' and shouldn't be there, and you would need the guts (or should I say the balls) to explain to people that experience is always a good thing (providing you are able to actually arbitrate fairly at all), and it is also your right, and no one else's call.
Or you can be snarky and cop out, leaving the traditional negative vibe with people who have little interest in or idea about it all. Real value for money that, hey.
You are just proving how stale, cynical and negative arbcom is.
Ok, one other reason:
The Troubles, and its requisite personalities and trying to manage the constant conflicts on Wikipedia cost me a considerable amount of stress, stress that eventually exacerbated a spat of ill health I was going through at the time. Combine that with the frustration and annoyances that the editors had been at times, and I burnt out. I turned in my mop, and disappeared for six months or so from Wikipedia.
I came back, and despite my desire to stay out of that area, I did try to moderate the people in that area for a bit, but then I found out something. It was very, very, VERY hard to not overreact. It was hard not to say. "Right. You, you, you and you, all of you are banned from the topic., Go fight your battles elsewhere, because I've had enough, the administrators have had enough, and the Encyclopedia has more than enough of this crap!"
Yeah, it sounds strange that something we do as a freaking hobby (was going to say volunteer, but god help us all if you say THAT word with related to the Troubles) can have real life health effects, but it did.. just from sheer frustration.
So please forgive me, but I'm not going to A) Stick my head into that meat grinder again voluntarily, and B) It's probably for the best (for the editors and the Encyclopedia) that I don't. Everything I've tried hasn't done a damn thing, maybe someone else will come up with the magic bullet for this area. (even if it's cleaning out each and every entrenched editor in this area, and seeing if the "next generation" of editors are quite so infuriating.
This generation (on British Isles for certain) sock far more than the previous one did. That's been the progression over Wikipedia. And extremists like Gold heart you'll never get rid of.
You know, now you mention all that, I think I can remember you sharing it all here a couple of years ago too. So why don't I now feel bad? I imagine (Sir Fozzie) it is because you are now an anointed member of arbcom. S how did that happen? Noooooo more! to the Troubles but "yes!" to the arbcom. Aside from your reasons for applying for it, you clearly expect it to be an easier ride. But Arbcom, at least publicly, is supposed to be there to deal with things exactly like the troubles.
Or is it Wikipedia's own Royal Family, and more of a privilege more than a genuine job?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:42pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:36pm)
QUOTE(RMHED @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:22pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:18pm)
And what part of "in my view" makes you want to be so abusive?
You thought that was abusive?
Maybe the internet isn't the place for a delicate flower like you.
Of course I did! Just try properly reading my posts first if you are going to say I'm "either naive or an idiot." You have completely misunderstood not just the political role of the Windsors, but the fact that nothing need change (or indeed should change) if someone who deserves to be a head of state (ie on merit) gets that role instead of some king or queen. Plenty of countries have devolved monarchies, and if you really knew about our royals (combined with our intelligentsia), you'd realise that it's only a matter of time before we do too. Aside from anything else, they've all been through loads of shit, and the post-Elizabeth generation don't want the double pressure of being Royal representatives combined with being legally-bound civil servants. They want to get more time off, and to be able to sue people etc.
In my view.
No I didn't misunderstand you.
I do completely understand what you are saying.
You just happen to be so utterly wrong it's almost laughable.
As for the UK's intelligentsia, well they have about as much influence on popular opinion as my pet labrador does.
I'm utterly butterly wrong now (F7?). So much so it's laughable (F9).
If in doubt just fluff away in the dark.
FYI, it's the royals who are feeling the influence. Not just Charles, but his sons too. But this is silly. I'm not going to argue with some lulz-seeker who has no real knowledge of the subject.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,332
Joined:
From: Erewhon
Member No.: 16,621
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:27pm)
"Right. You, you, you and you, all of you are banned from the topic, go fight your battles elsewhere, because I've had enough, the administrators have had enough, and the Encyclopedia has more than enough of this crap!"
Group: Regulars
Posts: 936
Joined:
Member No.: 11,716
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 12:23am)
I'm utterly butterly wrong now (F7?). So much so it's laughable (F9).
If in doubt just fluff away in the dark.
FYI, it's the royals who are feeling the influence. Not just Charles, but his sons too. But this is silly. I'm not going to argue with some lulz-seeker who has no real knowledge of the subject.
Oh my dear fellow, I do apologize for fluffing away in the dark.
It's clear I don't have your deep understanding or knowledge of all things royal.
Do give my regards to 'jug ears', 'nice but dull' and the 'ginger bastard' when you next see them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 806
Joined:
Member No.: 1,200
QUOTE(Zoloft @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:28pm)
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:27pm)
"Right. You, you, you and you, all of you are banned from the topic, go fight your battles elsewhere, because I've had enough, the administrators have had enough, and the Encyclopedia has more than enough of this crap!"
ha! Although I don't think it'd be necessary, because I'm sure the requisite parties would take care of it by having me bronzed (by throwing me INTO the pool of melted bronze (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 6:27pm)
I came back, and despite my desire to stay out of that area, I did try to moderate the people in that area for a bit, but then I found out something. It was very, very, VERY hard to not overreact. It was hard not to say. "Right. You, you, you and you, all of you are banned from the topic., Go fight your battles elsewhere, because I've had enough, the administrators have had enough, and the Encyclopedia has more than enough of this crap!"
Yeah, it sounds strange that something we do as a freaking hobby (was going to say volunteer, but god help us all if you say THAT word with related to the Troubles) can have real life health effects, but it did.. just from sheer frustration.
I can't fathom how or why Arbcom/admins continue with their duties. You've got a quasi-legal system with no real rules, processes that encourage long-winded pettifoggery and mob mentality, partisan True Believers of every stripe vomiting out novel length diatribes, a pathetic user interface, etc, etc. But, as you have answered Jimbo's call to arms, my advice would be to do just what you've said. Crack down on obvious nationalist e-soldiers and make these topic areas sane (or at least policy compliant). It's not like you can actually stop them but you can frustrate them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
Those defending the use of the "British Isles" and challenging the Jimb'O-Fenians are not nationalists.
If you need it to be a binary, it is more of an 'anti-nationalist versus nationalists' equation ... although I doubt the more immature and less uneducated admins can fully grasp that. The opposite to Irish nationalism need not be English nationalism, it might just be anti- any obsessive nationalist silliness.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 26th April 2011, 6:23pm)
Difficult ... it's not an isle ... interesting question and a fine bit of British eccentricity. Apparently English law ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom and no other nation claimed it therefore it was a new sovereign state without any international relationship with the UK. Can a micronation truly exist that is one day going to rust into the sea? If I were the King of Sealand, I think I would be busy reclaiming land and building myself a proper island.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 10:09pm)
The reason why the extreme Irish nationalists insist on the Channel Islands being included in the definition of British Isles on Wikipedia (per a few 'Verified Sources' of course) - no matter what other encyclopedias do - is that when the term does include the CI's, it proves for them that the term is plainly 'illogical' ...
I don't see the Jimb'O-Fenians taking that stance at all. Almost entirely I see them ignoring the other smaller island states and being unwilling to discuss them as their inconvenient existence challenges their desire to remove all references to British Isles and replace it with 'UK and Ireland'.
It's damned immature obsessive behaviour really and where they lose any sympathy from my point of view. There is nothing worse than someone demanding rights in one breath and ignoring others rights in the next.
It's like Black Americans demanding equality with Whites and then looking down upon or persecuting Korean Americans.
So, no, the Isles of Man and Channel Islands are certainly not "colonies". The relationship between them and the UK are legal set and limited. And, no, the Channel Islands' inclusion is not illogical as geography has its cultural and historical elements too and the Channel Islands have played a disproportionate part in the latter.
What they need to do is accept that the word British in British Isles is not the same as British as in The Crown or whoever it was that was responsible for all the evils set upon Ireland.
Speaking culturally, the whole thing is even dafter. Can anyone truly say the culture of all the islands is really that different, or that the Irish have not in anyway contributed to British/English speaking culture and vice versa?
I suspect that if you were to DNA test the Jimb'O-Fenians, they would all turn out to be the prodigy of Anglo-Normans settlers.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 27th April 2011, 1:45am)
I suspect that if you were to DNA test the Jimb'O-Fenians, they would all turn out to be the prodigy of Anglo-Normans settlers.
Hmmn ... too subtle. In theory, it would be equivalent of a neo-Nazi discovering their ancestors were Jewish or something. Anglo-Norman being English or British by any other name.
I've never understood the appeal of nationalistic identities to "the common people" as all it really amounts to is being killed at during some pointless war held for the benefit of a generally related aristocracy. I'd say it is the co-opting of hard coded family or tribal allegiances within human animals that would have been immediately useful in days of yore, nation states being relative recent in our history. I don't see why the common people of one nation should be blamed or hated for the actions of self-appointed ruling elites and their mercenaries.
The British Isles dispute grinds on full of poisonous barbs and assassinations. It does seem to be going against the British Islists. Why is that? Is there a leaning of the Americans towards supporting the Oirish? Has "British" become "the bad guys"? It is a symptom of some other element of Wiki-play, e.g. anti-establishmentarism [sic].
As with India, one has to wonder if Independence really benefited the people. I appreciate the Wikipedia is a kind of territorial wargame where old conflicts are played out from computerised armchairs regularly. In terms of intellectual games, I'd be far more interested in "what if ..." type projections.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 27th April 2011, 1:45am)
Those defending the use of the "British Isles" and challenging the Jimb'O-Fenians are not nationalists.
If you need it to be a binary, it is more of an 'anti-nationalist versus nationalists' equation ... although I doubt the more immature and less uneducated admins can fully grasp that. The opposite to Irish nationalism need not be English nationalism, it might just be anti- any obsessive nationalist silliness.
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Tue 26th April 2011, 6:23pm)
Difficult ... it's not an isle ... interesting question and a fine bit of British eccentricity. Apparently English law ruled that Sealand was not part of the United Kingdom and no other nation claimed it therefore it was a new sovereign state without any international relationship with the UK. Can a micronation truly exist that is one day going to rust into the sea? If I were the King of Sealand, I think I would be busy reclaiming land and building myself a proper island.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 10:09pm)
The reason why the extreme Irish nationalists insist on the Channel Islands being included in the definition of British Isles on Wikipedia (per a few 'Verified Sources' of course) - no matter what other encyclopedias do - is that when the term does include the CI's, it proves for them that the term is plainly 'illogical' ...
I don't see the Jimb'O-Fenians taking that stance at all. Almost entirely I see them ignoring the other smaller island states and being unwilling to discuss them as their inconvenient existence challenges their desire to remove all references to British Isles and replace it with 'UK and Ireland'.
It's damned immature obsessive behaviour really and where they lose any sympathy from my point of view. There is nothing worse than someone demanding rights in one breath and ignoring others rights in the next.
It's like Black Americans demanding equality with Whites and then looking down upon or persecuting Korean Americans.
So, no, the Isles of Man and Channel Islands are certainly not "colonies". The relationship between them and the UK are legal set and limited. And, no, the Channel Islands' inclusion is not illogical as geography has its cultural and historical elements too and the Channel Islands have played a disproportionate part in the latter.
What they need to do is accept that the word British in British Isles is not the same as British as in The Crown or whoever it was that was responsible for all the evils set upon Ireland.
Speaking culturally, the whole thing is even dafter. Can anyone truly say the culture of all the islands is really that different, or that the Irish have not in anyway contributed to British/English speaking culture and vice versa?
I suspect that if you were to DNA test the Jimb'O-Fenians, they would all turn out to be the prodigy of Anglo-Normans settlers.
Nobody comes clean with their real feelings (and various intents) in this area do they? Least of all you, who seem to have no idea how transparent you are. Everyone involved claims to be entirely POV-free and acting purely on 'common sense'.
Who'd have thought the fucking Channel Islands could become central to so much shit? It's like you are stealing a baby when you actually try and get them politely demoted on WP, per various real-world technical usage. Who cares if people 'out there' have there own various different contexts? The world isn't perfect, and encyclopedias are nothing without guidelines for writing them (whether they are visible to the public like with WP, or not). The BI article says they are included "by tradition" (totally unreferenced and made-up as a compromise), but every other reference (including Gold heart's tantrum-protected venn diagram) has to include them at pain of death (or worse than death, a high-pitched wp drama).
I really do think you are all genuinely mad. Nationalism is a madness because it's like a religion where anything, no matter how grim, is allowed for the cause. Something like WP policy doesn't stand a chance unless it is intentionally no-nonsense about it. And all this 'passionate' nationalism for what? Lives are still being lost in Northern Ireland despite all that has happened (I think WP plays some part in the latest phase - why not?), and the plain reality that the younger generations naturally want NI to be its own forward-thinking country (within the UK or deal-based, or not), unaligned to the mutual fear and hatred of the past, is still being insulted by the behemoth that is Wikipedia.
On WIkipedida, the Northern Ireland article must only ever be a grim account of the troubles, and indeed the troubles must in fact be central to everything: protected by endless compromise edits and sanctioned edit restrictions. They were back on Londonderry/Derry last time I looked. What's wrong with following sovereignty, and a few well-written explanations? It's never enough for either side, that's why. What's wrong with a disambiguation page instead of Ireland essentially having two articles (three if you include NI)? The "relatively stable" status quos and compromises favoured by people like Alison actually fly in the face of all the stability/possiblity claims Wikipedia makes about itself. The whole area proves Wikimedia to be the total bullshitters they are, frankly.
All this shit because a relatively few people have had WP by the balls, and various WP Bastards like Jimmy Wales are arrogantly (and probably partly-culturally) passingly disdainful of the 'British', and beyond that couldn't really give a shit. All British admin do is felch their arses, and arbs like Sir Fozzie et al are the kind of weak-minded fools that WP is a magnet for.
What do you do with several hundreds of years of British and Irish? Send them home? Blow them up? Let them live in peace and adapt for fuck's sake.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 26th April 2011, 8:12pm)
I can't fathom how or why Arbcom/admins continue with their duties.
Take away their duties and what do they have? Real life achievements that they can point to? Having a seat on Arbcom is the closest they'll come to a triumph.
Arbcom is basically a bunch of lumpy people hiding behind pseudonyms while behaving like the digital age equivalent of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. But the pseudonyms rarely offer any protection -- not with Mr. Brandt and Mr. Usher sniffing about. And, more often than not, the arbitrators are too shallow to distinguish between hubris with humanism, which results in spectacular displays of ignorance and hypocrisy that keeps the WR crowd amused and the WP crowd agitated.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 11:04am)
Nobody comes clean with their real feelings (and various intents) in this area do they? Least of all you, who seem to have no idea how transparent you are ...
Well, I just about understood that one ... but I could have done without the entire copy and paste of my own original post (usually a fateful symptom suggesting the reply button was hit in anger).
Can you do me a favor and tell me what I ... apparently ... transparently am? I am serious. I thought it was *me* what was ranting on how nationalism was a terrible scourge and where it came from.
In the real world, a mature, professional editor would just make an informed decision and then the rest of the publication would just stick to it. How on earth can you decide an editorial policy by the luck of averages by using a dozen battling ejits, of whatever hue, and some uninformed adolescent bystanders throw bans at the problem?
One cannot one "nationalist" in favor of the British Isles because the British Isles are a nation. They 7 or more States (including Sealand), the last time I counted. I suppose it could be boiled down to Pan-Nationalism versus Insular Republicanism ... Do I have to tell a Scotsman, an Englishman and a Welshman joke before I an accusation free?
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 27th April 2011, 2:00pm)
Because he's not allowed to ball a Catholic princess ...
... and hasn't the brains to date anyone with brains.
The future Queen of England ... Empress of India ... Sovereign of the BongoBongo Islands (to quote the Duke of Edinburgh) ... and the only job she has held down is as an accessory buyer for a high street clothing chain.
It's amazing. It's enough to drive one to Republicanism if not migrate to Ireland, or perhaps both. In the old days, she would have been lucky to have a position as a hand(job) maiden in the court.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 3:36pm)
Plenty of countries have devolved monarchies, and if you really knew about our royals (combined with our intelligentsia), you'd realise that it's only a matter of time before we do too.
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 3:04am)
Nationalism is a madness because it's like a religion where anything, no matter how grim, is allowed for the cause.
{{fact}} I've seen sentiments like these uttered casually on more than one occasion, but never with any argument to back it up. To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Tue 26th April 2011, 11:27pm)
Yeah, it sounds strange that something we do as a freaking hobby (was going to say volunteer, but god help us all if you say THAT word with related to the Troubles) can have real life health effects, but it did.. just from sheer frustration.
Then sue the Foundation. Demand fringe benefits, including health insurance. If they can afford to pay Sue Gardner $258,000 per year plus generous bennies, they can afford to give you a Blue Cross plan. You are a duly-elected Arbcommer, after all. A leader among things. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 26th April 2011, 5:12pm)
I can't fathom how or why Arbcom/admins continue with their duties. You've got a quasi-legal system with no real rules, processes that encourage long-winded pettifoggery and mob mentality, partisan True Believers of every stripe vomiting out novel length diatribes, a pathetic user interface, etc, etc.
That describes the real-world legal system, as well.....
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:00pm)
To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism.
Naah, multilateralism and anti-colonialism are the alternatives to imperialism. Nationalism, when it isn't based on calls for ethnic/racial purity, usually exists in opposition to globalism and, of course, the idea of a one-world government. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on ethnic/racial purity more often than not.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 27th April 2011, 10:00pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 3:04am)
Nationalism is a madness because it's like a religion where anything, no matter how grim, is allowed for the cause.
{{fact}} I've seen sentiments like these uttered casually on more than one occasion, but never with any argument to back it up. To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism.
Most people have heard the sentiment voiced once or twice, I agree;
* "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson
* "Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception." - George Orwell
* "Nationalism is an infantile disease: it is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein
But it is only my opinion. (shared by a few others).
* "To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism." - Hershelkrustofsky
I just can't find words for that.
The evidence you are asking for is actually all over Wikipedia, where people who often seem to be otherwise sane bullshit and sock-produce to the nth degree, all because they can see that Wikipedia is the perfect place to sell their nationalistic dreams. They can't resist it, as their aim is so 'pure' to them that exploiting Wikipedia is easily a price worth paying. It's simply no contest.
There's a film called The Wind that Shakes the Barley, where a pre-independence Irish nationalist turned-appeaser kills his own captured brother, because he refused to reveal where stolen IRA riffles were held. The doomed brother talks before he dies of the kid he had executed himself for not being loyal enough: he shot him because to not do would be to 'sell out', and he will never, ever sell out. It was the best part of the film imo, and it harrowingly showed how far some people are willing to go. But that was Ireland, pre-1920's. The minority of youngish maladjusts on Wikipedia who won't let issues surrounding Northern Ireland rest, do in my opinion know full-well the damage they are doing to the peace process. But to them it is simply essential for good of The Cause.
Wikipedia is made for minorities: it's like an amplifier that picks up those who shout the loudest.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:57pm)
"To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism." - Hershelkrustofsky
I just can't find any words for that.
Well, to be fair, I believe he's merely expressing the quasi-Larouchian conceit that globalism and imperialism are the same thing, or rather, globalism is "the new imperialism." He has some statistics and such to back that up, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that most people in the Third World who are affected by globalism are actually benefiting from it. (Just not all of them.)
Then again, maybe they just think they're benefiting from it, because that's what their corrupt leaders are telling them, etc.... Anyway, normally I'd say this is getting dangerously off-topic, but the thread title still says "Boring!" so I guess we're OK.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 27th April 2011, 11:06pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:57pm)
"To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism." - Hershelkrustofsky
I just can't find any words for that.
Well, to be fair, I believe he's merely expressing the quasi-Larouchian conceit that globalism and imperialism are the same thing, or rather, globalism is "the new imperialism." He has some statistics and such to back that up, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that most people in the Third World who are affected by globalism are actually benefiting from it. (Just not all of them.)
Then again, maybe they just think they're benefiting from it, because that's what their corrupt leaders are telling them, etc.... Anyway, normally I'd say this is getting dangerously off-topic, but the thread title still says "Boring!" so I guess we're OK.
And talk about a conceited title.
I did look at that Larouche thing for a bit, but it just seemed too potty to me, and in far too much of an involved way: I'm lazy like that. HK above didn't explain himself at all, which demonstrates to me that kind of crazy conviction people have with these type of things. We are lucky in the UK that we hardly have any of that kind of almost cult-like stuff: They seem to have a bottomless pit in the US.
For me it's political, and based on gain. Modern politicians in the UK are clearly career people: they get into law perhaps, the business world, some politics, some bigger business (profiting from their career in politics as they can), and they eventually work on a global level, where multinationals are ultimately the most powerful entities in their world. It's very much an age of personal empowerment for those who can master what some of the more cynical amongst them will no-doubt call 'the game'. Jimmy Wales is on a similar trip himself in my opinion. Wikipedia is just a current concern to him, and he's already dipped his toe in, with a comment on 'showing 'em' in Florida, I think. He's a master speculator, really. All that various wiki and Chapter stuff.
There has recently been evidence uncovered which proves that the UK gov talked about the benefits of privatising the Iraqi oil industry when considering whether to invade it or not (we all know in the UK that the WMD rationale was a front for illegal regime change). With these modern mostly men, what benefits their 'nation' (and of course their nation's 'friends') ultimately benefits them. And then the people like Blair, when the time is there for them, can simply swan off abroad to wherever the rivers run deeper. Where does Blair now live? Where in fact does Jimmy? People like them live everywhere.
One thing is for sure, the world's resources need to be 'shared' somehow: they don't fit into neat national boundries. Especially those drawn with steel rulers.
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 27th April 2011, 2:56pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:00pm)
To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism.
Naah, multilateralism and anti-colonialism are the alternatives to imperialism. Nationalism, when it isn't based on calls for ethnic/racial purity, usually exists in opposition to globalism and, of course, the idea of a one-world government. Unfortunately, it seems to be based on ethnic/racial purity more often than not.
Would you mind citing a few examples here? First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 2:57pm)
The evidence you are asking for is actually all over Wikipedia, where people who often seem to be otherwise sane bullshit and sock-produce to the nth degree, all because they can see that Wikipedia is the perfect place to sell their nationalistic dreams.
It is always a mistake to conflate Wikipedia with reality, just as in the real world, Pac-Man and the Mario Brothers do not exist.
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 27th April 2011, 3:06pm)
Anyway, normally I'd say this is getting dangerously off-topic, but the thread title still says "Boring!" so I guess we're OK.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 27th April 2011, 5:06pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:57pm)
"To my mind, nationalism is the alternative to imperialism." - Hershelkrustofsky
I just can't find any words for that.
Well, to be fair, I believe he's merely expressing the quasi-Larouchian conceit that globalism and imperialism are the same thing, or rather, globalism is "the new imperialism." He has some statistics and such to back that up, but there's also plenty of evidence to suggest that most people in the Third World who are affected by globalism are actually benefiting from it. (Just not all of them.)
Then again, maybe they just think they're benefiting from it, because that's what their corrupt leaders are telling them, etc.... Anyway, normally I'd say this is getting dangerously off-topic, but the thread title still says "Boring!" so I guess we're OK.
I think it's more about the history of nationalism as a concept. People forget that when it originated as a coherent political ideology it was essentially a liberal one (in both the US and European meaning of that word), in opposition to yes, imperialism, colonialism and often conservatism. It was an ideology of oppressed people who wanted to have a voice ... in their own language. Then... well, I got to sa ity, the <s>Germans</s> Prussians messed it all up by making it crazy (and I mean, even before Mr. AH) (I wouldn't let the French completely off the hook either, what with Bonaparte)
Relabeling between "nationalism" and "anti-colonialism" essentially just involves an opinion of who has a right to be "nationalistic" under what circumstances. Sometimes these opinion have some reason, sometimes they're arbitrary.
One could very well argue that, for example, Woodrow Wilson embraced nationalism in his 14 points - and that probably was the pinnacle of liberal nationalism.
As a further comment, on Wikipedia (in real world too), "anti-nationalism" is often not the opposite of "nationalism" but rather simple prejudice and bigotry against a particular country. As a most egregious example I'm thinking of a user who actually assumed the user name "Anti-nationalist" and went around putting stuff like "children are molested in country x" and similar gems into a particular country's articles.. But hey, he was the "anti-nationalist", fighting these bad "nationalists" who didn't want to have "children are molested in country x" in articles about their country, so he was the "good guy" to many dummies on Wikipedia. Seen similar behavior many times on Wikipedia - you got to keep in mind that to many folks the whole thing is just a huge bathroom wall where they get to write obnoxious comments anonymously and troll whoever they like - they just got to dress it up in Wikipedia-correct language.
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:49pm)
There has recently been evidence uncovered which proves that the UK gov talked about the benefits of privatising the Iraqi oil industry when considering whether to invade it or not (we all know in the UK that the WMD rationale was a front for illegal regime change). With these modern mostly men, what benefits their 'nation' (and of course their nation's 'friends') ultimately benefits them. And then the people like Blair, when the time is there for them, can simply swan off abroad to wherever the rivers run deeper. Where does Blair now live? Where in fact does Jimmy? People like them live everywhere.
I must have missed the part where the invasion of Iraq "benefits their 'nation.'" It is easy enough to see how it benefited the individuals involved (who may have been "mostly men," but let's not forget the über-corrupt Liz Symons.)
Sometimes it is benificial, I'm currently in France looking at at how differnt towns in the 13th cenury vied with each other to build bigger and better cathedrals, and of course there are limits even to that, but too often the underlaying tensions spill over into violence of one sort of another.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 27th April 2011, 7:07pm)
Would you mind citing a few examples here? First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
Hitler and Mussolini are extreme examples... an better (and somewhat less extreme) one would probably be someone like Ataturk, or maybe Marshal Tito. But really, all of the people you've mentioned were in situations defined by foreign occupation, even if their motivations weren't precisely similar. Gandhi and Nehru were anti-colonialists, but hardly anybody in India is a "nationalist" by any coherent modern definition, because India isn't really one nation by any coherent modern definition. The desire to unify a semi-diverse group of principalities isn't the same as nationalism as it's typically defined in the modern context, even if the result is, well, a nation.
The same may have been true of Sukarno, to some degree - Indonesia could easily be three or four different "nations" (Java, Bali, Sumatra) but they became unified as part of an anti-colonialist struggle. They were clearly stronger together than as separate entities, and Sukarno was able to convince enough people of that, so they stayed that way.
Nasser was a nationalist, more so than anyone else on your list certainly, but he also believed in "Pan-Arab nationalism," which, again, was mostly an anti-colonialist movement at the time. (And no, I didn't have to go to the WP article to come up with that, I knew it off the top of my head!) De Gaulle and Jeanne d'Arc were mostly just fighting foreign invaders. The American Revolution, well... at the time, that was more like India, really, only most American colonists spoke the same language, so that part of it was easier for them.
I guess my point here, really, is that expelling foreigner occupiers from your homeland can be called "nationalist" if that's how you choose to define the term, but the important thing for the people doing it is that the foreigners end up getting expelled - what happens after that is really of secondary concern.
And the thing we all have to remember about Lyndon Larouche, and that includes you too I'm afraid, is that Larouche is an American - and America hasn't been invaded or occupied in anyone's living memory. "Nationalism" isn't really such a dirty word in a purely American context because Americans are, for the most part, OK with the idea of being a "melting pot," so the concept is a bit nicer-seeming. Whereas, if Larouche had been born in Serbia or Armenia or Georgia (the former Soviet republic, that is) or Mongolia, or even someplace like Peru or Venezuela, he might be less likely to think of all those aforementioned people as "nationalists," because he'd have been confronted with what modern historians call "nationalists" on a more regular basis.
Which is all a bit of a distraction from the topics in question as the British Isles isn't a nation nor even the expression of nationalistic ambitions.
We go from the original
Don't shoot me, I am only the piano player,
to
Don't shoot me, I am only the anthropologist (in the case of forays into tribal Wikipediaism),
and then to
Don't shoot me, I am only a geographer (in the case of the British Isles).
Yes, I agree the bizarre pay off for the Wiki-warriors is how, somehow, they feel that pushing angry and devious electrons around the Wikipedia's hard disk connects them not only to a top 5 site but also a glorious battle 100 years ago but the joke is, for the Irish, that they are doing so in English. Is there no gael.wikipedia.org we can pack them off to?
Historically, I'd say there was very few cultural divisions between the British tribes. Isn't Celtic nationalism is a fairly modern construct? There is more denial of the collective isles going on on the Wikipedia than in real life.
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:07am)
I guess my point here, really, is that expelling foreigner occupiers from your homeland can be called "nationalist" if that's how you choose to define the term, but the important thing for the people doing it is that the foreigners end up getting expelled - what happens after that is really of secondary concern.
And the thing we all have to remember about Lyndon Larouche, and that includes you too I'm afraid, is that Larouche is an American - and America hasn't been invaded or occupied in anyone's living memory. "Nationalism" isn't really such a dirty word in a purely American context because Americans are, for the most part, OK with the idea of being a "melting pot," so the concept is a bit nicer-seeming. Whereas, if Larouche had been born in Serbia or Armenia or Georgia (the former Soviet republic, that is) or Mongolia, or even someplace like Peru or Venezuela, he might be less likely to think of all those aforementioned people as "nationalists," because he'd have been confronted with what modern historians call "nationalists" on a more regular basis.
Am I rambling? I am, aren't I?
I wouldn't define nationalism in some sort of narrow sense of repelling invaders. I would define it as having a sense of national mission, which generally would be the development and progress of those who inhabit the nation. In that regard, I think that India is an excellent example (incidentally, LaRouche formed much of his political philosophy while stationed as an Army medic in India during and after WWII.) I also think your comments about Imperialism indicate that you believe it manifests itself primarily in the form of military occupation, when in fact, financial manipulation has been historically more important. Lest you dismiss this as trendy contemporary "anti-globalism," people like J.A. Hobson and Rosa Luxemburg were talking about this back in the 19th Century.[1] However, the proponents of globalism in its most predatory forms often try to characterize their opponents as bad nationalists (chauvinists) in the tradition of Blut und Boden.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Wed 27th April 2011, 9:14am)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 26th April 2011, 8:12pm)
I can't fathom how or why Arbcom/admins continue with their duties.
Take away their duties and what do they have? Real life achievements that they can point to? Having a seat on Arbcom is the closest they'll come to a triumph.
Arbcom is basically a bunch of lumpy people hiding behind pseudonyms while behaving like the digital age equivalent of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen. But the pseudonyms rarely offer any protection -- not with Mr. Brandt and Mr. Usher sniffing about. And, more often than not, the arbitrators are too shallow to distinguish between hubris with humanism, which results in spectacular displays of ignorance and hypocrisy that keeps the WR crowd amused and the WP crowd agitated.
I still cling vainly to the hope that Arbcom, in spite of the good intentions of its members, is not the dysfunctional institution it appears to be. The abysmal failure to act or even respond to the Mbz1/Nocal/CAMERA ring leak and the strange subsequent breaching experiment killed most of my faith in that. If they prefer a handful of editors quitting in disgust over their refusal to crack down on a political sockpuppet ring, so be it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:07am)
First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
Well I don't know how you got Joan of Arc into that list because the English Henry had arguably the better bloodline claim to the French throne.
And I'm not sure how you manage to add a bunch of colonials into the mix either who would never have revolted if the Englisg Aristocracy had of been slightly less condescending towards them.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:21pm)
I still cling vainly to the hope that Arbcom, in spite of the good intentions of its members, is not the dysfunctional institution it appears to be. The abysmal failure to act or even respond to the Mbz1/Nocal/CAMERA ring leak and the strange subsequent breaching experiment killed most of my faith in that. If they prefer a handful of editors quitting in disgust over their refusal to crack down on a political sockpuppet ring, so be it.
Maybe one or two of them have good intentions, but the others cannot offer a solution because they are the problem. Especially in sockpuppetry. At least one arbitrator is a habitual sockpuppeter and two others were shown to be aware that the sockpuppet of a "banned" editor was also an admin. (Some others may have also been aware, but Arbcom refused to let that conversation play out.)
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 28th April 2011, 2:10pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:07am)
First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
Well I don't know how you got Joan of Arc into that list because the English Henry had arguably the better bloodline claim to the French throne.
And I'm not sure how you manage to add a bunch of colonials into the mix either who would never have revolted if the Englisg Aristocracy had of been slightly less condescending towards them.
Your comments are useful because they help direct the discussion toward the real philosophical issues. My responses:
Joan of Arc was more important to France than any pedigreed cur, because she cared passionately for the welfare of the French people. That is real "nationalism."
And the "colonials" who have revolted, if they are worth their salt, didn't do so because they felt their overlords were too condescending (this is the essence of Fabian Socialism -- treat the lower classes nicely, and they will forever accept the class system.) Those revolting colonials objected to the very idea of an aristocracy.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Thu 28th April 2011, 5:22pm)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:21pm)
I still cling vainly to the hope that Arbcom, in spite of the good intentions of its members, is not the dysfunctional institution it appears to be. The abysmal failure to act or even respond to the Mbz1/Nocal/CAMERA ring leak and the strange subsequent breaching experiment killed most of my faith in that. If they prefer a handful of editors quitting in disgust over their refusal to crack down on a political sockpuppet ring, so be it.
Maybe one or two of them have good intentions, but the others cannot offer a solution because they are the problem. Especially in sockpuppetry. At least one arbitrator is a habitual sockpuppeter and two others were shown to be aware that the sockpuppet of a "banned" editor was also an admin. (Some others may have also been aware, but Arbcom refused to let that conversation play out.)
I thought I'd found the Arbcom member story but I was mistaken, it was only an admin. Do tell, do tell, dear Horsie! Yes, my already shrunken faith is rapidly evaporating. It's enlightening.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE
an better (and somewhat less extreme) one would probably be someone like Ataturk, or maybe Marshal Tito.
I'm not sure if Tito can be described as a nationalist. He was the guy that told all the feuding peoples of Balkans "we're all Yugoslavs now, you better all get along, or else" and backed it up. That's sort of building a new nationality rather than cheering on an old one (and he was sort of a pro-Serb Croat).
I'm guessing you're calling him a nationalist because he told the Soviets to go shove it. Not sure if that's "nationalism" or another manifestation of anti-imperialism/anti-colonialism, just like with Nehru or Ghandi (just a different empire).
QUOTE
But really, all of the people you've mentioned were in situations defined by foreign occupation
Yes, but that's sort of the key to nationalism for many people.
QUOTE
I guess my point here, really, is that expelling foreigner occupiers from your homeland can be called "nationalist" if that's how you choose to define the term
I don't know if that's THE definition of the term but it definitely should be a part of it.
QUOTE
and America hasn't been invaded or occupied in anyone's living memory. "Nationalism" isn't really such a dirty word in a purely American context
I would actually think the opposite is true. Precisely because US has never been invaded, "nationalism" doesn't make sense to Americans (and Brits) because they were never persecuted just for being an "American", so when they think of nationalism they think of the dirty aspects of it - chauvinism. But if you're, say, an Ukrainian, whose ancient and recent ancestors suffered under the Polish or Russian yoke, then "nationalism" just means standing up to those people - the nationalism as sovereignty and independence definition.
Since most of the world WAS oppressed by somebody at some point, "nationalism" is probably much less of a dirty war in rest of the world then in rich countries (a lot of whom only discovered "anti-nationalism" after they had already raped half the world "for the empire" or "for the fuhrer" or whatever)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 10:44pm)
QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 28th April 2011, 2:10pm)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:07am)
First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
Well I don't know how you got Joan of Arc into that list because the English Henry had arguably the better bloodline claim to the French throne.
And I'm not sure how you manage to add a bunch of colonials into the mix either who would never have revolted if the Englisg Aristocracy had of been slightly less condescending towards them.
Your comments are useful because they help direct the discussion toward the real philosophical issues. My responses:
Joan of Arc was more important to France than any pedigreed cur, because she cared passionately for the welfare of the French people. That is real "nationalism."
What French would those be? Quite a few were fighting along side Henry VI. In fact quite a few had been fighting along side the Englisgh crown for near on 100 years. In any case Joan was concerned only about "her Dauphin". She was captured by men loyal to the Duke of Burgundy and was then passed from one Frenchman to another until she was eventually sold by the Duke of Burgundy to the English via John of Luxembourg.
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 10:44pm)
And the "colonials" who have revolted, if they are worth their salt, didn't do so because they felt their overlords were too condescending (this is the essence of Fabian Socialism -- treat the lower classes nicely, and they will forever accept the class system.) Those revolting colonials objected to the very idea of an aristocracy.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
A note from the Manx Liberation Front ... can we split this topic?
BTW, has anyone in the real world every heard of a "Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy Scotsman" ... another load of shite from our friends at the Wikipedia An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. And it isn't even funny.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 29th April 2011, 5:24pm)
A note from the Manx Liberation Front ... can we split this topic?
BTW, has anyone in the real world every heard of a "Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy Scotsman" ... another load of shite from our friends at the Wikipedia An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. And it isn't even funny.
Yes, an aforementioned editor told me one.
Paddy Scotsman, Paddy Guernsyman, Paddy Manxman, Paddy Northern Irishman, Paddy Welshman, Paddy Jerseyman and Paddy Sarkman walk into a bar in Houston. The bartender says "Y'all ain't from around are ya? Where ya from?"
Paddy Northern Irishman repliess "Faith and beggorah! We're all a hailin' from the British Isles."
Paddy Scotsman turns to look at Paddy Northern Irishman in shock, "Yer bum's oot the windae! We's nae awl frum the British Isles! He's frum Guernsey! You shuld say 'We're frum the British Isles and adjacent Crown Dependencies! "
"Manx is a dependency, we're ruled by the Tynwald and not the Crown!"
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement.
Paddy Sarkman throws down his hat and stomps on it, "And what about the fiefdom of Sark?! We even have our own country code but no one remembers us! You should say 'We're from the British Isles, adjacent Crown Dependencies and royal fief.'"
The fight continues and the bartender turns to the waitress, "If these guys from the UK ever shut the fuck up see if they want something to drink."
I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 836
Joined:
Member No.: 3,466
QUOTE(Sololol @ Sat 30th April 2011, 1:45am)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 29th April 2011, 5:24pm)
A note from the Manx Liberation Front ... can we split this topic?
BTW, has anyone in the real world every heard of a "Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy Scotsman" ... another load of shite from our friends at the Wikipedia An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. And it isn't even funny.
Yes, an aforementioned editor told me one.
Paddy Scotsman, Paddy Guernsyman, Paddy Manxman, Paddy Northern Irishman, Paddy Welshman, Paddy Jerseyman and Paddy Sarkman walk into a bar in Houston. The bartender says "Y'all ain't from around are ya? Where ya from?"
Paddy Northern Irishman repliess "Faith and beggorah! We're all a hailin' from the British Isles."
Paddy Scotsman turns to look at Paddy Northern Irishman in shock, "Yer bum's oot the windae! We's nae awl frum the British Isles! He's frum Guernsey! You shuld say 'We're frum the British Isles and adjacent Crown Dependencies! "
"Manx is a dependency, we're ruled by the Tynwald and not the Crown!"
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement.
Paddy Sarkman throws down his hat and stomps on it, "And what about the fiefdom of Sark?! We even have our own country code but no one remembers us! You should say 'We're from the British Isles, adjacent Crown Dependencies and royal fief.'"
The fight continues and the bartender turns to the waitress, "If these guys from the UK ever shut the fuck up see if they want something to drink."
I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Um, what was the Paddy Cornishman doing while all this was going on?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 890
Joined:
Member No.: 21,803
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 30th April 2011, 2:24am)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Sat 30th April 2011, 1:45am)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 29th April 2011, 5:24pm)
A note from the Manx Liberation Front ... can we split this topic?
BTW, has anyone in the real world every heard of a "Paddy Irishman, Paddy Englishman, and Paddy Scotsman" ... another load of shite from our friends at the Wikipedia An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman. And it isn't even funny.
Yes, an aforementioned editor told me one.
Paddy Scotsman, Paddy Guernsyman, Paddy Manxman, Paddy Northern Irishman, Paddy Welshman, Paddy Jerseyman and Paddy Sarkman walk into a bar in Houston. The bartender says "Y'all ain't from around are ya? Where ya from?"
Paddy Northern Irishman repliess "Faith and beggorah! We're all a hailin' from the British Isles."
Paddy Scotsman turns to look at Paddy Northern Irishman in shock, "Yer bum's oot the windae! We's nae awl frum the British Isles! He's frum Guernsey! You shuld say 'We're frum the British Isles and adjacent Crown Dependencies! "
"Manx is a dependency, we're ruled by the Tynwald and not the Crown!"
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement.
Paddy Sarkman throws down his hat and stomps on it, "And what about the fiefdom of Sark?! We even have our own country code but no one remembers us! You should say 'We're from the British Isles, adjacent Crown Dependencies and royal fief.'"
The fight continues and the bartender turns to the waitress, "If these guys from the UK ever shut the fuck up see if they want something to drink."
I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Um, what was the Paddy Cornishman doing while all this was going on?
If he was from Padstow, probably shagging his sister.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 30th April 2011, 2:24am)
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement. .......... I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 30th April 2011, 4:19am)
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 30th April 2011, 2:24am)
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement. .......... I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Guess he's not an H.P. Lovecraft fan......
I beg you to compare the Welsh language with the dread tongue of Cthulhu. It's obvious that Welsh is but a corruption of the Old One's language, most of the vowels stolen by the imperialist English and replaced with "y". (And remember, these are the same people who think rabbit is a cheese-smothered slab of toast).
I confess that my ham-fisted lampooning of British Isles ethnic conflicts is probably a gross distortion of whatever it is they fight over and was largely done to amuse myself after a glass of Scotch Northern Anglo-Celtic. Which suits me fine, as most nationalist disputes are too silly to understand. Something akin to Canadian nationalists objecting to the name "North America" because it implies America owns the whole thing? Or some nonsense.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 641
Joined:
Member No.: 5,193
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:12pm)
But Arbcom, at least publicly, is supposed to be there to deal with things exactly like the troubles. Or is it Wikipedia's own Royal Family, and more of a privilege more than a genuine job?
There are 18 arbitrators, instead of a small handful, for a reason. If one of us decides to sit out a case (especially for good reasons, as here), it's hardly the end of the world. And it's even less the end of the world when an arbitrator says he might decide to sit out a hypothetical future case.
Group: Members
Posts: 3,839
Joined:
From: The Moon
Member No.: 982
QUOTE(melloden @ Sat 30th April 2011, 9:52pm)
QUOTE(chrisoff @ Sun 1st May 2011, 12:53am)
Eve of Destruction must be one of those "unenlightened" idiots from the US, as Malleus would say.
Based on their friendship, I think Malleus considers her an exception.
QUOTE
Newyorkbard, are you one of the Arbs now? I thought you fell out of esteem a while ago.
Why do you even bother posting here?
I will not yield, To kiss the ground before young Malcolm's feet, And to be baited with the rabble's curse. Though Birnam wood be come to Dunsinane, And thou opposed, being of no woman born, Yet I will try the last. Before my body I throw my warlike shield. Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!'
Macbeth, The Tragedy of Macbeth, Act V, Scene VIII
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 30th April 2011, 8:59pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:12pm)
But Arbcom, at least publicly, is supposed to be there to deal with things exactly like the troubles. Or is it Wikipedia's own Royal Family, and more of a privilege more than a genuine job?
There are 18 arbitrators, instead of a small handful, for a reason. If one of us decides to sit out a case (especially for good reasons, as here), it's hardly the end of the world. And it's even less the end of the world when an arbitrator says he might decide to sit out a hypothetical future case.
Dear Brad, I'm sure you are a great guy. I'm sure everyone on Arbcom is more or less equally pleasant and interesting (excuse my Panglossian nature). And you all have the terrible position of serving as the surface gloss of oversight to an internet lunatic asylum. I do not envy you. However, when you, as a group, fail to ban a group of ultra-nationalist Israeli POV pushers after receiving damning evidence, you have failed. When you have let a sector of your website fester so long that people (presumably, I'm not sure of the origin of the evidence) go to extreme lengths to remove these editors, you have failed. When people have to call you out on secondary websites to even bring the issue to light ... yeah, it's not good. I'm not sure what kind of monster community your preside over, but it's not for me. Love, Sol
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 1st May 2011, 7:32am)
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 30th April 2011, 8:59pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:12pm)
But Arbcom, at least publicly, is supposed to be there to deal with things exactly like the troubles. Or is it Wikipedia's own Royal Family, and more of a privilege more than a genuine job?
There are 18 arbitrators, instead of a small handful, for a reason. If one of us decides to sit out a case (especially for good reasons, as here), it's hardly the end of the world. And it's even less the end of the world when an arbitrator says he might decide to sit out a hypothetical future case.
Dear Brad, I'm sure you are a great guy. I'm sure everyone on Arbcom is more or less equally pleasant and interesting (excuse my Panglossian nature). And you all have the terrible position of serving as the surface gloss of oversight to an internet lunatic asylum. I do not envy you. However, when you, as a group, fail to ban a group of ultra-nationalist Israeli POV pushers after receiving damning evidence, you have failed. When you have let a sector of your website fester so long that people (presumably, I'm not sure of the origin of the evidence) go to extreme lengths to remove these editors, you have failed. When people have to call you out on secondary websites to even bring the issue to light ... yeah, it's not good. I'm not sure what kind of monster community your preside over, but it's not for me. Love, Sol
I think that expresses the dilemma well. The problem of the Ethics of Collaboration. Sometimes you have to work with evil to do good, and sometimes you can change the evil bit by bit, until you have something that is better, perhaps something even that is good. Then Collaboration with evil can work. Otherwise it is not. When the evil has gone too far, it is morally necessary to join the Resistance.
Oh yes Brad, I sent the Arbcom a little conundrum more than a week ago, did you get that? Either revoke the so-called 'community ban' imposed upon me by a gang of hooligans and bullies and their sockpuppets, so that I can publish papers in journals without a gang of Wikipedians complaining to the editor that I have been 'banned by the whole community', accusing me of mental illness and so on. The advantage of doing this is a tiny slice of Good. The disadvantage is you will incur the wrath and obloquy of hooligans and bullies and a host of sockpuppets.
Or send me a message that are not going to revoke it, thus confirming the actions of hooligans and bullies and their sockpuppets. The advantage is the praise of hooligans. The disadvantage is the little slice of evil that you will add to the festering loathsomeness of corruption already on your website.
Of course you have tried to avoid both evils by failing to reply, which I thought would happen. But that is an evil in itself, and a worse one too.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 1st May 2011, 1:45am)
I confess that my ham-fisted lampooning of British Isles ethnic conflicts is probably a gross distortion of whatever it is they fight over and was largely done to amuse myself after a glass of Scotch Northern Anglo-Celtic. Which suits me fine, as most nationalist disputes are too silly to understand. Something akin to Canadian nationalists objecting to the name "North America" because it implies America owns the whole thing? Or some nonsense.
Celts ... don't mention the bloody Celts to me!
Wandering over all the way from India, taking our jobs, sleeping with our women ... bloody immigrants. I tell you, Pictland has been going down hill ever since they arrived. We didn't win the war against the Northumbrians for the likes of them, you know!
You see, the dynamic never changes.
Most nationalist disputes are too silly to understand and the Wikipedian version not only sillier but more endlessly obsessive. I think this get the 'Brits out of Ireland-Wikipedia-Pages (and let's just ignore the little guys because there aren't enough Wikipedian there to count)' campaign is just a continuation of the previous Ireland renaming dispute that (from memory) did reach Arbcom. In that instance, it was "Ireland versus the Republic of Ireland" which all Paddies knew was really an evil plot by the English to rename their country. A country I thought was called Eire ...
I mean, why do they want a English "slave name" in a foreign language like "Ireland" anyway? Oh, I know why? Because they cannot speak their own language any more.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sun 1st May 2011, 1:59am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 26th April 2011, 7:12pm)
But Arbcom, at least publicly, is supposed to be there to deal with things exactly like the troubles. Or is it Wikipedia's own Royal Family, and more of a privilege more than a genuine job?
There are 18 arbitrators, instead of a small handful, for a reason. If one of us decides to sit out a case (especially for good reasons, as here), it's hardly the end of the world. And it's even less the end of the world when an arbitrator says he might decide to sit out a hypothetical future case.
Edit out my arguments and make a response as if they were never made.
I'm sure everyone on Arbcom is more or less equally pleasant and interesting (excuse my Panglossian nature).
I think Xeno is the only person on Arbcom who is pleasant and interesting. The rest are either bores, boors or lunatics. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Sun 1st May 2011, 2:32am)
And you all have the terrible position of serving as the surface gloss of oversight to an internet lunatic asylum.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE
Something akin to Canadian nationalists objecting to the name "North America" because it implies America owns the whole thing? Or some nonsense.
Some Mexicans and Latinos do or did (for example, Diego Riviera), or more precisely, they object to the "United States of America" being called "America" as it implies that Mexico, Colombia, etc. are not "America", with the name being monopolized by the "Anglos". Or something like that (what confuses it is that Mexico is also "United States of Mexico", but Mexicans usually call "America=US" "Estados Unidos". You look into it it actually makes sort of sense. Again, illustration of the fact that some things are ok for countries that have been screwed over historically, but not for ones which did the screwing over.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 30th April 2011, 1:19am)
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Sat 30th April 2011, 2:24am)
"Dwi'n r'yleh! Ai ai! Mgululgh codi'n gynnaryn bob dydd!", cried the Welshman in agreement. .......... I thought it was an OK joke but the teller didn't seem to get it.
Guess he's not an H.P. Lovecraft fan......
Now, that WAS funny. I've often thought that "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" looked like Welsh. Lovecraft always puts in stuff like apostrophes and odd digraphs that no purely spoken language is going to have any reasonable use for unless it uses sounds that do not occur in English, but when transliterated by some specialized digraph like the ll "voiceless alveolar lateral fricative" in Welsh (which to me sounds like something you might hear in the chest of somebody with pneumonia, along with râles). Anyway, after that, you get words like "cwm" (like the Western Cwm on Mt. Everest).
But if the language was never written, or not originally written in the Latin alphabet (which would certainly includes anything chanted by demented human worshipers of Elder Gods), then what's all that orthographic crap doing in Lovecraft at all? Cthulhu?? Give me a break. It's just aesthetic for Lovecraft, who liked to look at it, because it looks weird, and so it adds a certain emotional wierdness and strangeness, which is all Lovecraft was after. I guess he didn't get out much (unless you count NYC).
But in Welsh, the language has some history of illiterate use, then transliteration/Romanization, then bastardization. Which also sort of describes the Welsh themselves, come to think of it. Maybe add some bastardization preceeding also. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 28th April 2011, 1:15am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 27th April 2011, 4:49pm)
There has recently been evidence uncovered which proves that the UK gov talked about the benefits of privatising the Iraqi oil industry when considering whether to invade it or not (we all know in the UK that the WMD rationale was a front for illegal regime change). With these modern mostly men, what benefits their 'nation' (and of course their nation's 'friends') ultimately benefits them. And then the people like Blair, when the time is there for them, can simply swan off abroad to wherever the rivers run deeper. Where does Blair now live? Where in fact does Jimmy? People like them live everywhere.
I must have missed the part where the invasion of Iraq "benefits their 'nation.'" It is easy enough to see how it benefited the individuals involved (who may have been "mostly men," but let's not forget the über-corrupt Liz Symons.)
First of all, just to clarify, "their" means 'their' view (it is clear-enough when read in order) - but you picked up on the Indy article, so I don't get the problem? We all need a good oil deal, and it's nothing like as cheap in the UK as it is over in the US.
In my opinion cheap bananas/oil etc only benefits the more-powerful bartering nation in a short-term, typically 'capitalistic' (in its own progressive..free market sense) gain - because the typical regime-support that keeps the trade prices as low as possible, comes hand-in-hand with the incumbent wealthy-in-itself regime depriving, and typically subjugating, its people. Another reason for regime support of course is ideological - often even in encouraging and helping them to oust democratically-elected socialistic governments, who are ideologically more inclined to put the economic well being of their people first. But those fears aside, the economic routes tend to be the same.
Even sending your Royal Family over to charm them periodically (their supposedly most useful asset according to the more tedious royalists in the UK) won't stop the peasants from eventually revolting - after years of everyone but the regime-loyal flag-wavers being utterly insulted by the sheer bad taste. Look at the current 'dilemma' with Libya etc. Gadaffi is using the arms we've only just sold him to quell the now Western-backed uprising.
Ultimately, we all clearly need find the best way of dividing the planet's resources. That might sound hippyish, but they are simply scattered across the planet. China is buying much from various second and third world countries, striking all kind of deals over their mutual futures. In terms of the future of us all, the clever money is on steering the progressive nature of civilisation (ie of mankind - and is that not a global thing?) towards facing-up to the long-term benefits of mutual support and pluralism etc. Of course this is much easier said than done with our prevalent structures of bunting-crazy 'party term' democracy and put-in-place princedoms.
And we all take our considerable technological achievements so much for granted, queue someone using an ipad to tell me how stupidly naive I am for thinking humanity could even-possibly achieve this!
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 28th April 2011, 9:07am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Wed 27th April 2011, 7:07pm)
Would you mind citing a few examples here? First of all, what is the difference between nationalism and anti-colonialism? They would seem to be synonymous. When I think of nationalism, I think of Gandhi and Nehru, I think of Sukarno, Nasser, De Gaulle, Joan of Arc, and the American Revolution, to name a few examples. You appear to be thinking of what, Hitler?
Hitler and Mussolini are extreme examples... an better (and somewhat less extreme) one would probably be someone like Ataturk, or maybe Marshal Tito. But really, all of the people you've mentioned were in situations defined by foreign occupation, even if their motivations weren't precisely similar. Gandhi and Nehru were anti-colonialists, but hardly anybody in India is a "nationalist" by any coherent modern definition, because India isn't really one nation by any coherent modern definition. The desire to unify a semi-diverse group of principalities isn't the same as nationalism as it's typically defined in the modern context, even if the result is, well, a nation.
The same may have been true of Sukarno, to some degree - Indonesia could easily be three or four different "nations" (Java, Bali, Sumatra) but they became unified as part of an anti-colonialist struggle. They were clearly stronger together than as separate entities, and Sukarno was able to convince enough people of that, so they stayed that way.
Nasser was a nationalist, more so than anyone else on your list certainly, but he also believed in "Pan-Arab nationalism," which, again, was mostly an anti-colonialist movement at the time. (And no, I didn't have to go to the WP article to come up with that, I knew it off the top of my head!) De Gaulle and Jeanne d'Arc were mostly just fighting foreign invaders. The American Revolution, well... at the time, that was more like India, really, only most American colonists spoke the same language, so that part of it was easier for them.
I guess my point here, really, is that expelling foreigner occupiers from your homeland can be called "nationalist" if that's how you choose to define the term, but the important thing for the people doing it is that the foreigners end up getting expelled - what happens after that is really of secondary concern.
And the thing we all have to remember about Lyndon Larouche, and that includes you too I'm afraid, is that Larouche is an American - and America hasn't been invaded or occupied in anyone's living memory. "Nationalism" isn't really such a dirty word in a purely American context because Americans are, for the most part, OK with the idea of being a "melting pot," so the concept is a bit nicer-seeming. Whereas, if Larouche had been born in Serbia or Armenia or Georgia (the former Soviet republic, that is) or Mongolia, or even someplace like Peru or Venezuela, he might be less likely to think of all those aforementioned people as "nationalists," because he'd have been confronted with what modern historians call "nationalists" on a more regular basis.
Am I rambling? I am, aren't I?
Nationalism in all its connected but distinct senses; devotion to nation, supporting a nation's claim for independence, and also to fight for that claim - is surely a context-dependent term. With modern Irish nationalism, the context is the political history surrounding it. Irish nationalists want to return a lost part of the island of Ireland that hasn't been 'Irish' in any pure sense since the various protestant 'plantations', esp in Ulster - ie in-general, Northern Ireland. What they want to do with the British majority is anyone's guess, but that's the folly of it all. The Catch 22 of the Troubles is that both claim to be the victimised minority: one as a British/Protestant minority in the greater island of Ireland, the other as an Irish/Catholic minority within Northern Ireland. Everyone of course has their own idea of which points the relevant culpability started. Cromwell, perhaps..the IRA...? The same question (what do you do with the British?) can be asked of Scottish nationalism, and the much-smaller Welsh variety - 'nationalism' in the fully-devolving sense, of course.
India is surely a classic example where all the above forms of nationalism would be rife, isn't it? India contains around a billion people, including around a million communists etc – so it will have elements that want independence from the state (though this is not by any means a requirement - co-existing can and does indeed happen in India).
But India also has a distinct national identity, which has been in the sporting news twice in recent times: it hosted the 2010 Commonwealth Games, and gave a great show on both its national diversity and singularity (despite the various over-reported issues they had getting it done on time). The other is the Cricket World Cup, which they hosted and went on to win on their soil. The whole event was massive to them, especially when they beat their seriously-bitter rivals Pakistan in the semi final. On both of those occasions, India the 'nation' (not just 'country') was clearly on show. Not everyone single person has to subscribe to make it significantly real, just a seriously large portion.
Britain is a proud nation (and as inter-mixed as you like), and so to a great many people is Northern Ireland – just as England, Scotland and Wales are nations too. It is outrageous for certain little pricks on Wikipedia to demand that people 'choose' any one any of these nations over any of the others. The United Kingdom is entirely based on having more than one national identity, though many people have always chosen to simply be 'British'. Some people in Northern Ireland have three national identities (ie they include the republic of Ireland, over which they will hold a dual citizenship), and some people over there even seem to go as far as to meaningfully claim a “European†identity too (actually in a similar sense to nation, believe it or not).
It will all be somewhat different wherever you go around the world of course. What is relatively-recent in history (a hardly surprising fact) are examples of nationalist parties, and nationalist political movements that can hold a significant 'political' sway. Talk to some Wikipedians though, and you'd think that nationalism was some kind of 'modern invention' that didn't exist prior to whatever period that suits their own deeply-guarded view. Talk to others and they will tell you their national identity is embedded in the rock under their feet, or some kind of bollocks like that.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 19
Joined:
Member No.: 10,523
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 19th April 2011, 2:56pm)
-Texas and Hawaii: sovereign nations illegally annexed into the U.S.? Are they still nations that are also states?!
I guess that slogan they use to use for Texas tourism "It's like a whole nother country" was actually wishful thinking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
QUOTE(radek @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 2:25am)
Some Mexicans and Latinos do or did (for example, Diego Riviera), or more precisely, they object to the "United States of America" being called "America" as it implies that Mexico, Colombia, etc. are not "America", with the name being monopolized by the "Anglos". Or something like that (what confuses it is that Mexico is also "United States of Mexico", but Mexicans usually call "America=US" "Estados Unidos". You look into it it actually makes sort of sense. Again, illustration of the fact that some things are ok for countries that have been screwed over historically, but not for ones which did the screwing over.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 2:48am)
Talk to some Wikipedians though, and you'd think that nationalism was some kind of 'modern invention' that didn't exist prior to whatever period that suits their own deeply-guarded view.
But nationalism is a very 'modern invention', especially since many of the nation states involved in these disputes did not exist until the 20th Century and most nations were in no way united until the colonial period defined them as such. That is so say, most individuals allegiances were to family, village or tribe. That is more than true of a sub-continent like India and it is equally true about Ireland. (Equally, one could argue Scottish Nationalism was only born of the 19th C romantic celtic revival, it is a joke to suggest the backstabbing bastards and clans were of one mind!).
Add to that a nigh universal state where the peasantry of all nations were denied the right to travel and had no access to any media whatsoever (geography books included) ... what "national" consciousness could they have had?
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
And it still does not get away from the fact that "Ireland and UK" is not a one size fits all replacement for the "British Isles" and that an "encyclopedia" should not be the place for 2 or 3 people attempt to re-write popular consensus but rather report on it ... and I sense in the real world not that many people care.
What I find interesting is that for the mere fact that the Isle of Man or Channel Islands do not have obsessive activists, they are going to be written out of history Wikipedia style. Therefore, what we have is a history not even "written by the victors" ... but by which ever obsessive nut that happens to turn up.
The problem lies in the confusion between terms used in a detached geographical sense, e.g. India or British Isles, and terms used politically by individuals attached to some person goal or emotional hangup.
The big problem with the Wikipedia, unlike more august academic tomes, is that it cannot filter out individuals riding on imbalanced emotional states ... it uses them and keeps them hooked by encouraging them.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 2:48am)
Talk to some Wikipedians though, and you'd think that nationalism was some kind of 'modern invention' that didn't exist prior to whatever period that suits their own deeply-guarded view.
But nationalism is a very 'modern invention', especially since many of the nation states involved in these disputes did not exist until the 20th Century and most nations were in no way united until the colonial period defined them as such. That is so say, most individuals allegiances were to family, village or tribe. That is more than true of a sub-continent like India and it is equally true about Ireland. (Equally, one could argue Scottish Nationalism was only born of the 19th C romantic celtic revival, it is a joke to suggest the backstabbing bastards and clans were of one mind!).
Add to that a nigh universal state where the peasantry of all nations were denied the right to travel and had no access to any media whatsoever (geography books included) ... what "national" consciousness could they have had?
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
And it still does not get away from the fact that "Ireland and UK" is not a one size fits all replacement for the "British Isles" and that an "encyclopedia" should not be the place for 2 or 3 people attempt to re-write popular consensus but rather report on it ... and I sense in the real world not that many people care.
What I find interesting is that for the mere fact that the Isle of Man or Channel Islands do not have obsessive activists, they are going to be written out of history Wikipedia style. Therefore, what we have is a history not even "written by the victors" ... but by which ever obsessive nut that happens to turn up.
The problem lies in the confusion between terms used in a detached geographical sense, e.g. India or British Isles, and terms used politically by individuals attached to some person goal or emotional hangup.
The big problem with the Wikipedia, unlike more august academic tomes, is that it cannot filter out individuals riding on imbalanced emotional states ... it uses them and keeps them hooked by encouraging them.
Who are you to state that "nationalism is a very modern invention"? It's not just all 'opinion' you simply have to use a dictionary. Without those, Wikipedia becomes a meaningless string of indecipherable squiggles. You can stick on all the "especially"'s you like about new states vs old tribes, or various boundary-ambiguous micro-nations. 'Nation states' (as they are so clearly defined now) came with progress, as society advanced and power-bases centralised etc. Cartography helped define physical national boundaries. But nations have existed for thousands of years.
Nationalism is inherently problematic, but you just can't deny its existence as an entire concept for periods in civilisation where it suits you to do so. If you have a specific case about an individual period of people, that's a different matter. Typically (esp with the British Isles) there is just no balance - it's either your side or theirs.
Was has travelling got to do with it? People don't have to clock up air miles to understand the idea of being in their own happy or unhappy country, they only need a name for themselves, shared culture, a hierarchy within it, forms of royalty perhaps and taxation, a place to live etc. Regular food for their families. All things they are willing to defend, and sometimes wish (or need) to expand.
In England after the Romans left, you find closely-related kingdoms over an area that blended into areas we now call Scotland and Wales, but those people around a thousand years ago developed into a nation, because enough of those chain of 'groups' (linked at their strongest locally) united, and when the more-advanced Normans came and clearly defined all their territories, England never looked back (despite the fact that their legal language was Latin and their political one was French).
Nations blend together, like the Normans into England and then Normandy into France, and they also split apart, and sometimes they even move around. While the Egyptians were in their full pomp thousands of years ago, yes there will have been undefined tribes in other places around the world. There are still relatively isolated tribes now in the Amazon jungle, just about. Amazon tribes do not prove 'nations' do not exist, and the two concepts get naturally blurred anyway. Which of course doesn't help when arguing with a Wikipedian.
India is a nation state - how can you compare it to the term 'British Isles'? India's sovereignty means everything to millions of Indians, esp those supporting the development of their nation. I'm not a huge fan of India to be honest, I've always been sceptical of much of it (never wanted to go there, don't like the films, though I do like the food) and things like their space and arms race I find very hard to take. But you will find many Indians who are proud of it all.
In an encyclopedia, sovereignty should be the obvious centre-point in categorising modern nationhood.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,400
Joined:
Member No.: 4,212
I haven't really followed this dispute, it being one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia, and that is something. But isn't 'British Isles' merely a geographical term. You know, just a name for those very large clumps of rock and soil sticking out of the sea at various places? A bit like the 'Indian Ocean', which as far as I know has no Indian people living in it, at least not in the water itself.
The dispute, as I understand it, is about whether those geographical objects should be named using the term 'British'. On the (mistaken) assumption that it connotes British rule.
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:27pm)
I haven't really followed this dispute, it being one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia, and that is something. But isn't 'British Isles' merely a geographical term. You know, just a name for those very large clumps of rock and soil sticking out of the sea at various places? A bit like the 'Indian Ocean', which as far as I know has no Indian people living in it, at least not in the water itself.
The dispute, as I understand it, is about whether those geographical objects should be named using the term 'British'. On the (mistaken) assumption that it connotes British rule.
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
Oh Peter, Peter, Peter.
I can't pretend I'm not as lazy as you when it comes to reading up on the more seemingly-ridiculous Wikipedia arguments, but you could try at least a few of the posts. Try this post from above by me. And read from here too.
What is interesting about the never-ending 'BI dispute', is that it defeats Wikipedia on every level: policy, contributor, administration and mode of execution. It's quite simple to solve, but Wikipedia is (amongst other things) too pompous to centre its national issues around sovereignty, and the old idea of maintaining uniformity in guidelines seems to have gone out of the window. It's not an encyclopedia even in intent any more, it is – quite deliberately in my opinion – a gigantic forum of diversified opinion and information.
The obvious example you didn't mention was the Irish Sea, but really – this is really ALL ABOUT reclaiming the 'lost counties' for Ireland. It is getting a bit crap imo that people like yourself haven't gathered that yet. Wikipedia can't/won't deal properly with the Troubles, partly because it is very American, and Americans still have an axe to grind with the British. People like Jimbo are pro 'freedom for Ireland'. He's from the sentimentally-stupid country that funded the IRA for years.
By the way, there are Welsh and Irish versions of Wikipedia, though it hasn't stopped various nationalists insisting on wp.en being dual-language in places that they can put the nationalistic version/title etc before the english-language/British government one. How you think those wikis would offer a 'neat solution' beats me. Do you think everybody speaks those languages when you walk around those countries? It's all about the nationalist's fantasy of having some kind of Celtic-derived 'special importance' on the World Stage. That the world will be a significantly weaker place without the UK doesn't even enter their narrow minds. The UK is kerbang in the middle of modern history, and will be for a long while yet.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 491
Joined:
Member No.: 15,107
QUOTE
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
Nationalism and patriotism can't be solved offline, and it can't be solved online either, because everyone wants the highly ranked stage to shout "THIS IS THE GOOD VERSION AND YOU AREN'T TOUCHING IT YOU PADDY/LIMEY". Cultural bias is persistent everywhere. These people who engage in e-wars on the site eventually all get absorbed into the ever growing con-game.
What of all of these disappeared editors, like Brixton Busters, Conypiece, etc? They got bored and really went away, or have they reincarnated?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined:
Member No.: 35,179
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:27pm)
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
There are already WMF sites which are Wikipedia in Welsh, Scots Gaelic and some concoction which claims to be Scots.
Actually, there are three slightly different languages that are lumped together as Scots (Doric, Lallans, Ullans, the latter of course being from Northern Ireland), so really there should be three different WPs. Anyway, there are WPs in just about every language you can think of, other than John Awbreyese of course.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:27pm)
I haven't really followed this dispute, it being one of the silliest disputes on Wikipedia, and that is something. But isn't 'British Isles' merely a geographical term. You know, just a name for those very large clumps of rock and soil sticking out of the sea at various places?
Apparently that is the evilest heresy and there is a tiny group of individuals, driven by just one, going around every topic they can find removing British Isles and replacing it with "Ireland and UK" or "Ireland and Britain". Then around them another handful of axe grinders with POVs are varied as Welsh nationalist, Canadian republicans and one suspect just plain pisstakers who enjoy an online fight, harrying any geographically minded individuals attempting to protect the use of the term.
It is the rule idiocy of obstinacy and "he who clicks the most wins". Shame idiocracy has another meaning already.
It looks like the British National Party either cannot use computers and academic geographers thinks the Wikipedia is a waste of time ... because there is no one to defend the innocent use of the term.
Powercorrupts, I'd continue to argue that nationalism is a very, very recent development within human conscious and why but, let's face, it is interesting but ultimately pointless and I have to go put food on the table. Just bear in mind, 98% + of us come from peasant stock who in almost ever culture were bound for life in an area half a days walking distance (half a day because we have to get home at night), with no books, no education.
What concept of "nation" do you think they had? For whom did and does a national identity exist? Pretty much only those who sought to usurp it for their own sake and power I'd day ... you know, "Hitler is Germany and Germany is Hitler" and that kind of stuff. But the game of nations is pretty much only starting to solidify post-WWII as the bits on the maps were filled in and the edges because harder.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Text @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 11:45pm)
QUOTE
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
Nationalism and patriotism can't be solved offline, and it can't be solved online either, because everyone wants the highly ranked stage to shout "THIS IS THE GOOD VERSION AND YOU AREN'T TOUCHING IT YOU PADDY/LIMEY". Cultural bias is persistent everywhere. These people who engage in e-wars on the site eventually all get absorbed into the ever growing con-game.
What of all of these disappeared editors, like Brixton Busters, Conypiece, etc? They got bored and really went away, or have they reincarnated?
It's not about 'solving nationalism', it's about representing it properly, and not allowing an endless scrap for single-edit truths.
Wikimedia implicitly claims to be able to do that, and the irony is that it could very easily if it wanted too in this particular matter (British Isles). It can't stop dodgy intent obviously (how can it in any circumstance?!), but it could create guidelines that force people to adhere to certain rules. In this case they could say Wikipedia uses a single definition (based on the first one other encyclopedias use - ie non-CI archipelago-based), and a few notes on acceptable usage, so fruitcakes don't insert it anywhere they can to make a point, or - more often the case - nationalist fruitcakes don't try and remove it from anywhere they see it, claiming it is clearly political.
But Wikipedia must not be shit in the mouth censored kerching kerching cunts.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Detective @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 9:40am)
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 12:27pm)
A neat solution is to have an 'Irish language' version of Wikipedia? And why not a Welsh language one - with all the place names in Welsh? And a Scots one, all in Gaelic, or in Scots English or whatever?
There are already WMF sites which are Wikipedia in Welsh, Scots Gaelic and some concoction which claims to be Scots.
Point already made, above.
What's fascinating about this thread is how it could (albeit to a much lesser degree) follow the pattern of the discussions on the myriad of Wikipedia pages that have at some-point covered it. Arguments are quickly scrolled out of view by scrolls of polemic and then pointlessly archived (who reads it?), while occasionally people interject with a 'So what's all this about?" question that prompts even more backtracking and deliberate obfuscation.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 11:39am)
... the irony is that it could very easily if it wanted too in this particular matter (British Isles). It ... could create guidelines that force people to adhere to certain rules. In this case they could say Wikipedia uses a single definition (based on the first one other encyclopedias use - ie non-CI archipelago-based), and a few notes on acceptable usage, so fruitcakes don't insert it anywhere they can to make a point, or - more often the case - nationalist fruitcakes don't try and remove it from anywhere they see it, claiming it is clearly political.
Of course, I agree with you entirely.
This is where the Wikipedia is a great failure. All it would take is one qualified individual to make a simple editorial decision saving the huge *unaccounted for* waste of time and energy.
Other perfectly capable individuals become single purpose accounts attempting to balance some obsessive shillelagh waving fruitcake ... and in this case, it almost seems to boil down to one supported by a bizarre chorus of Welsh nationalists, Canadian republicans and, one presumes, pisstakers who enjoy an online argument.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 6:09am)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 2:48am)
Talk to some Wikipedians though, and you'd think that nationalism was some kind of 'modern invention' that didn't exist prior to whatever period that suits their own deeply-guarded view.
But nationalism is a very 'modern invention', especially since many of the nation states involved in these disputes did not exist until the 20th Century and most nations were in no way united until the colonial period defined them as such. That is so say, most individuals allegiances were to family, village or tribe. That is more than true of a sub-continent like India and it is equally true about Ireland. (Equally, one could argue Scottish Nationalism was only born of the 19th C romantic celtic revival, it is a joke to suggest the backstabbing bastards and clans were of one mind!).
Add to that a nigh universal state where the peasantry of all nations were denied the right to travel and had no access to any media whatsoever (geography books included) ... what "national" consciousness could they have had?
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
And it still does not get away from the fact that "Ireland and UK" is not a one size fits all replacement for the "British Isles" and that an "encyclopedia" should not be the place for 2 or 3 people attempt to re-write popular consensus but rather report on it ... and I sense in the real world not that many people care.
What I find interesting is that for the mere fact that the Isle of Man or Channel Islands do not have obsessive activists, they are going to be written out of history Wikipedia style. Therefore, what we have is a history not even "written by the victors" ... but by which ever obsessive nut that happens to turn up.
The problem lies in the confusion between terms used in a detached geographical sense, e.g. India or British Isles, and terms used politically by individuals attached to some person goal or emotional hangup.
The big problem with the Wikipedia, unlike more august academic tomes, is that it cannot filter out individuals riding on imbalanced emotional states ... it uses them and keeps them hooked by encouraging them.
Who are you to state that "nationalism is a very modern invention"? It's not just all 'opinion' you simply have to use a dictionary. Without those, Wikipedia becomes a meaningless string of indecipherable squiggles. You can stick on all the "especially"'s you like about new states vs old tribes, or various boundary-ambiguous micro-nations. 'Nation states' (as they are so clearly defined now) came with progress, as society advanced and power-bases centralised etc. Cartography helped define physical national boundaries. But nations have existed for thousands of years.
Nationalism is inherently problematic, but you just can't deny its existence as an entire concept for periods in civilisation where it suits you to do so. If you have a specific case about an individual period of people, that's a different matter. Typically (esp with the British Isles) there is just no balance - it's either your side or theirs.
Was has travelling got to do with it? People don't have to clock up air miles to understand the idea of being in their own happy or unhappy country, they only need a name for themselves, shared culture, a hierarchy within it, forms of royalty perhaps and taxation, a place to live etc. Regular food for their families. All things they are willing to defend, and sometimes wish (or need) to expand.
In England after the Romans left, you find closely-related kingdoms over an area that blended into areas we now call Scotland and Wales, but those people around a thousand years ago developed into a nation, because enough of those chain of 'groups' (linked at their strongest locally) united, and when the more-advanced Normans came and clearly defined all their territories, England never looked back (despite the fact that their legal language was Latin and their political one was French).
Nations blend together, like the Normans into England and then Normandy into France, and they also split apart, and sometimes they even move around. While the Egyptians were in their full pomp thousands of years ago, yes there will have been undefined tribes in other places around the world. There are still relatively isolated tribes now in the Amazon jungle, just about. Amazon tribes do not prove 'nations' do not exist, and the two concepts get naturally blurred anyway. Which of course doesn't help when arguing with a Wikipedian.
India is a nation state - how can you compare it to the term 'British Isles'? India's sovereignty means everything to millions of Indians, esp those supporting the development of their nation. I'm not a huge fan of India to be honest, I've always been sceptical of much of it (never wanted to go there, don't like the films, though I do like the food) and things like their space and arms race I find very hard to take. But you will find many Indians who are proud of it all.
In an encyclopedia, sovereignty should be the obvious centre-point in categorising modern nationhood.
I think the correct and succinct way to say this is that modern nationalism is a modern invention but that old school nationalism goes back to ancient times.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(radek @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 10:15am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 6:09am)
In an encyclopedia, sovereignty should be the obvious centre-point in categorising modern nationhood.
I think the correct and succinct way to say this is that modern nationalism is a modern invention but that old school nationalism goes back to ancient times.
There you go. Now try to get somebody to argue with a tautology.
A "nation" is something like a corporation-- a mechanism for groups of people to excercise power while trying to avoid personal responsiblity for stealing or causing damage. "National" borders are not particularly germane except as aids in physical defense, and some kind of odd psychological aid when THAT helps (otherwise, as with bin Laden recently, "nations" simply ignore anything about borders that is inconvenient-- rules are for you and me, not States).
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
Excuse me, but you really could not be more wrong about this. I recognize that people here are using a variety of ambiguous and incorrect definitions of "nationalism." But I can assure you that nationalism does not pre-date the inception of the Nation State, which was a product of the Renaissance and began with the France of Louis XI and the England of Henry VII. It was a revolutionary break with the traditional orientation to "hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances," which were the standard political unit under empires. Empires sought to discourage any more substantial social organization, because it might become a focal point of resistance to imperial rule. Louis and Henry horrified other monarchs by educating commoners, defying all tradition, but it was a move that substantially strengthened France and England.
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
Cartography helped define physical national boundaries. But nations have existed for thousands of years.
This, too, is very wrong. See above.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 6:09am)
In an encyclopedia, sovereignty should be the obvious centre-point in categorising modern nationhood.
Now we're getting somewhere. And the modern concept of "sovereignty" dates to the Treaty of Westphalia, where it first acquired some legal standing. Any discussion of "nationalism" should probably start there.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 10:17pm)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
But I can assure you that nationalism does not pre-date the inception of the Nation State..
I simply don't know how you or Cock-up can say that nationalism wasn't around in the times of ancient Egypt! I'm not asking you to hold as rote the Old Testament or anything, just to be sensible.
(PS. Please re-attribute the second quote in your last post to - though it should be obvious to readers - me)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 10:17pm)
This, too, is very wrong.
Actually, you got your quotes tangled up there, mine was the first and Power's the second.
Interestingly, the United Kingdom gets a specific mention in the topic on the Nation state but Ireland does not. Ireland's self identity is as a child born of its will to separate from Mother England (I cannot blame the Scots people collectively for what happened to Ireland) and defined by its indebtedness to culture and technology come through the British (I cannot blame the British people for the Church of England robbing the Irish poor).
For me, the big myth is that the peasantry buys into these illusions ... especially as it looks backwards into history. I am English ... I am Irish ... I own that ... those sufferings were mine to justify what I want today. I mean, apart from it being the only way a Scottish or Northern Ireland footballer would ever get to play in international football, why on earth is the UK allowed to have 4 national teams in the World Cup? I would have though Northern Ireland has less of claim to nationhood than even San Marino,
Back to the topic in question, what payback do individuals really get out sitting for days changing "British Isles" to "Ireland and UK" ... and then arguing over it afterwards?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 4th May 2011, 12:01am)
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 10:17pm)
This, too, is very wrong.
Actually, you got your quotes tangled up there, mine was the first and Power's the second.
Interestingly, the United Kingdom gets a specific mention in the topic on the Nation state but Ireland does not. Ireland's self identity is as a child born of its will to separate from Mother England (I cannot blame the Scots people collectively for what happened to Ireland) and defined by its indebtedness to culture and technology come through the British (I cannot blame the British people for the Church of England robbing the Irish poor).
For me, the big myth is that the peasantry buys into these illusions ... especially as it looks backwards into history. I am English ... I am Irish ... I own that ... those sufferings were mine to justify what I want today. I mean, apart from it being the only way a Scottish or Northern Ireland footballer would ever get to play in international football, why on earth is the UK allowed to have 4 national teams in the World Cup? I would have though Northern Ireland has less of claim to nationhood than even San Marino,
Back to the topic in question, what payback do individuals really get out sitting for days changing "British Isles" to "Ireland and UK" ... and then arguing over it afterwards?
Can't you just torment them on Wikipedia with this bollocks and just leave it on WR? Unlike there, I have a horrible impulse to respond here. You are basically just a sock-addicted troll, and I honestly feel it all means pretty little to you at the end of the day. One day you'll grow up and completely block out that you were ever such an arse.
I've never created a sock account, but I do wonder sometimes that when someone's done it once it is like a taboo has been broken... and they then get huge temptations to make just one more.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
QUOTE(radek @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 3:56pm)
QUOTE
There you go. Now try to get somebody to argue with a tautology.
Every logically valid proposition is a tautology at some level. By definition.
Doesn't mean it's not illuminatin'
Just not illuminatin' about the so-called "synthetic" and inductive questions and statements, which are all the more interesting ones. If you try to push analytics too hard in politics, it only leads you into variations of no true Scotsman type argument. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif) And then on into the madness of Ayn Rand.
In science (as Rutherford reminds us) you have the physicists and otherwise you have the stamp collectors. I suppose the formal sciences like math are mostly analytic, and even that is full of surprises, but mostly because we have such bad memories. I have the feeling that most of it is the kind of "illumination" you get when you find a lost and forgotten long grocery list, or set of accounting transaction records. It's real, but at the same time, sort of hollow.
There are parts of math that remain inductive and not fully analytic. Thanks to Goedel we know that will always be so, as long as we have anything rich enough for even simple arithmetic.
Group: Members
Posts: 5,199
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 130
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 4:01pm)
Actually, you got your quotes tangled up there, mine was the first and Power's the second.
I'm clearly dizzy today. Do I have it right now?
QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Tue 3rd May 2011, 2:17pm)
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 10:30am)
Nationalism is a very modern construct and for most is really just the usurpation of those hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances for someone else's benefit.
Excuse me, but you really could not be more wrong about this. I recognize that people here are using a variety of ambiguous and incorrect definitions of "nationalism." But I can assure you that nationalism does not pre-date the inception of the Nation State, which was a product of the Renaissance and began with the France of Louis XI and the England of Henry VII. It was a revolutionary break with the traditional orientation to "hard coded family, village or tribe allegiances," which were the standard political unit under empires. Empires sought to discourage any more substantial social organization, because it might become a focal point of resistance to imperial rule. Louis and Henry horrified other monarchs by educating commoners, defying all tradition, but it was a move that substantially strengthened France and England.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 6:09am)
Cartography helped define physical national boundaries. But nations have existed for thousands of years.
This, too, is very wrong. See above.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Mon 2nd May 2011, 6:09am)
In an encyclopedia, sovereignty should be the obvious centre-point in categorising modern nationhood.
Now we're getting somewhere. And the modern concept of "sovereignty" dates to the Treaty of Westphalia, where it first acquired some legal standing. Any discussion of "nationalism" should probably start there.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 4th May 2011, 1:19am)
You are basically just a sock-addicted troll, and I honestly feel it all means pretty little to you at the end of the day.
Actually, I am sitting the British Isle dispute out, and don't sock WR. I am not involved. I am not even watching it on WP.
And I don't attempt to win arguments by slapping insults in others face ... but, by any chance, do you edit here whilst having having considerable caffeine rushes?
I am attracted to topics I have some personal knowledge of, and entertained by the endless stupidity of WP ... but I am giving up coffee, so expect me to post much less here too.
Funnily enough, I never did "sock" Wikipedia. I never even invested into a fake personality as a user, and used to always edit as an loathsome IP. I refused to play the game.
I found myself forced to register in order to access some admin page and then fell into a series of traps that followed.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
You BI Brits should get Lady Gaga to knit your socks. If it wasn't for the fact that at least a couple of you meat in the faux-velvet seating areas of dingy northern pubs It would so much easier to needle you down.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
Right, fly BI International, the airline for internet playboys.
You and Karting et al are simply too interested in this to be non-British/Irish. Everyone else (including most British and even Irish – whatever Wikipedia's compromise claim says) are highly disinterested, despite the fact it keeps popping up here. When it comes to exploring incidences of how Wikipedia fails completely people seem to prefer other examples.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined:
Member No.: 7,007
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 4th May 2011, 4:16pm)
Right, fly BI International, the airline for internet playboys.
You and Karting et al are simply too interested in this to be non-British/Irish. Everyone else (including most British and even Irish – whatever Wikipedia's compromise claim says) are highly disinterested, despite the fact it keeps popping up here. When it comes to exploring incidences of how Wikipedia fails completely people seem to prefer other examples.
Don't you mean highly uninterested? Prefer other examples? I don't know; this is just the perfect example of how Wikipedia fails utterly. It is a veritable paradise for the POV pushers and other manipulators. As I pointed out earlier, blatant fucking OR supported by the comunity is just one example. For your information the Irish nationalist POV twats are currently engaged in several co-ordinated anti-british campaigns. Apart from getting rid of British Isles they are trying to eradicate all mentions of Northern Ireland being a country, that dick Bjmullan is introducing an "Irish English" template to compete with BrE and AmE, (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif) and of course the're trying their utmost to expunge all instances of the Ulster banner. Just look at this. User Mo ainm, apparently a "clean breaker" (don't know who he was previously) is furiously removing all flag icons from info boxes and elsewhere just because in his massive cleanup some Ulster banners will disappear. Now I know the so-called MOS says flags shouldn't appear in info boxes, but WTF! Can you believe someone does this sort of thing? It beggars belief. But the worst of it is, the actions of these dumbos are backed up to the hilt by "the community", which is far more interested in the incivility of the nationalist opponents than they are of the POV pushers. Wikipedia NPOV? Fuck Off! And of course it's now totally polluted the Net to the extent that if you want genuine, reliable unbiased information (i.e. not Wikipedia) your can't bloody find it, FFS. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)
This post has been edited by TheKartingWikipedian:
Has anyone ever proposed that for these "battleground" articles there should be two (or more) versions of the article, one for each major POV, so that the reader could read both and then decide? That would be more honest than the so-called NPOV policy, which disguises the fact that usually one faction has got the upper hand (typically by banning the other faction.)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Wed 4th May 2011, 2:37pm)
Has anyone ever proposed that for these "battleground" articles there should be two (or more) versions of the article, one for each major POV, so that the reader could read both and then decide? That would be more honest than the so-called NPOV policy, which disguises the fact that usually one faction has got the upper hand (typically by banning the other faction.)
Well, for a lot of them, to get the "two versions" you just have to click the history button, but I guess it would be useful if they were labeled as such. More sophisticated way of doing it is to have the "two versions" within the article (and sometimes you can spot which portion "belongs" to which group, based on the naming used alone), but then issues of UNDUE (and sometimes FRINGE) are raised.
Anyway, this thread, along with my recent toe-dipping excursion into the Race and Intelligence area has made me appreciate editing in Eastern European topics
The situation on R&I is particularly egregious - one side is 100% composed of "created immediately after the arb com case" single purpose accounts representing a particularly nasty fringe view, while the other side has a large number of experienced editors who've edited on a wide range of topics (and, not trying to make myself look good, but most of these seem like above-average-Wikipedia-editor's-intelligence editors). Yet, somehow, the sock-puppet/meat-puppet/SPAs have pretty much successfully taken control of the content.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(It's the blimp, Frank @ Wed 4th May 2011, 8:37pm)
Has anyone ever proposed that for these "battleground" articles there should be two (or more) versions of the article, one for each major POV, so that the reader could read both and then decide? That would be more honest than the so-called NPOV policy, which disguises the fact that usually one faction has got the upper hand (typically by banning the other faction.)
Can you imagine how pompously they would talk about their high-quality 'all encompassing' articles if you go there and suggest this?! You'd get the whole ideal/speil thrown at you.
But seriously, Citizendium had two aticles you could compare (both poor), and someone called Danny Wool had the terrible idea of creating a website called Veropedia, which presented peer-reviewed Featured Articles along with targeted advertising from a major online bookshop that has no real restrictions on what it sells. Some people seem not to realise that books are dangerous and reading is usually bad for you. And that Wikipedia's Featured Articles are crap.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 4th May 2011, 4:16pm)
You and Karting et al are simply too interested in this to be non-British/Irish.
Just goes to underline your blind spots, doesn't it?
I have a thing for underdogs and a particular dislike for habitual manipulation and connivance you meet on the Wikipedia. This isn't the first issue that has focused my attention, not even the first nationalist one. Not all of them have come to WR. What I see in these individuals are very similar tendencies to other individuals in other dark corners of WP.
I would say I was more of an ogre baiter than a troll. Whereas we all know what trolls are, ogres are oversized monsters of limited intelligence who have a hold on a few topics, or limited topic area, and attempt to scare off all and any others from them by bashing them.
But as I told you, I am not involved in what is going on, not following it and I don't share Karting's ire. If your source told you otherwise, they are wrong too. There is a lot of silliness going on in behind the scene accusations.
In this case, my heart belongs to the Isle of Man ... which isn't in Britain or Ireland, as you have agree ... and I become disgusted at the thought of it being expunged from history and geography by some ignorant, stone headed, potato diggers on a blinkered nationalist crusade. It does seem to have any one to defend it.
The Isle of Man as a long enough and notable enough history of its own to deserve our recognition (the Tynwald is the oldest continuous parliamentary body in the world).
There is nothing worse than someone demanding rights or recognition for themselves only then to refuse them to others in the next breath ... there is a Biblical parable about along those lines, isn't there?
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 4th May 2011, 3:55pm)
In this case, my heart belongs to the Isle of Man ... which isn't in Britain or Ireland, as you have agree ... and I become disgusted at the thought of it being expunged from history and geography by some ignorant, stone headed, potato diggers on a blinkered nationalist crusade.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(Alison @ Thu 5th May 2011, 12:55am)
I'm with you all the way. That is, until you start spouting that 'spud-thick-Mick' racist shite.
Thank you. On your track record, I knew you would - even as a Irish woman - because you are intelligent, aware and have integrity ... Unfortunately, in my old age, I have resigned to the acceptance that a small proportion of every race and faith earn the insulting sobriquet normally imagined "racist". Very often, whilst being tasteless, they are not. They enter the realm of being quite fair, accurate and earned.
I am "disgusted" your not doing anything about this, whose "disgust" is more valuable and effective? (Of course I am not really "disgusted" with you, how could I be? I am just making a point).
Someone in your secondary position might take offence at my discharge whilst ignoring and allowing to continue the far greater real offence. Often on Wikipedia you find admins doing just that ... going about petty policing language whilst leaving the real intellectual thugs and vandals to run amok, seeing the world in simplistic binary forms.
I actually am really, really serious about the Isle of Man (and Channel Island) issue. You cannot allow a handful of ejits to erase a democratically self-governed state, with the oldest continuous parliamentary body in the world, for the sake of some minority fad renaming.
I agree with the Irish nationalists that the name is unfortunately confusing but the world is stuck with it until they take the matter to the United Nations (at which point I suspect the English and Scots will claim back the Irish sea).
Typically, on the Wikipedia and here, they are demonising those trying to balance out the ejit (it seems to boil down to one individual Highking, two or three at the most) and when you look closely, they are actually quite right to so.
And why shouldn't they feel ire at their time being wasted having to do so?
(... Nothing can do done about it. The is a magnet for such individuals).
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Oh yes please, Alison, go to Wikibooks and write a book. I'm sure there are editors there, very senior ones, who would love that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
In the recent British elections the National Party of Scotland (aka Scottish Nationalist Party) won a well sized majority in the Scottish Parliament, the first time any party has done so.
Those poor, intellectually stunted leprechauns are going to be having a bad time. Soon they will be having to go back and re-edit all their "Ireland and United Kingdoms" to "Ireland and UK and Scotland (supposing England, Wales and Northern Island" are going to hang on to the United bit).
And it will be a whole new round of arguments over whether such and such a butterfly populates the Britain, Britain and Ireland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, the United Kingdom and Ireland, the United Kingdom and Ireland and Isle of Man, the United Kingdom and Ireland and Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, ... or just plain "the British Isles".
Can we look forward to a whole bunch of raving alcoholic Jocks on the Wikipedia demanding that we rename the archipelago and officially remove Scotland from the term British Isles? Or are the Jocks any more mature about such issues?
ZZZZZ zzzzzzzzzzzz ............
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Oh yes please, Alison, go to Wikibooks and write a book. I'm sure there are editors there, very senior ones, who would love that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
I was talking to Horse, Michael. Not to you, Michael.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
QUOTE(Gruntled @ Thu 5th May 2011, 1:48am)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Thu 5th May 2011, 3:36am)
Instead of wisecracks, how about a book?
Oh yes please, Alison, go to Wikibooks and write a book. I'm sure there are editors there, very senior ones, who would love that. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Moderator's note: Ms. Alison's post originally alluded to a user account on Wikibooks known to be operated by the person known as "Poetlister." The name of the account has been removed from this post in the interest of avoiding further unpleasantness, but it should be noted that the account does exist, is active, and is apparently "sanctioned" by Wikibooks administrators (i.e., it is being used with their knowledge and consent, probably under a variety of "behavioral conditions." This might also be a good opportunity to mention that this same person is believed to operate at least one, and probably more like four, active member account(s) here on Wikipedia Review, but has not admitted to doing so. The WR staff would like to politely request that other members not deliberately inflame this situation merely for the purpose of retaliating against the person in question for having committed some sort of offense, such as name-calling, sending of unwanted e-mails, or snide remarks, even though such offenses are inevitable when dealing with this person. This might also be a good opportunity to blow my nose on my computer monitor, take a digital photo of the resulting snot-covered monitor, upload it to Wikipedia, and attempt to place it in an article entitled "Snot-covered Computer Monitor Syndrome." However, this would probably be a waste of time, despite providing a few fleeting laughs for those lucky enough to see the image before its deletion.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
Following up something else, I see the British Isles thing lurches back into the admin target zone with habitual Irish racist and "Hiberno-English" user Sarah777Â (T-C-L-K-R-D)
proving yet again that they won't just get it ever ... making analogies between the Union Flag to the German Swastika, and calling other editors "agents of genocidal empires" ... or "monolingual gobshites". FOr those who don't know what Hiberno-English means, it means saying to admin "Under your piss poor judgement. (Excuse the Hiberno-English)" is not impolite, just Hiberno-English.
To be honest, I cannot be bothered to unpick and the toos, fros, banning and blockings but see all the usual suspects weigh in to support; Highking, RashersTierney etc.
Is there still an article on Wiki called "British Isles" that includes the explicitly non-British sovereign country of Ireland? I don't believe it. Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
QUOTE
Well, I can't see how comparing the loathsome Union Jack to the nearly as loathsome Nazi Swastika can merit a block of any sort. ... OK? Sarah777 (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
QUOTE
I think you should rethink this one - and I'm not sure I'm following. Either the blocks or bans fall within the Arbcom ruling, and the sanctions therein should apply, or you are taking other comments and acting on those independently. If so, would you mind posting up which comments you have decided justify this indef block which you are recommending as being infinite. This is a very serious block. --HighKing (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
HK, a lot of us are sick to the eye teeth with the nonsense from both sides in this British Isles dispute. Sarah has had years to modify her conduct to come into line with the basics of site etiquette. Her refusal to do so is her problem just as LemonMonday's and TritonRocker's was theirs. While HJM does not have the power to permanently block anyone (no admin does) the Arbcom ruling allowed for a permanent topic ban (which was administered by GWH). Sarah777 is indefinitely blocked this is, as HJM explained suplementry to the arbcom ruling - not part of it - it's based on WP:5. Sarah777 now has the standard offer open to her, she can appeal her block directly to ArbCom, or she can have her block reviewed. She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible). And understand this plainly HK if I see anyone using or endorsing (whether tacitly or openly) racist, bigoted, sectarian, or any other form of hate speech or chauvinism they will be indefinitely blocked in line with WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and WP:BATTLE--Cailil talk 01:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
So anyone who expresses disagreement with this draconian block/ban exposes themselves to being blocked - as a default racist. This is getting too farcical for words. RashersTierney (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Careful Rashers - that's not what I said. And read my remarks in full - I agree with Sarah being indefinitely blocked not permanently blocked. Be careful not to misrepresent other users please--Cailil talk 02:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Careful yourself. There was no misinterpretation of your stark comment above. Less of the threats please. RashersTierney (talk) 02:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Rashers, I'm not going to ask you again to stop misrepresenting other's comments. Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5. If you find yourself worried by that I can't help you--Cailil talk 02:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I have no worries in that regard. Thanks for the clarification. RashersTierney (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
What he wrote was "She does not need any group of editors (who agree with her POV) advocating for her. That will get them into trouble, as it would involve them agreeing with hate speech (the highest, worst form of incivility possible)." He can't get out of the fact that does not say the same thing as "Once more if I see anyone endorsing or using hate speech on WP I will (as will most other sysops in fact) block them indefinitely in line with WP:5." The first quote equates advocating for someone with active support of an act they might be accused of. Stripped down, what it explicitly says is "advocating for her" equals "agreeing with hate speech". In other words, suspension of habeus corpus and denial of right to representation are brought to mind. The second quote is not saying the same thing, Rashers. You were right to object, and what he did was not clarify but in fact obfuscate what he originally said. I am not misrepresenting anything, it is all there in plain English. Sswonk (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
In fairness to HJ Mitchell he did say Sarah's comments were "borderline racist" - not that it has stopped the tediously bouncing cries of "It's not a race" It's not a race! How can you be racist to the British! It's not a race!"
Personally, the terms fits for me, as many people such as myself define myself as British, not just because it's what I am culturally (it is simply what I am) - but like most British I have 'mixed blood' - which is just another way of saying I have immediate relatives from more than one of the constituent nations. Over half of British do, I would say. As a group, I could easily call this a combined or collective 'race', esp when contrasted to other 'races' (or 'pure' races, like so many of the unpleasant UK nationalists see themselves). Why not? It's certainly fits the typical and popular use of the term 'racism'.
I'm sure Sarah777 knows full-well how many British Wikipedians don't like her 'choice' historical contexts infused onto their personal identity, which to them makes it out to be some kind of evil brand they were born essentially with.
What I also found unpleasant about people's desire to support their comrade (she would do better if they privately had a word with her) was the attack on HJMitchell for having an English flag on his talk page. Do they have any ideal how hypocritical this is? The mad thing is (and it really think all this is a madness) is that they just don't see this kind of hypocrisy. The Scottish Saltires and Welsh Dragons are all OK (admin or no) – but the English white and red cross is likely to betray some kind of inherent anti-nationalism bias!? That ridiculous prejudice aside, the Cross of St George is surely the UK flag that is least likely to be used provocatively. But I suppose that means it must also be the most 'pro-British', and therefore bad news.
These people just can't accept that most British instinctively treat their two nationalities (eg English and British) as being of equal merit. The extremists can fight against it all they want – but they will never change other people's emotional and intellectual bearings on this, however much they try and manipulate Wikipedia.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
This will be pretty-much the base level:
QUOTE
==Very strange==
Remarkable that Sarah is blocked for attacking the English by an English admin. She uses strong wording, agreed, but this looks more on a personal POV-revenge. Eddylandzaat (talk) 4:09 pm, Today (UTC+1) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Reading the ANI on Sarah777 (and you have to feel a little sorry for anyone with the sly pair of off2riorob and MickMcNee on their case), a couple of perennial misconceptions have already popped up.
One is the misconception of there being a 'dominant British side' within a simplistic 'Irish Vs British' dispute. This is something that Sarah777 has relentlessly expounded, usually without giving any kind of support other than her own will power. She does believe it in fairness to her, but it is actually paranoid nonsense, despite all the recent British socks - who are mostly the kind of piss takers we see on WR. The most vociferous 'side' (of many sides) are typically the most fervent of the nationalists (who rarely bother with WR), and the nationalists in general contain editors with very different takes on how to go about things: they often disagree. Also important is that a significant 'party' in the dispute are always neutral - but it is another wildly-held misconception that “it is impossible to be neutral in this matterâ€. That is nonsense too.
None of these misconceptions have been helpful to Wikipedia.
Hans Alder brings up the Arbcom case on renaming the Republic of Ireland to 'Ireland' (or – to be most neutral about doing it - using a disambiguation page as the first stop for 'Ireland') – and says a clear “British bias†lead to the resultant fail. What he doesn't understand is that the more extreme nationalists supported keeping the 'Republic' in the title, as they could continue to maintain two political Ireland articles (at the time unbelievably biased against NI), and thus keep a tighter control of 'Northern Ireland' issues in general, which were a mess across Wikipedia, usually making the country appear an anomalous part of the republic. They simply want to keep these kind of disputes alive – similar to the way they enforce the Channel Islands into the definition of British Isles.
Adler (and those like him) also don't realise that other editors of Irish origin, like Alison, favour keeping the Republic title as a kind-of 'balancing status quo' – which is rather cynical in my view, and contrary to the supposed 'ideals' of Wikipedia of course. That arb decision (combined with the jealously-guarded 'moratorium' on it) was certainly not a case of some kind of overriding 'British POV' enforcing anything. Why would it be? I'm British, and I supported using a disambiguation page for 'Ireland' (the official name of the country, but also the name of the partly-British island) simply because it made encyclopedic sense, and it prevented the nationalist abuse of having two 'Ireland' articles.
This largely-made-up "dominant anti-Irish British POV" would have nothing to actually gain from keeping the word 'Republic' in the title, although there are a few demonic jesters bored and stupid enough to argue for the case simply to oppose people like Sarah and HighKing et al, combined with a handful of naturally-conservative and thoughtless authoritarian-types like MickMcNee and Off2riorob. WP does attract those type of people admittedly - but there are hardly enough to constitute a dominant British 'POV'.
Sarah777 (in fairness to her) actually favoured having an Ireland disambiguation page, and it actually did happen for a couple of days, after an admin closed a reasonably-large support-winning poll, which was eventually started by another admin who was rather impatient to reach for a sensible conclusion after much debate (they have no patience, admin). Yet another admin sadly wheel-warred the article back to the status quo, purely due to the tragic and sheer stupidity of the WP admin class - nothing less at all. Corruptibility aside, Wikipedia was defeated yet again by its own base-level stupidity.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 121
Joined:
Member No.: 7,007
Yes, there are some real piss takers in the overall dispute. Some nonce called O Finian (who maybe a woman, would you believe!) is frantically removing all Northern Ireland flags, there's the ongoing Derry/Londonderry debacle, they're trying to get British and American flags off the templates and of course they're still grinding away at British Isles. Not to mention many other areas in which this filthly Irish nationalist POV manifests its self. I'd indef ban the lot of 'em, no questions asked.
Sarah777 is a fucking maniac. I wonder what she does in real life? She's probably Mary Robinson
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 3:23pm)
These people just can't accept that most British instinctively treat their two nationalities (eg English and British) as being of equal merit. The extremists can fight against it all they want – but they will never change other people's emotional and intellectual bearings on this, however much they try and manipulate Wikipedia.
I'm not sure about "instinct", but you're right. I consider myself to be English, but I also answer to British. Surely it must be similar to Texans considering themselves American?
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th May 2011, 7:18pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 3:23pm)
These people just can't accept that most British instinctively treat their two nationalities (eg English and British) as being of equal merit. The extremists can fight against it all they want – but they will never change other people's emotional and intellectual bearings on this, however much they try and manipulate Wikipedia.
I'm not sure about "instinct", but you're right. I consider myself to be English, but I also answer to British. Surely it must be similar to Texans considering themselves American?
I said "instinctively" because I think people are instinctively drawn to their cultural surroundings, and naturally identify with them.
Despite a typical (if large) mid-term election swing to the SNP in Scotland the other day (they scooped up on a terrible Labour campaign big time, and the Liberals and Cons are dead in the water), the canny centrist Alex Salmond still has to more than double Scotland's nationalists if he is going to win his referendum - at least if he wants to do it at 2/3 of the entire electorate. In reality I'm sure he will want to sneak it through on 51% of a 2/3 turnout called at the most advantageous time - but that will not lead to a 'natural' result. Aiming as close as possible to two thirds of the entire elecorate is the only really fair way for nation-change, but he'd never accept ways of achieving that.
IMO, he will never get those extra people supporting his dream, because culturally all the best things in Britain are British. So are the worst of course - but that's no good reason when 'push comes to shove' to jump ship into totally unknown waters, esp in relying so heavily on a volatile and corruptible European Union. People in Britain know what it means to be British, but people like Sarah777 don't - partly becuase they are not British, and partly because they are not willing to afford 'Britishness' any value at all. It's just the villain from their (no-doubt polemical) history books.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 1,682
Joined:
From: United Kingdom
Member No.: 8,716
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:28pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th May 2011, 7:18pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 3:23pm)
These people just can't accept that most British instinctively treat their two nationalities (eg English and British) as being of equal merit. The extremists can fight against it all they want – but they will never change other people's emotional and intellectual bearings on this, however much they try and manipulate Wikipedia.
I'm not sure about "instinct", but you're right. I consider myself to be English, but I also answer to British. Surely it must be similar to Texans considering themselves American?
I said "instinctively" because I think people are instinctively drawn to their cultural surroundings, and naturally identify with them.
Despite a typical (if large) mid-term election swing to the SNP in Scotland the other day (they scooped up on a terrible Labour campaign big time, and the Liberals and Cons are dead in the water), the canny centrist Alex Salmond still has to more than double Scotland's nationalists if he is going to win his referendum - at least if he wants to do it at 2/3 of the entire electorate. In reality I'm sure he will want to sneak it through on 51% of a 2/3 turnout called at the most advantageous time - but that will not lead to a 'natural' result. Aiming as close as possible to two thirds of the entire elecorate is the only really fair way for nation-change, but he'd never accept ways of achieving that.
IMO, he will never get those extra people supporting his dream, because culturally all the best things in Britain are British. So are the worst of course - but that's no good reason when 'push comes to shove' to jump ship into totally unknown waters, esp in relying so heavily on a volatile and corruptible European Union. People in Britain know what it means to be British, but people like Sarah777 don't - partly becuase they are not British, and partly because they are not willing to afford 'Britishness' any value at all. It's just the villain from their (no-doubt polemical) history books.
I think that many English might say "Well, if you want independence then good riddance", as Scotland is rather expensive to maintain, and it has a disproportionate amount of power in Westminster.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:38pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:28pm)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th May 2011, 7:18pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 3:23pm)
These people just can't accept that most British instinctively treat their two nationalities (eg English and British) as being of equal merit. The extremists can fight against it all they want – but they will never change other people's emotional and intellectual bearings on this, however much they try and manipulate Wikipedia.
I'm not sure about "instinct", but you're right. I consider myself to be English, but I also answer to British. Surely it must be similar to Texans considering themselves American?
I said "instinctively" because I think people are instinctively drawn to their cultural surroundings, and naturally identify with them.
Despite a typical (if large) mid-term election swing to the SNP in Scotland the other day (they scooped up on a terrible Labour campaign big time, and the Liberals and Cons are dead in the water), the canny centrist Alex Salmond still has to more than double Scotland's nationalists if he is going to win his referendum - at least if he wants to do it at 2/3 of the entire electorate. In reality I'm sure he will want to sneak it through on 51% of a 2/3 turnout called at the most advantageous time - but that will not lead to a 'natural' result. Aiming as close as possible to two thirds of the entire elecorate is the only really fair way for nation-change, but he'd never accept ways of achieving that.
IMO, he will never get those extra people supporting his dream, because culturally all the best things in Britain are British. So are the worst of course - but that's no good reason when 'push comes to shove' to jump ship into totally unknown waters, esp in relying so heavily on a volatile and corruptible European Union. People in Britain know what it means to be British, but people like Sarah777 don't - partly becuase they are not British, and partly because they are not willing to afford 'Britishness' any value at all. It's just the villain from their (no-doubt polemical) history books.
I think that many English might say "Well, if you want independence then good riddance", as Scotland is rather expensive to maintain, and it has a disproportionate amount of power in Westminster.
How many is many?
Certainly there is a strong case for an English Assembly (probably regional) to counter-balance the Welsh and Scottish ones - I'm certain it will come eventually, though I'm not sure at what additional costs (things like the NHS are already too divided imo).
That money-sharing equation certainly benefits Scotland more than the industry-depleted Wales (by comparison), but those things are subject to variation, and the idea is about funding the United Kingdom. The idea of maintaining any particular area in the UK with more money than other parts can be either socialistic (where much of Northern England would benefit), or perhaps nationalistic, depending on your point of view.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 10th May 2011, 9:00pm)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:56pm)
How many is many?
Most.
Then I very much doubt you are really British, as I've suspected. I don't know of any British (let alone English) person who would say as much as "most" to that, even if they lived around and supported people of various nationalistic tendencies. Or at least you weren't raised in the UK, which could be closer perhaps. Watch out for those chintzy northern pubs btw - they get very bleery.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 5:30pm)
similar to the way they enforce the Channel Islands into the definition of British Isles.
... but the Channel Islands are part the British Isles!?! (Or at least most are).
You've obviously been following this particular dispute longer and deeper than I have ... but sometimes you really do come out with some entirely whacked out comments.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:30am)
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 5:30pm)
similar to the way they enforce the Channel Islands into the definition of British Isles.
... but the Channel Islands are part the British Isles!?! (Or at least most are).
You've obviously been following this particular dispute longer and deeper than I have ... but sometimes you really do come out with some entirely whacked out comments.
I'm not repeating stuff after all I've actually said - esp not for a clearly-involved 'personality' perpetually pretending he is merely having a wazz in the door of interest.
Look in all the major encyclopedias: they all say in some form that the term British Isles can ALSO include the Channel Islands - ie they use various forms of 'second definition'. Either that or they leave out the CI's completely. It is essential for an encyclopedia to order definitions, and Wikipedia should clearly stick ot the most commonly accepted definition (ie that doesn't include the CI in its principal definition) - though a few total nobs like yourself always disagree and say "Wikipedia is NOT censored!" and that they should be allowed to include every definition that is sourceable, and use the term as freely as they choose. Just because you want to piss off a small group of Irish people, some of whom are quite dangerous in their own little way. Do you realise what a total cunt that makes you?
I actually agree with Jimbo Wales that the BI template should in no way be 'reader specific' too. It makes a mockery of WP's supposed principles, which is of course the nationalists intention: to prove how the term 'isn't working' for Wikipedia. Some of these editors are so committed they edit on little else, year after year.
The term is used in the big wide world so flipping widely that it tends to come up in manner of instances: politically, geographically (at its 'purest' is scientifically no-Channel Islands archipelago-only), culturally etc. It can be used to mean Great Britain sometimes. What can you do? What a fucker life is, with all the annoyingly different contexts it seems to be made out of - so much imperfection, always so frustratingly involved. Someone should shoot that life shit in the head, and we should all live in Wikipedia instead.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
[quote name='Malleus' date='Wed 11th May 2011, 1:37am' post='274791'] [quote name='powercorrupts' post='274765' date='Tue 10th May 2011, 9:54pm'] Then I very much doubt you are really British, as I've suspected. [/quote] Then you're a clot, as has been obvious for some time.
[quote]
Yeah, since someone in this place finally stood up to you, you fucking big plop. If you are indeed British (and considering the madness that is so often associated with Wikipedia I could of course be wrong in kindly suggesting you are not), and also a man of 60 odd years ( (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif)), you have such appalling judgement on matters UK I'm doing Wikipedia a service highlighting your phenomenal stupidity. You are actually a trusted person there - but based on what? Polishing the brass on their appalling FA's, while scaring off new custom at the window? You talk like you've lived in box, and you always sound like you've finally turned 18.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:29am)
I wish this thread would move someplace lower. Like the Annex, or the Tarpit. Y'know, appropriate.
For once the mods could move it in a useful way - ie append 'British Isles' to the title and stick it in Articles, where such a 'boring' thread clearly belonged.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
QUOTE(Alison @ Fri 6th May 2011, 9:45pm)
Moderator's note: Ms. Alison's post originally alluded to a user account on Wikibooks known to be operated by the person known as "Poetlister." The name of the account has been removed from this post in the interest of avoiding further unpleasantness, but it should be noted that the account does exist, is active, and is apparently "sanctioned" by Wikibooks administrators (i.e., it is being used with their knowledge and consent, probably under a variety of "behavioral conditions." This might also be a good opportunity to mention that this same person is believed to operate at least one, and probably more like four, active member account(s) here on Wikipedia Review, but has not admitted to doing so. The WR staff would like to politely request that other members not deliberately inflame this situation merely for the purpose of retaliating against the person in question for having committed some sort of offense, such as name-calling, sending of unwanted e-mails, or snide remarks, even though such offenses are inevitable when dealing with this person. This might also be a good opportunity to blow my nose on my computer monitor, take a digital photo of the resulting snot-covered monitor, upload it to Wikipedia, and attempt to place it in an article entitled "Snot-covered Computer Monitor Syndrome." However, this would probably be a waste of time, despite providing a few fleeting laughs for those lucky enough to see the image before its deletion.
If someone tells me to "go to Wikibooks" and mentions "editors there, very senior ones", I'm gonna do just that. Said person - the Lister of Poets - should then not be overly surprised when I return and report what I found. Jes' sayin' ....
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined:
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 8:33pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:29am)
I wish this thread would move someplace lower. Like the Annex, or the Tarpit. Y'know, appropriate.
For once the mods could move it in a useful way - ie append 'British Isles' to the title and stick it in Articles, where such a 'boring' thread clearly belonged.
I would happily send it to Antarctica, except that I'm fairly sure that that would be a violation of the Antarctic Treaty. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 193
Joined:
Member No.: 50,538
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Tue 10th May 2011, 9:33pm)
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:29am)
I wish this thread would move someplace lower. Like the Annex, or the Tarpit. Y'know, appropriate.
For once the mods could move it in a useful way - ie append 'British Isles' to the title and stick it in Articles, where such a 'boring' thread clearly belonged.
Not a bad idea to have catch-all threads for the various editing battlegrounds, there's so much entertaining bickering that never quite deserves its own thread.
Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,816
Joined:
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 10th May 2011, 10:51pm)
Not a bad idea to have catch-all threads for the various editing battlegrounds, there's so much entertaining bickering that never quite deserves its own thread.
How about we call the thread "The Bickering Isles," move it to the Annex, and then the rest of us just pretend it never existed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)
For the benefit of casual readers, maybe we could have a subtitle like "UK geographical naming dispute-o-rama," so people wouldn't think we were discussing the Falklands/Malvinas, or Ceylon/Sri Lanka or something like that.
The Channel Islands are part of the British Isles not only due to the shared culture ... yes, Ireland also shares and contributes to "British" culture ... but the unique part they have played shaping and relating to British history. I think you ought to study up a bit on your history, and their history from resistance to exiles. The Manx suffered just, as the Irish did, as being seen as being foreign and inferior by the English and it should not be for a handful of bog Irish maniacs like Highking and Sarah777 to stab them in the back this time round.
QUOTE(powercorrupts @ Wed 11th May 2011, 2:09am)
I'm not repeating stuff after all I've actually said - esp not for a clearly-involved 'personality' perpetually pretending - a ... total nob like yourself
I am sorry but I am not going to lower myself to trading insults with you.
However, you are suffering from a nasty dose of wikpeditis born of spending too much time in the excessively false and dishonestness of that place. A condition I have seen taken to ridiculous and destructive lengths ... where people constantly insist what is clearly not true is true.
I am not involved editing in that dispute and I am not British, thank you.
And what you are saying about the British Isles and the Channel Islands (and let's not forget the Isle of Man) is complete, truth and law defying bollocks.
I also have no idea what God King Jimbo has said on the matter (link please). It would have very little credibility around here or in any serious academic venue. Take a simple authoritative source like Ordnance Survey ... what is wrong with teh whackopedia community that it cannot just accept that and move on?
My position in any debate? I am against "consensus" being governed by morons, most of the idea society, and discussion, be constantly crippled for the fear that one of them "might be offended" due to their own inability to understand. Do you not notice the rise of unimportant people, by the jist of their volume only, inhibiting our world by making a profession out of "being offended" and finding things "totally unacceptable"? It is just another guise for "me getting more".
As for your comments re MickMcNee (T-C-L-K-R-D)
being "sly", again I think it discredits your ability to analyse a situation. I watched them try to ban him, or something, and found it all very entertaining. He tries me as being as "sly" as a brick through a window, i.e. as unsly and unsubtle as possible. In fact, he struck me as one of Wikipedia's very rare, spade calling, straight talkers and I enjoyed watching someone with balls get away with having balls and his frankness.
Which makes me think. I must develop a group castration syndrome theory of Wikipedian interaction ... the rule of the impotent and barren, and their fixation with castrating any fertile minds that enter their midst (... where is moulton when one needs him?).
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,693
Joined:
Member No.: 9,267
One of the complexities of this larger issue blighting the Wikipedia is the falsehood perpetuated by the Irish nationalists and Mickopedians, that there is even one single grouping that is 'the Irish'.
Life, and history, was never that simple. I'd argue that it was the Gaelic Irish the "English" reviled, not the Norman Irish, and that it was not for "racist" reasons but more one to do with the reaction of the "civilised" to those who were "uncivilised" ... a similar situation to those Scotland. (There is a fairly modern tendency, intensified by Hollywood etc, to romanticise Gaelic roots but my response to that is I suspect no one would no more wish for them as neighbors, than one would pikey Irish Travellers today).
What I find interesting about Irish nationalism (much the same as English and I suspect Scottish nationalism) is that it has two mains root, one in the Gaelic Irish (the people) and the other the Norman Irish (the ruling classes). There is a huge confusion of racial and class-based divisions.
It strikes me common people are often motivated and manipulated by romantic nationalistic sentiments by the ruling classes where the ruling class are motivated not my nationalist gains but self-interest. For them "an Ireland free from English rule is an Ireland for us to rule".
The common people are led to believe they are throwing off the yoke of "the foreign oppressor", when in fact all they are doing is taking off the yoke of one Ruling Class and putting on another, often inferior one of another Ruling Class (... whilst the two ruling class freely interact, intermarry and intertrade). You see this is many colonial instances, e.g. India, Africa, Far East. The lower classes are so easily sold the con.
What is interesting, and infuriating in an environment like the Whackopedia, is how one has individuals of, in all honestly, limited education and intellectual ability utterly fixated that "this is the most important problem" that "must be fixed", when it is actually their tendency to fixate that is their real and most pressing problem.
That most pressing problem then becomes anyone else's problem who dares step into a zone they are controlling/fixating on. And there are many such zones on the Wikipedia.
* there is a terrible racist joke at the end of this video which I do not support ... but is, all the same, pretty funny.
This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy:
What has led you to believe that my house is for sale?
All we need is Risker to run in and lose her knickers and we can rename this discussion "Carry On Wikipedia Review" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
Group: Contributors
Posts: 716
Joined:
Member No.: 6,776
Cock-up-your-own-karting-arse, you have driven some otherwise decent people on Wikipedia to distraction over the most childish 'POV' on the whole of Wikipedia: the so-called 'British' one (sigh) that absolutely insists that 'British Isles' must be a cultural term.
You wind up passionate and impressionable young people like Sarah (now banned it appears) and you know exactly what you are doing. You have nothing to actually gain but your own psychotic/demonic lulz. No 'cause', just demonic lulz.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined:
Member No.: 15,651
QUOTE(Somey @ Wed 11th May 2011, 1:14am)
QUOTE(Sololol @ Tue 10th May 2011, 10:51pm)
Not a bad idea to have catch-all threads for the various editing battlegrounds, there's so much entertaining bickering that never quite deserves its own thread.
How about we call the thread "The Bickering Isles," move it to the Annex, and then the rest of us just pretend it never existed? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)
For the benefit of casual readers, maybe we could have a subtitle like "UK geographical naming dispute-o-rama," so people wouldn't think we were discussing the Falklands/Malvinas, or Ceylon/Sri Lanka or something like that.
Ah-nex! Ah-nex! Ah-nex!
But I think there should be a "Eastern European topics" subforum. Open and transparent unlike some mailing lists of the past.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
The Bickering Isles, British Isles stuff (was: Boring!)
