User talk:Philip Baird Shearer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Contents 1 International Military Tribunal for the Far East 2 River Teme 3 Speedy deletion 4 AFD vote 5 Operation Mars 6 Vanity 7 Genocides in history 8 Column 9 Jan Smuts 10 dablinks versus "See also" 11 Terrorism article 12 Allied War Crimes 13 NC military units 14 Bombing of Dresden 15 Genocide in History 16 Middle Eastern theatre 17 Genocide in Direct Action Day 18 Lvov-Sandomierz_Offensive 19 Dresden Talk Edits 20 Guidelines 21 Survey Q 22 Herd behavior 23 NPOV

[edit] International Military Tribunal for the Far East

As noted in my summary, I removed links to article that were generally about war crimes, not specific to the IMTFE. Just because it mentions the trials doesn't make it worth linking to. Some seemed to be possible spam links. --joshuadfranklin 7:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River Teme

My first reaction to seeing that you had done a revert on this article was that you have deleted what I had done. On looking harder, I saw that you have merely made a minor (and quite proper) correction in the syntax. I have been trying to write so as to be fair to those who hold opposing views to mine, i.e NPOV; indeed the article may give undue prominence to their views. This is why I left a citation of one of pictures allegedly of the Teme with boats. Another file from the same website was cited (with a much longer name), but I suspect that the wrong picture had been uploaded to that website. There is another picture about, but I have only had it from Pat Jones as an e-mail attachment, not found it on the Internet. I do not know where the original is or whose copyright it is.

I tell you this in case somethign else does emerge. However thank you for doing the revert. Peterkingiron 15:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page List of war crimes allegations for speedy deletion with the reason "This page is a WP:POVFORK created because of a dissagreement on Talk:List of war crimes over the contents of List of war crimes page. Even if there is eventually a consensus to create such a page it does not exist yet". However, "This page is a WP:POVFORK created because of a dissagreement on Talk:List of war crimes over the contents of List of war crimes page. Even if there is eventually a consensus to create such a page it does not exist yet" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the article to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD vote

I just wanted to drop you a note. I noticed you voted Delete on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of war crimes allegations. Based on the comments you've made, I'm presuming you MEANT to vote Merge-- meaning you want the content moved into List of war crimes, not deleted from Wikipedia entirely. If that's correct, you probably should change your vote, so your views doesn't get mis-interpreted. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. if you want the content currently on List of war crimes allegations to be put on List of war crimes, then you want it that content MERGED into it. If you don't want that content on wikipedia at all, you want that content DELETED. But, it's your vote, so... say delete if you want, but from everything you told me, I think you very strongly DON'T want that content to be deleted, right? You want it to be put back on List of war crimes, right? --Alecmconroy 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I get the difference-- if it's merged, the content would be pasted back into the page, but if it's deleted, it wouldn't be. Anyway, you might want to explicitly say what you want to happen, or ask someone more knowledgable than me. lol just don't want you to be butterfly balloted. :) --Alecmconroy 16:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Mars

Please take a look into a huge text added by an anon into Second Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive. I wanted to wikify it then it occurred to me that such a well-rounded text may be a copyvio. Can you bring an attention of other WWII experts, whether you and they recognize the text? `'mikka (t) 18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vanity

Is this page vanity or not: Mikhail Lebedev --GoOdCoNtEnT 08:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocides in history

Thank you very much for your reply to my rather tart question. The intention seems fair enough, though there should be a quick mention that:

• the legal form of genocide can only consist of those since the law was adopted, and that
• earlier acts are listed for historical and humanitarian aspects of this article.

Speaking of which, could someone please include Guatemala 1960-1996, and West Papua 1966-2006+. Perhaps a short list in both periods, which would also be fair as the UN should have spoken about about both when it revived its reviews in the 1990s.211.30.222.139 01:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

On the HREOC website you can find an FAQ about the Stolen Generation that explains

7. Why was the forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children genocide? The crime of genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate physical destruction of a group. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which was adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and ratified by Australia in 1949, defines genocide in Article II as such:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ehnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm of members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the groups (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The Convention recognises that genocide is a crime against humanity and expressed a shared international outrage about genocide and empowered any country to prosecute an offender.

The Inquiry’s examination of historical documents found that the clear intent of removal policies was to absorb, merge or assimilate children so that Aboriginal people, as a distinct racial group, would disappear.

Policies and laws are genocidal even if they are not solely motivated by animosity or hatred. The Inquiry found that a principle aim of removing children was to eliminate Indigenous cultures as distinct entities. The fact that people may have believed they were removing Indigenous children for ‘their own good’ was immaterial. The removal remains genocidal.

The Inquiry found that the forcible removal of Indigenous children was a gross violation of their human rights. It was racially discriminatory and continued after Australia, as a member of the United Nations from 1945, committed itself to abolish racial discrimination.

The Inquiry also concluded that even before international human rights law developed in the 1940s the treatment of Indigenous people breached Australian legal standards.

Fyntan 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Column

Please note that the faulty historiography started by Sir Charles Oman on the French tactical system during the French Revolutionary and the Napoleonic wars has been corrected in modern times. The French did not actually attack with columns for most of that period; the "colonne d'attaque" was a columnar method of maneuver, not of attack. When French soldiers got sufficiently close to the enemy for attack, they almost always deployed into lines. At Waterloo....they deployed into lines. Wellington most likely made that comment because he saw them coming in columns, but they would not have attacked that way (and in fact they didn't). Hope this clarifies the matter.UberCryxic 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Smuts

As one who has previously contributed to the above article, you might be interested to know that the Early life of Jan Smuts (childhood and early adulthood, 1870-1895) is up for FA nomination at the moment. Any contribution, whether a vote for/against or a suggestion for improvement, would be very much appreciated. The eventual intention is to raise Jan Smuts and its detailed sub-articles to FAs - this is the first to be completed and to go forward for nomination.

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Early life of Jan Smuts

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 15:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dablinks versus "See also"

Hello. I think your edits to killing field on November 15, 2005, were a mistake, which I've remedied in this edit. That's how this should be done. Michael Hardy 23:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism article

You've suggested and edited a change in the first sentence of the article and I've supported it. Someone has reverted it back and to my surprise you didn't discuss the issue further. As I don't know what has motivated you to advance the change, maybe you could tell me something about. DavidMarciano 14:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied War Crimes

Hello. I wonder if I can ask for your assistance? I have seen your name on the Allied war crimes during World War II talk page, and I think you have a good grasp of the main issues involved. I put an NPOV tag on this page, because I do not agree with some of the interpretations and I question the political objectivity of the sources, with particular reference to the Allied strategic air offensive. Recently some attempt has been made to remove this by one user in the face of very clear objections I have set out on the talk page. It's now reinstated, with more reasons for doing so. Can it be right that my objections are 'airbrushed' out in this fashion, as they will be again, I feel sure, in the near future? I am new here, and am still finding my way around, but it seems to me that this must be a breach of protocol? I would appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks. White Guard 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip, in case you retain an interest I just thought I would let you know that user Mitsos is a Greek Nazi-and I use this in a strictly descriptive sense. Have a look at some of his bon mot in my latest post to the above page. Best wishes. White Guard 23:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NC military units

Hi there! There appears to be no recent discussion on the proposed naming convention on military units. Could you please enlighten me if the current text is accepted, or if development has died down, or if it should be advertised to get more feedback, or something else? Thanks. >Radiant< 22:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• That was brief :) if I understand correctly, you mean that more feedback would be required but at the moment nobody is really giving feedback? >Radiant< 13:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing of Dresden

Please stop reverting without addressing any of the qualms I have brought forth. Are you a Wiki Administrator? This is not acceptable.--72.94.90.144 00:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide in History

I don't know if you saw it, but someone blanked out part of this page. I'm not sure why. Anyway since you edit it quite often, I thought I'd tell you so you could keep an eye on it. Davidpdx 07:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Middle Eastern theatre

See Middle Eastern theatre of World War I

I do not know what is in your mind? ALSO Why are you constantly reverting the document to the shameful structure. All the military articles follow a time line. The version you are reverting is not. This article is disorganized and not acceptable on any level. The text has no meaning in many parts. If you have a valid reason to keep it in this poor level, I would like to hear that. If you want to own the article, that is fine but please bring it to some decent level. It might be interesting to learn your reasons. I check the history of the article, it seems you keep that document in this poor level. Please lets WORK on this together. Stop reverting it and add or improve the changes. THANKS--OttomanReference 00:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If we keep it as it is; as the campaign's have their own pages, that makes this article a collection of introduction sections of these campaigns. IT should be the main reason to change the article to a time line, so that the links between the campaings can be build. Otherwise what is the use of this article? IT BECOMES a copy cat of the campaigns. ALSO it is naive to assume that the campaigns did not have any higher order links to each other. Ottomans constantly moved sources between the fronts, which falsifies the idea that campaigns were different from each other. Also politically and time wise these campaigns were related to each other. Summary (a)we need an article that tells what happened each year (b) we need to tell why other fronts opened when Gallipoli did not work (c) we need to tell the movement of the forces among the fronts to show how political decisions were reflected on the battle field decisions. (d) brought this article to a unique level that would break the current "just the collections of introduction sections" THANKS--OttomanReference 00:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer: I do not think that the all of article should be arranged chronologically I do not know why you say that because the article has the campaigns listed at the beginning of the sections. If there is another way to do it, I would appreciate to learn that. However, I might be missing your point, as campaigns are there at the beginning of every paragraph, ALREADY. THANKS--OttomanReference 00:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide in Direct Action Day

I have found some sources, but they may be considered biased. What do you think of them?

• http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06jan/1101ss1.htm
• http://www.hinduweb.org/home/sikh/rverma/bsingh2.html
• http://www.voi.org/books/mla/ch3.htm

Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments. I do know the Point of View of the rioters on this day and can write on it, for now I will have to search for a reliable source which labels it genocide. Regards. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lvov-Sandomierz_Offensive

Noticed that you might be among the experts on this one. Have reverted what appears to be vandalism on the Polish Home Army or something of the sort liberating Lvov before the Russians got there, but am not sure whether it's correct. Could you take a look, or direct someone who knows about that period towards it, and add some sources? Cheers Buckshot06 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden Talk Edits

Looks like you were commenting on the Bombing of Dresden in World War II talk page at the same time I was writing. Hope you can still follow what I wrote.--72.92.120.106 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guidelines

Guidelines only exist when there is a consensus for them. You don't need a "consensus to remove" the template. You need to achieve consensus to put it there. The very existence of the "disputed" template means that it isn't a guideline. You can't have both templates on the same page. They're mutually exclusive.

Please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc., Wikipedia:How to create policy and discuss this on the talk page before editing the article again. — Omegatron 00:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Responded on my talk. — Omegatron 01:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Q

Have you ever been to the southern hemisphere, click here to reply.AstroBoy 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC) Deadline for entries is December 15th

[edit] Herd behavior

Hi Philip Baird Shearer. A VERY LONG TIME ago, you commented on the Talk:Herd behavior page about a potential MERGE. That discussion ended. More recently, another different merge discussion was started by someone, and it now appears that a wiki-consensus has been reached on the merge. I also learned there was a third Herd article, not merely the two involved in the merge discussion. There is now a question as to the best name for the new combined page. I would very much like to have a decently wide consensus on the best NAME before we merge the two (still muddled) articles, so if you would be willing to weigh in, that would really help. (as would input from any other interested wikipedians) N2e 16:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much PBS for weighing in with an opinion. Your input is important. I will comment over on that talk page, but one reason I suspect that there are several current WP articles about 'herd' behavior applied to humans is that it is not uncommon to do so within the social science literature. The current discussion started out to get two such WP articles merged down to one. Perhaps there is a broader 'project' that could also usefully be accomplished with respect to the broader subject. With respect to your comment on eliminating the word 'herd' completely, I would just offer a thought. As an encyclopedia, WP probably needs to discuss some topics in whatever terms of language that are "out there," even if the word 'herd' is pejoritive to some individuals. Again, thanks for weighing in! N2e 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Please tell me the difference between the "netural point of view" on Wikipedia for Dokdo and Senkaku. Both are islands under dispute. But one gets special treatment while the other is subject to changes after changes after changes. If you agree with Dokdo moving to its alledged neutral page name, should you not also agree with the page Senkaku moving to its alledged "English-neutral" name as well? Or do people have a favourite country they just assume is always right? dandan xD 22:21, 18 November 2006 (KST)