User talk:69.107.97.36
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Boy Scouts of America
Please stop deleting material from the Boy Scouts of America article without reason. We welcome useful editing from anyone, but this is becoming annoying. Please make a rationale for your edits on the talk page or desist. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You're the one deleting material without reason. I've given a reason: it's not NPOV.--69.107.97.36 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please sign your edits by using four tildes: ~~~~ --NThurston 20:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Your edits are even more POV than those you accuse.Rlevse 21:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What in the world does "more POV" mean?--69.107.97.36 04:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have looked at the material that you reference, and I think you are grasping at straws at the very best. Bsalegal does appear to be the official site for the BSA's legal issues. However, the op-ed piece that you referenced does not say what you said it does. Furthermore, just because someone includes a link on their page does not imply in any way that they endorse its content, especially when it is clearly labeled as an opinion piece. You do not have any evidence that the BSA teaches bigotry or hatred. Groups have a well-defined right to define their membership, which does not imply that they teach hatred against those whom they choose to not admit as members. While some groups might teach that non-members are inferior, etc., that argument is not universal. For example, I could be a member of an alumni association which only admits those who studied at a particular school. Does that imply that the association teaches hatred against those who studied elsewhere? Of course not. So, if you want to make a claim that the BSA teaches hatred, you'd need some verifiable evidence of that in order to include it on Wikipedia. And, if you could find such evidence, this topic would belong on the controversies page, not on the main page. And believe me, it's not because anybody's trying to hide something. It's simply a matter of editorial practice, which is how wikipedia works. --NThurston 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"However, the op-ed piece that you referenced does not say what you said it does." Yes, it does. Merely contradicting my claims is not an argument.
You said that "This case prompted Mark Pulliam, a lawyer involved in Scouting, to pen an article consisting almost entirely false claims. The article, full of hateful and completely untrue attacks" and "to pen an article attacking the ACLU, atheists, homosexuals, and the presiding judge, accusing them of being “mean-spirited”, “extremist”, anti-Christian, opposed to the First Amendment, and bigoted, and trying to link them to the KKK, Nazis, child molesters, drug dealers, and “Big Brother” of ‘’1984’’." Neither of your claims are accurate given an objective reading of the article. First of all, most of the article repeats the facts of the case, so it is not "entirely false". You also claimed that the article attacks atheists and homosexuals and calls them, the judge as the ACLU mean-spirited. Again, not true. That phrase is only used once to describe the lawsuit. And so forth. No mention of child molesters, drug dealers, Big Brother or 1984. The only mention of the KKK and Nazi is the claim that the ACLU has defended them in the past. Certainly, one could check whether that is true. Are you sure that the ACLU has never defended them? I'd be interested to see your proof of that.
"Furthermore, just because someone includes a link on their page does not imply in any way that they endorse its content," They didn't "include a link", they POSTED it. Did you even bother reading what I wrote, or did you just delete in a kneejerk reaction?
OK, I mispoke, there is a link, but the article is included in actuality on the web-site, but that doesn't change anything. Posting or including an off-site item is often done on web-sites for the purpose of information and discussion. Nowhere does it says that BSA legal agrees with or endorses Mr. Pulliam's facts or opinions. It is just one of many documents on this case. The link to it comes from the "What's New" page which includes links to dozens of articles relating to various cases.
"especially when it is clearly labeled as an opinion piece." Where?
Well - the only link to the article on the web-site says "To read his op-ed, click here." [1] So, the normal way that someone would find the article is clearly labeled. And even it someone went there directly, the very structure of the article should tell an informed newspaper reader that it is an opinion piece. However, I could be convinced that maybe not every person is informed enough to conclude that a newspaper article written by a local lawyer would be an opinion piece. Some neo-phyte newspaper readers might actually infer that he works for the paper(?)
"You do not have any evidence that the BSA teaches bigotry or hatred." Again, merely contradiction without any argument to support it. Well, Wikipedia requires verifiability as a basis for inclusion. So, you'll need some evidence or nobody's going to be really interested in allowing it in an encyclopedia. If you insist, someone will probably end up blocking you. At least that's my experience.
"Groups have a well-defined right to define their membership, which does not imply that they teach hatred against those whom they choose to not admit as members." I never said it does. Are contradictions and strawmen all you have?
Yet this is the basis of your arguments - that by not allowing them in, somehow this teaches hatred and bigotry, isn't it? I haven't seen any other logical construct that you might use to make your case, except for you to claim that their inclusion of this one article proves it, which of course it doesn't.
"So, if you want to make a claim that the BSA teaches hatred, you'd need some verifiable evidence of that in order to include it on Wikipedia." I already have it. You just refuse to acknowledge it.
The key is verifiability, which means that someone else has to be able to see what your evidence is. The Pulliam article does not qualify for at least three reasons: a) it doesn't show that the BSA teaches hatred in an of itself, b) it's inclusion on the BSA legal web-site doesn' show that the BSA even supports what it DOES say, and c) you are grossly mis-characterizing it.
"And, if you could find such evidence, this topic would belong on the controversies page, not on the main page." No, it doesn't. The fact that the BSA teaches bigotry and deceit should be prominantly displayed, not hidden in some off-shoot page.
All pages are of potentially equal worth on Wikipedia. Information is categorized in an encyclopedic way to maximize its usefulness to the reader. Nobody is trying to hide that there is controversy, nor what the various arguments are. It just makes more sense from an editorial perspective to keep things orderly and neat. Also note, that the controversy page is a featured article which suggests that it has a place of prominence within Wikipedia.
"It's simply a matter of editorial practice, which is how wikipedia works." Do you have a cite?
I am sure it is written somewhere, but I don't have the time to look it up right now. If I find time later, I will add a cite here. --69.107.97.36 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Part of me wants to say "why bother," however, I am committed to Assuming Good Faith, and that you actually want to make the articles better, not just grind an axe. So, here goes. My responses to your comments are in italics above. --NThurston 21:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"First of all, most of the article repeats the facts of the case, so it is not "entirely false"." I said ALMOST entirely false. And there are more lies than facts. In fact, there is not a single completely factual statement about the case in the entire article.
"You also claimed that the article attacks atheists and homosexuals and calls them, the judge as the ACLU mean-spirited." I said that it attacks atheists and homosexuals. I aslo gave a list of accusations. That list of accusations, in general, were against atheists, homosexuals, the judge, and the ACLU in general. I don't think it invalidates my claim if it is not the case that EVERY SINGLE accusation was made against EVERY SINGLE accusee.
"That phrase is only used once to describe the lawsuit." Pure sophistry. Inanimate objects do not have spirits, mean or otherwise. To say that a lawsuit is mean-spirited is to claim that those who brought it (in this case, atheists, homosexuals, and the ACLU) are mean-spirited.
"No mention of child molesters, drug dealers, Big Brother or 1984." It's clear what his intention was in mentioning NAMBLA, gangs and drugs, and "Orwellian" slip.
"The only mention of the KKK and Nazi is the claim that the ACLU has defended them in the past. Certainly, one could check whether that is true. Are you sure that the ACLU has never defended them? I'd be interested to see your proof of that." They defended their constitutional rights. Not the organizations themselves. That is an important distinction, one which Pulliam clearly intends the reader not to make.
"Posting or including an off-site item is often done on web-sites for the purpose of information and discussion." Usually, if the site does not intend it to be an expression of their views, they make that clear. You're really twisting yourself into knots trying to defend the BSA. If a webpage on their website cannot be considered a reflection of their views, then what can? A notarized statement signed by the entire Board of Directors?
"Nowhere does it says that BSA legal agrees with or endorses Mr. Pulliam's facts or opinions." The top of the page declares the article to be "© 2004 Boy Scouts of America".
"It is just one of many documents on this case. The link to it comes from the "What's New" page which includes links to dozens of articles relating to various cases." Do any them tell the truth about the San Diego case?
So, to sum up, the BSA has decided to post hateful, dishonest articles on their website, label them as being copyrighted by them, allow the authors of those articles to declare affiliation with the BSA, thefore implying support on the part of the BSA, not post any articles which set the record straight, not give any indication that these are not their views, and, as far as I can see, take no disciplinary actions against a member of the BSA who is in flagrant violation of their supposed Law. Gee, nothing dishonest about that. And you haven't addressed the fact that they claimed to be a religious organization in New Jersey, then claimed not to be one in California.
"Yet this is the basis of your arguments - that by not allowing them in, somehow this teaches hatred and bigotry, isn't it? I haven't seen any other logical construct that you might use to make your case, except for you to claim that their inclusion of this one article proves it, which of course it doesn't." No, the basis of my argument is that by posting bigoted articles, they are participating in bigotry. Here's a sentence from that "What's New" page:
"You would not believe the number of calls we have received from active duty and retired military who are heartbroken by the assault on the Boy Scouts by the ACLU." "Assualt"? That's clearly intended to incite hatred, and it is dishonest as the ACLU is not attacking the BSA, but their association with the government.
"The key is verifiability, which means that someone else has to be able to see what your evidence is. The Pulliam article does not qualify for at least three reasons: a) it doesn't show that the BSA teaches hatred in an of itself, b) [its] inclusion on the BSA legal web-site doesn' show that the BSA even supports what it DOES say, and c) you are grossly mis-characterizing it." a)Don't know what you mean b)My original claim was that the BSA participates in bigotry and lies. Posting this article is participation. c)No, I'm not.
'"All pages are of potentially equal worth on Wikipedia." If one looks up the Boy Scouts of America, one gets the main page, not the controversies section.
"It just makes more sense from an editorial perspective to keep things orderly and neat." From an informative perspective, it makes no sense to fail to mention that the BSA are liars. That is a crucial piece of information that everyone needs to know.
"Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles." I am not. I am stating objective facts. 69.107.97.36 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [IP info · Traceroute · WHOIS · Abuse · City · RDNS] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
