User talk:Drbug/Russian History Harmonization/Project format

Initial placing of notes on top of various articles

Like, what the fuck? Drbug, stop placing these obnoxious vague notes all over the place and do some actual editing instead. --Shallot 21:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. I'm trying to solve a problem. Either help or don't mess, please. It's extremely stupid to edit every separate place before reaching consensus in common. Drbug 22:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? What does that note that you put on the page of every Russian history page mean? 172 01:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed that I expressed my aims in Wikipedia:Russian_History_Harmonization page. If something specific is unclear there, please specify - I'll try to clearify. I suppose your main question is WHY. The answer is simple - articles that I marked (please notice - I marked not all articles related to Russian History) contain systematic bias, mostly inserted by Poles, who significantly outnumber Russian contributors. On the other hand, some articles that were taken directly from academic sources, are much less biased. This lead to inconsistency of the Wikepedia - different articles on similar topics contain completely opposite points of view.

So there are two main targets:

Consistency (related articles should contain similar points of view)
NPOV (articles should not contain bias, especially systematic one)

I found by experience, it's infeasible to reach these targets by editing every article separately not having reference to single consensus.

If you have any questions or proposals, they are very appreciated! Drbug 01:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We sure as hell won't reach that consensus about a cleanup if your first course of action is to litter pages even further. --Shallot 09:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Those red warnings on top of all those pages, especially on top of country articles, are just plain bullshit. "This article *MAY* contain something questionable by *SOMEONE* so please join this $randomperson's just-started pet project that hints of bias, just of a different kind!" That's not proper course of action, that's just abuse that will confuse viewers even further! --Shallot 09:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No problems - you have a hand, a Template:Russian_History_Harmonization link, and knowledge how to edit articles. :-) However I made some changes, I hope now it's better. Drbug 11:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that the invitation message need not be so bold (I don't think it need to be more visible then the existing neutrality dispute message, i.e. it doesn't need pink background)

Ok, I have removed pink background at all and made the message shorter, I hope now it's better. Drbug 11:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

but othervise I have noticed the bias and agree completely with the project. The first thing to do might include fixing the mess in Ruthenia, Ruthenians and Ruthenian language which, I believe, is completely ununderstandable to most readers and only adds confusion to other articles.

Yes, I completewly agree, it's the starting point! Drbug 11:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I read page histories and it seemed that a lot of it was first written from Belarusian/Ukrainian viewpoint, then rewritten from a Rusyn viewpoint, and then back and forth a few times, with an occasional revert war here and there. I believe that the Rusyn mess is fairly cleared up after my edits, but that's just one point. --Shallot 09:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave out Belarussians from this quest for historical glory for now. Their time didn't come yet :-) Mikkalai 16:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we are talking about here is directly relevant to this paragraph from Belarus: Nikola 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The names, Russia Alba, Russija Alba, Wit Rusland, Weiss Reussen, White Russia, Weiss Russland, may be found on ancient maps predating the Russian Empire. Not less often could be found Ruthenia Alba, Ruthenie Blanche and Weiss Ruthenien for example. However there is much confusion as to the location of this territory: in addition to the approximate territory of modern Belarus quite a few ancient maps put "Ruthenia Alba" over the territory of Muscovy!

(1) These are "indisputable facts" and there is nothing to correct. And BTW they say not about nationalistic claims of belorussia, but about the confusion with the name "white russia". Mikkalai 02:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't tell, but they just sounded suspicious to me. Nikola

Also, there is:

One such theory is based upon the accepted fact that the Belarusian ethnos is formed primarily by the historical interactions amongst slavic and baltic ethnicities. The root "balt-" means "white" in languages and dialects of Baltic group, e.g., in Lithuanian and Latvian. Hence "Baltic Sea" (Balta jura in Lithuanian) is literally "white sea". Thus "Balta Rusija" could have been the original self-denotation, rather than a later secondary derivative from "Russia".

I wanted to correct this but didn't even know when to start! Nikola 04:24, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a hypothesis, and not not the silliest one from existing ones (like, from white color of garments (sheesh!!!)), what do you want to correct? The best you can do is to throw it away. Mikkalai 02:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I don't know much about forming of Belarusian ethnos, but I know more about facts, and what I know tells me that facts about forming of an ethnos in these parts of the world are rarely accepted. But I don't really know, this one might be an exception.

Secondly, "The root "balt-" means "white" in Baltic languages, thus "Balta Rusija" could have been the original self-denotation"... to quote Shallot, like, WTF?? Why would the fact that balt- means "white" in Baltic languages mean that "Balta Rusija" is self-denotation and not translation of Slavic "Bela Rusija" which means exactly the same? I could likewise proove that name comes from English language because in English the state was called "White Russia", and "Belarus" is an obvious translation of that.

By the way, while speaking of silly hypothesis, I always thought that "Rusi" means "Redheads" (it does in Serbian). Nikola 01:42, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd add that claim from Ruthenia that "The above problem does not exist in the Slavic languages." is invalid at least in Serbian: Russia - Rusija, Kievan Rus - Kijevska Rusija, Belarus - Belorusija. Nikola 08:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was surprised to see that as well because I know that we have that translation issue (random Ukrainian nationalists on Usenet conveyed that point :)), but didn't touch it in my edits because I wanted to leave that part of reorganization for the time after the Rusyn stuff is reviewed, not wanting to risk a mass reversion. --Shallot 09:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea to check consistency in the various articles of Russia. I wrote some senteces under History of Russia instead of Rus' (people) because I think it is wrongly to speak about "ethnic origins". It should rather be "visiting", "trading" or "ruling". // Rogper 11:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an interesting project but has anything been done yet? Guess I could lend a hand -- apoivre 15:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)~[reply]

Why not WikiProject

Now I smell "russkij duh"! Why would you want to do in a "uniquely Russian way"? There is a device, specifically for various kinds of "harmonizations", called WikiProject. Why don't you start a series of WikiProjectss, rooting at Wikipedia: Wikiproject Russia, with subprojects, like Wikipedia: Wikiproject History of Russia, Wikipedia: Wikiproject Russian language, etc. I would have done it myself, but I am Russian only by place of birth (which is also disputed: Königsberg). Mikkalai 16:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not exactly Wikiproject, or, more precisely, a very specific Wikiproject with a very specific scope - to solve political issues consistently. Unlike conventional Wikiprojects that tend to be forums of few wise wikipedians, this project is intended to invite all contributors to find a consensus in a single place. For sure, turning it into conventional Wikiproject is not the easiest way to kill it :-). Drbug 17:58, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as a proof of my awareness of Wikiprojects, look at References section of Wikipedia:Russian_History_Harmonization. I supposed to make it a conventional Wikiproject originally, but then found that it definitely won't be fruitful. That all doesn't mean that I can't be wrong, of course. :-) Drbug 18:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive that without structure thi page will soon become useless. IMO the best it can do is to be a repository of references of disputed issues and resolutions. The actual discussions should be at the corresponding history pages, immediately relevant (e.g., by time frame or central topic) to the questioned issue.

"strong undisputable facts" is a doubtful section, or at least wrong title. It should be kind of "Resolved issues". "strong indisputabe" is itself a POV statement. Mikkalai 18:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It's the core of the project (and it makes it different from other Wikiprojects) - to find a set of facts that are considered as strong facts by all. If you disagree with any fact that I've put there, more it to "disputable facts" section. What's a problem?! However, I suppose it is not productive to criticize the project. You'd better add facts that you suppose to be important in RuTHENian history, it's not hard to reformat the data if the real problem arises! Thank you in advance! Drbug 20:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

"Chronological list of disputable facts": the only "fact" listed there has no rteference to the page where it is stated, hence its "disputability" itself is disputed by a reasonably lazy person (you know: "stranica bez linkov kak trusy bez rezinkov" (a page with no links is like pants with no garters) (i.e., "ne derzhitsya", doesn't hold)) Mikkalai 18:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC).[reply]

It's just a stub. Drbug 21:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

China reference

The reference to history of Qin/Chin/China (one that Mikkalai considered irrelevant) was made to make a possible hint where to look for Wikipedia precedents. History of unification and reunifications of China has somewhat analogy to history of reunifications of Russia. Maybe these references should be implemented in other way, but they are MUST if we don't wish to reinvent all the wheels and to make our solution inconsistent to other Wikipedian solutions. Drbug 18:14, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mikkalai, I edited the previous paragraph to meet your criticizm. The criticizm itself is removed to keep the text clear. Drbug 21:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Drbug. The way you have initiated this discussion makes impresion that you try to enforce your point of view at the begining of duscussion. Usage of the name: Harmonisation of Russian history in discussion about much wider subject seems suspicious.Yeti 14:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Neutrality tags may not be added to articles without stating in specifics on the article's talk page why an article is biased. A blanket declaration simply does not do. If the intent is to recruit people to help, then tag the talk page, not the article space. --Jia ng 09:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could you please point me this mighty Wikipedia Ruler who put strict rules on wikipedians how can they put notices. His name is Jiang, I guess. I will recover these notices. However, I will also add some explanations into Talk pages. Drbug 10:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states "The above label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed and volatile. If you add the above code to an article which seems to you to be biased, but there is no prior discussion of the bias, you need to at least leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article." Please don't put words in my mouth. --Jia ng 10:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The notice will be reverted until you provide sufficient cause on the talk page. If you're planning to do the latter, then do it first so you don't waste your time and mine. --Jia ng 10:48, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leaving "The article is not consistent with other acticles on the similar topics." on the talk page is equally unacceptable. This is still a blanket statement w/o discussion of what specifically is not neutral about the article.--Jia ng 11:02, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It explains reason for the notice. Sorry, I don't have as much spare time as you probably have to discuss all inconsistencies in dozens articles simultaneously. However, I wish this inconsistency to be fixed, because inconsistency is becoming one of the leading problems of Wikipedia. So, please stop to spoil attempts to make Wikipedia better... Drbug 11:17, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The policy that you cited in not strict. Please reread my sentence above. Drbug 11:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah, because it's not strict that means that we should break it. Right. --Shallot 12:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you don't have time to explain, then don't flag the articles. If you refuse to point out how a article is specifically "inconsistent", then you will be reverted. It's as simple as that. I don't see how you can be an exception to the rule. Please don't scar articles without sufficient cause.--Jia ng 22:56, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd have to side up with Jiang when it comes to putting even more notices on the Russia-related pages. It is indeed better to work on one article at a time, giving reasons what exactly is inconsistent and fixing those in. I, however, do not support Jiang when it comes to removing/reverting existing notices. To me that would be an unproductive waste of time and efforts that could be better spent actually working on the articles in question. While I cannot speak for the others, you two will lose a lot of credibility and respect in my eyes if this stupid bickering leads to engaging in a full-fledged revert/edit war. So far it seems you are spending more time on this talk page than on the project. Grow up. Those notices are not that important.--Ezhiki 01:39, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

How can I try to improve the articles in question if I cannot see what improvements are needed? I am not really interested in Russian history, but I am interested that community norms be followed and that articles are not tagged/scarred/vandalized for no good reason. If Drbug so sure that these articles contain anti-Russian bias (which I do not necessarily disagree), then he ought to quote what specifically is in each article that demonstrates this. Otherwise, I would be justified in sending a bot to tag a whole bunch of other articles saying there's a systemic American bias because most contributors are Americans. Without specific examples and quotations, my claim might as well be trashed. Again, a good idea, in the absence of specific dispute, is to insert the message into talk pages rather than the article space if the intent is to draw people to one place, indocrinate them, and send them back to work. --Jia ng 02:01, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now wait just one moment. Did Drbug "send a bot" to add the notices? No. Is his sole intent to "indoctrinate people"? No. Does he believe that what he does is right? Yes. Is it necesserily right? Hell, no.

All I'm saying that it was a mistake to put all those notices, and if we can prevent this happening in future, so much for the better. I myself believe that no more notices should be placed (at least not without giving specific reasons). But you guys want to actually go back and remove those notices one by one. Why, oh why oh why? Don't you have anything better to do? If so, I pity you.

Ah, so you feel that their removal is a waste of time, but it's incomprehensible to you that someone else feels that it was the adding of the messages that was the real waste of time? --Shallot 14:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I gotta admit I do not quite understand what you mean by this remark. As I mentioned before (twice!), I do believe that adding the messages was a waste of time. However, what's done is done. What is the point of arguing about this? Just help the guy out, or, if you can't, leave him alone for a while. If the project moves nowhere in a reasonable amount of time (I dare not to suggest what "reasonable" is, but, considering the scope, no less than a couple of months), then we could start pestering the author of the project.--Ezhiki 14:43, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

No, you see, I don't believe that we have any reason to put up with it like that. There is no rule on Wikipedia that says that all NPOV accusations are implicitly correct. It is up to the complainant to justify any one of them, not on everyone else to justify their removal.

I'm with you on this particular fact.--Ezhiki 15:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

On a more technical note, reverting is reasonably easy for everyone, especially administrators, so "what's done is done" doesn't mean much in this context. --Shallot 15:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, whatever you want to spend your time on. I am not your mother, after all :) To me, it was just sad to see that a potentially useful project turned into a battle of monster egos. When a discussion starts with the word "fuck" in the first line, it is not usually a very good sign. Anyway, I am unwatching this page. If anyone has anything significant to tell me (besides "told ya!" and "grrr"), please do so on my talk page. Thank you for your attention.--Ezhiki 15:59, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

It was never a "battle of monster egos". I did not persist in removing the notices, and instead worked on the content. The discussion started like this because I saw those acts as a gross violation of accepted practices; if you're offended by profanity in general, I offer my apologies. --Shallot 16:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The notices that already exist aren't that disruptive,

I disagree. From the very beginning they have been placed at the beginning of articles and carefully formatted so that they would disrupt readers and alert them to this thing. --Shallot 14:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's probably just your personal bias. Even in their original form the messages didn't seem all that disruptive to me. I understand, of course, that other people (you included) may percept them differently. The messages are at the bottom now, anyway. Which brings me back to the comment above.--Ezhiki 14:43, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Actually I went back and checked -- at the time you wrote that, one of the remaining notes was on top and the other one at the bottom. I've removed the former in the meantime because it was an already edited article. --Shallot 15:46, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

especially if someone finally stops quarreling on this page and actually starts working on the articles in question (just a wild guess - but maybe a person who started the project should do that?). I'd love to help, but I am no historian.--Ezhiki 13:33, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that is my and Jiang's point exactly, the person who started the project should actually work on the articles in question and not place notes on them. --Shallot 14:05, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, so some semi-random amount of these notices is okay, but if we add more then that wouldn't be okay? That makes very little sense to me. --Shallot 12:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you think in terms of the time wasted on removing existing notices, you would see that it is a pointless effort. Same goes for adding even more notices. In no way I am justifying that similar situation should happen again in future. Does this make sense now?--Ezhiki 13:33, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)