User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Bell (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 3 March 2006 (→Retract or substantiate your allegation: maybe a "silly game" to you, but I take assuming good faith seriously). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
File:Herooflabor.jpg

Archives

I confess that I tire of foolishness quickly (even my own). At this rate, I'm going to need hourly archives..

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 /

Archive 6 / Archive 7 / Archive 8 / Archive 9 / Archive 10 /

Archive 11 / Archive 12 / Archive 13 / Archive 14 / Archive 15 /

Archive 16 / Archive 17 / Archive 18 / Archive 19 / Archive 20 /

Sandbox

New Stuff

Award

In appreciation for your efforts to make Glacier retreat a better article...I present you with this image of Eyjafjallajökull Glacier located in Iceland. Excellent work! --MONGO 05:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a beautiful picture! I've only ever seen some small glaciers in Colorado or Wyoming... but my little interest that you lured over to Glacier retreat makes me want to see some of these major ones in person. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Underutilized crops

Thanks for weighing in on the discussion of deleting or renaming Category:Underutilized crops. I've responded to the issue of whether the title is POV or not on the discussion page: short version - "underutilized crops" is a standard term among UN organizations and other NGO's who deal with food security. Thought I'd point you to the followup, in case you hadn't seen it. I wonder if you'd consider changing your view, if you think the argument holds water?

If the category page can provide a more clear description of exactly what the UN and other organizations mean by the term, and what criteria they use to qualify them as such, I might be more sympathetic to the category. I think even so I'd prefer a list for this; such a list could include annotations about exactly which organizations classify a crop as underutilized, perhaps with a few words about its actual usage currently and historically. Categories are a bit too crude as a tool for this, since it doesn't allow any differentiation of the reasons for "underutilization". For example, some little utilized crops might be so simply because their yield is much less than other crops grown in the same area.
Good suggestions, thanks. I'll see what I can do to implement the changes you suggest. As I suggested in the discussion, the major reason for a category was the ability to backlink to the category from the articles. This would be helpful for people concerned with food security, biodiversity or poverty alleviation, and who are looking at articles on particular plants from this point of view. If I understand correctly, a list wouldn't be very helpful for this. Any wisdom on how that need is best met? Waitak 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible to add a "see also" pointing to a list to an article on a particular crop. But just because someone is reading about mung beans doesn't necessarily mean that want to know about biodiversity or poverty alleviation (worthy concepts though they are)... maybe they just want some recipes, or a backyard garden. More relevant would be linking from article on food security, biodiversity, seed libraries, and the like. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your first point (usage of the term) on the category page. See what you think. Regarding the second point - food security, biodiversity and the like are all good motivations to care about underutilized plant species, but the category that they below to is "plants that are known to be useful if cultivated, but that aren't currently cultivated on a significant scale". It seems to me that having the category there addresses the needs of all of the above, no matter what their motivation for using it. Waitak 08:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the description is good and helpful; but I still think it works better as a list (you can copy the description easily enough). Categories group unlike things. The "underutilization" of kudzu is a lot different from the underutilization of buckwheat, for example. For that matter, hemp seems not to be listed, which is "underutilized" for a still different reason. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(dedent) Would you suggest, then, that I add "See also" links in the articles for particularly useful underutilized plant species? I don't see that as a problem, I guess, and it does provide a means to distinguish reasons for underutilization. One thing I'd like to prevent, though, is losing all of the work I've done finding these things and grouping them. If the category disappears out from under me before the equivalent list article was written - if that's the decision reached - many hours of research risk disappearing with it. Waitak 08:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd recomend:
  1. Turn it into a list
  2. Add all the plants currently in the category to the list
  3. Annotate the listed items with a few words about what it means for that plant to be underutilized
  4. Add a mention of the list to some of the important underutilized crops. E.g. I really don't think greater use of kudzo as a foodstuff is a great plan :-). Ideally, the link can be in prose, e.g.: "Buckwheat is considered an underutilized crop by the United Nations Food Program" (or whatever). But a "see also" is acceptable, though slighly less good.
  5. Add a mention of the list in some other relevant articles: maybe biodiversity, food security, etc.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re kudku - With due respect, that's because you're living in North America! (Yes, I know about the Plant That Ate The South...) It's a staple in my local grocery store, here in Hong Kong. See the PFAF or Handbook of Energy Crops articles, for descriptions of kudzu as a food crop. NPOV, good sir, NPOV... ;-)
It's true I do. Not a part affected by kudzu specifically, but the US national media sometimes writes about it. But it is true that there are reasons other than monoculture agribusiness why kudzu isn't at my local grocery: the plant is genuinely disruptive of North American ecological systems, and would be environmentally unfriendly to cultivate here. Just calling it by a very generic category doesn't let readers know about these types of issues. Mind you, it's not like I have some anti-kudzu agenda... it's just an example that seemed notable when I browsed the category. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re a list - Reasonable recommendation. I'd still argue for keeping the category too, but I'll start on a list article tomorrow. The category's not going to be yanked out from under me in the meantime, is it? Waitak 09:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually category deletion takes a while to happen, even after CfD's are closed. But I can't make any specific guarantees. I'd go ahead and save the category for later reference. I think if you save the HTML page, you can easily edit it down to the list of crops you are interested in. Or just print it on a piece of paper, it's only a couple minutes to type them all in later. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Python aside

(As a complete aside, you might be interested that the two NGO's [1] [2] that I'm part of both use Python (partly, but not by any means entirely in the context of Zope/Plone, but still...) as a primary tool in their humanitarian work. Python's been my primary programming language for almost a decade.) Waitak 05:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! It's nice to see the language used, and especially among worthwhile organizations. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's an amazing language. It's the only programming language I've ever used where it's easier to just write something than it is to do it in pseudo-code first and then recode. I only wish it weren't so big. For small-footprint applications, I think Lua has firmly captured the high ground. If there were a decent Python implementation that fits in 1Mb or so, I'd be ecstatic! Pippy just never went anywhere, and the Nokia implementation is just that. Waitak 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A newbie question

Hi, I have watched your grat work on many articles and I hope you can answer my question. What do you believe qualifies as a "good source"? I had a dispute with some people on Collapse of the World Trade Center. UF 18:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline about this is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Lulu...I was off line...I noticed UF's editing the 9/11 related articles and should have watched it more closely...s/he appears to be indefinitely blocked now.--MONGO 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's OK, you're permitted to leave WP for short whiles :-). The UF critter did it a couple more times... but indeed someone else (Voice of All) put on an indefinite block, which is good. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill (misconduct allegations)

David, in your last edit on this article your edit comment was: "restore deleted quote in Barsamian interview (why was this killed, it looks perfectly good; the lead to it was a bit informal initially, but the quote itself is germane".

The reason I removed it is because it is largely redundant with the section The General Allotment Act. It didn't read well in the article repeating the information, so I provided a link to the Dawes Act section from the Questioned ethnicity section and removed the detail from the Questioned section. If you think the quote is needed, I think it should go in the other section. It seemed to me though that it wasn't really adding anything as Churchill's views on the subject are already discussed in detail in the other section. If you think my comments here should be reflected on the talk page instead, feel free to move them there. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 17:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there is a certain repetition between that and the GAA section. But it's a bit different spin at issue. At least as the anon editor presents it, the Barsamian interview is used in relation to Churchill's own ethnicity. The GAA section is about scholarly disagreements on the meaning of the Act. Moreover, while we have a quote in the GAA where Churchill affirms his belief, this quote is more specific in describing Churchill's interpretation. Maybe we should add a note like "see also below section" to make the connection. Btw. your lead to the discussion of Churchill's attitude about his ethnicity is much better than the anon wrote, thanks for that. The anon's edit was a bit pedantic in tone, I thought, though the quote it introduced is worth keeping. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... quick followup to myself. I think a bit of "forshadowing" of one topic under another works nicely in many articles. When I write professionally, I often try to do that: drop a little semi-enigma that readers will be thinking about when they get to a wider discussion of the same thing. But then, I tend towards a little bit of literary flair rather than neutral description, even in technical documents. If you'd rather incoporate the Barsamian quote somehow into the GAA section, however, with your existing forward reference, I'd be fine with that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not a racialist

Lulu, your claim that I am (1) a racialist and (2) disavow that really made me angry. I have no idea what Racialist is supposed to mean (my own dictionary says it is the same as Racist, by the way), but I disagree forcefully with pretty much every statement on the linked article. Also, least don't insinuate that I lie about my own opinions. I have been extremely careful about bringing in my own POV into the R&I article during my entire stay here (a single attempt to push a Rawlsian view, via some Gottfredson quotes), which I think is a sound stance for editing here. My only contribution has been the footnote system (because I am a geek), and some details about maths and stats (because I am a mathematician). Arbor 21:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a difference in usage between the USA and UK. Are you in the latter? I've certainly found a very large proportion of your edits extremely disturbing for advancing a racialist perspective, well beyond anything that is supported by WP:V and WP:NPOV evidence provided. But the term "racialist" is indeed quite distinct in meaning from "racist", in sociological and political science circles. Not 100% unconnected, of course, but certainly non-identical. However, in the Racialism article, the removal of the usage by white supremecists is inappropriate: Those folks deliberately appropriate the word in order to say "We're racialist not racist". Not to say I believe them, but there is a longstanding distinction that they are utilizing in the claim.
I had never read the Racialism article before today. It seems moderately OK in giving the meaning of the term; but I was certainly well familiar with the term (and its differences from the term "racism") for many decades before I ever edited WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am in Sweden. All my dictionaries are British, so I am influenced by that dialect more than by AE (But not in this matter. I had no idea what the term meant. English is my 3rd language.) I remain confused about your claims about my edit history. Certainly, to the main article I have contributed very little. (I have checked the last half year now. A handful. The only think that is suspicious is the removal of the Holocaust in favour of the T4 programme, but I really thought we all agreed on that? It should be about T4, not about Jews and Gypsies. Earlier, I have lobbied strongly for some editorial decisions (proper references, and a separate Race and intelligence (public controversy), but I don't think any position can be inferred from that. That being said, on the Talk page I often defend the hereditarian position. You may call me that. Hereditarian. That's fine. Or Darwinist. I firmly believe that the are hereditary, genetically significant differences between geographically separate breeding populations, and that these differences are a contributing factor to cognitive traits as well. If that is the definition of racialist (and before checking the term I thought so), then... but it doesn't seem to be. Maybe Pinkerist will become a term sooner of later. Call me that. But don't conflate my position with an essentialist view on racial classification, nor a political belief that this classification should be perpetuated by society (be that by racial pride, affirmative action, segregation, discrimination or anything else). "People should be treated as individuals"—after many years of thinking, I think that's the only absolute statement about society that I would sign. And if I understand Racialism correctly, that's the opposite. Arbor 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm entirely with you on the change about the T4 program. That was good. And perhaps I am partially misremembering about exactly which edits you made, versus some other contemporary editors. I don't want to propogate any conflict around this (though I would recommend chilling on what Ultramarine puts on her own user page)... as a gesture, I'll go remove my comment about you from Talk:Race and intelligence. I shouldn't have jumped in to the matter, since it's really not my conflict, nor anything I need to be involved in. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Lulu, I think we are cool. I'll be off to bed now. Arbor 21:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, there have been editors of R&I whom I suspect would own the title racialist. So long as they behave and don't bother me I get along with them fine. IMHO, Arbor is not one of them. --Rikurzhen 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ward

I am heading out but will look at Ward Churchill in a few hours...the intro needs expansion and I am favor of keeping it NPOV for sure. I disagree with his views at times, but defend his right to state them.--MONGO 22:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note with Bell and on the Ward Churchill article, I don't know if it helped much. I see also there is disagreement with the scandals category...I have to agree that I find the issue of scandals somewhat POV in most cases, and in the Churchill article, it seems to be unnecessary. I mean, nothing about him to my knowledge is current news outside perhaps Colorado. Monica/Bill Clinton was a scandal...Rowe/Leaking info on secreat agents is a scandal IMO. Anyway, let me know how it's going and I'll keep it monitored.--MONGO 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. I agree on the scandal category. It's a bit silly as a category, and borders on POV. Not just for this article, but in general. I suspect there was a motive underneath adding it other than some neutral attempt at classification... i.e. the cat is meant to imply that Churchill is "scandalOUS". But it seemed within the bounds of good faith, for the two child articles, so I don't care that much. Anyone browsing the cat can read the full articles for details, and those are in fairly good shape now (i.e. NPOV). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant material added to the talk page for the Public Opinion article

Hi Lulu otLE, I did a little more research on the matter, that is what motivated the change I made. So, could you please check out the talk page and maybe we could discuss the issue there... Betsy betsythedevine 23:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Hall

Gus Hall is Jewish I assure you. I dont have the link but it can be confirmed. Additionally his original name was something along the lines of "Halberg" which is a common Jewish name. I know his dad was Jewish but I was not 100 pecent sure about his mom so I only put that he was born to a Jewish father and I left that he was still Finnish. I didnt remove that. I do not lie. Additionally I really feel that its a shame that you added white supremacist groups in the article for racialism. JJstroker 06:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You assure me. <sarcasm>Yeah right... I'm sure that your word is good enough for an encyclopedia, even though you don't have any supporting evidence</sarcasm>. If you think you can provide verifiable evidence of this claim that meets WP:V and WP:RS, please give it on Talk:Gus Hall for other editors to examine. I'm afraid we're not going to take the unsupported assurance of one editor with (let alone one with a very suspicious edit history). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Hi Lulu, I've sprotected it for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly. Of course, I'm a much bigger fan of semi-protection than most editors are (or than the guideline/policy really says)... I'd want it used pretty much at the first whiff of vandalism and edit warring on a page, since the restriction it imposes is so moderate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Playing around with Glaciers

I mved one of the latest versions of Glacier retreat to my userspace and in just a few edits, I may have solved the brakedown by continent...take a quick look here: User:MONGO/gr...I can provide a little intro into each section and tweak the section heading descriptions some...but I think it looks better, but the sections are long, but there is less "my continent is hardly mentioned stuff" potential. I'm going to play with this tonight some more, but gotta run now. I think we may as well throw our hats in the furnace and elaborate on global warming as the cause...the article is close, most of the objections may actually be eliminated by just redesigning...oh, and the Harvard referencing is much better,,,I didn't have to reposition a single citation at the end, cause of the alphabetizing...that made it oh so easy.--MONGO 05:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think I like the reorganization approach quite a bit. The lattitude certainly seems more central to the conceptual scheme than do the individual continents. And a number of FA reviewers seem to want something more like this. Also the whole jump into global warming issues, which I'm less fond of including... not because it's not true, but just because there already are articles on general global warming issues. But I would recommend getting some feedback from the actual experts who have contributed... little old me is just a semi-educated layperson :-). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message vs. messenger

Who the heck am I to tell you to chill? Well, I posted on Mr. Bells page a response he has about you claiming he is insulting you. I don't see any insults...and you and I know what insults are...that's how we met!:)...(or at least my comments to you many months ago certainly were insulting) anyway, I am just reminding you, as my firned, to attack the message, not the messanger. Just leave it at this, don't shoot me...for I am just the messenger. An article like glacier retreat is benign...there is nothing really that is getting anyone hot behind the collar cause there is so little POV involved...evidence...galciers are all melting...not much to contradict it. As you know, Ward Churchill is an article that is going to have polarizing things about it. I respect your efforts to "protect" the article from hostile takeover from anti churchill forces...lest we get carried away with our zealousness though...now you can come "rescue" me from getting hot when I deal with the CT morons in the articles related to 9/11.--MONGO 10:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retract or substantiate your allegation

I see you left a "peace offering" on my talk page. If you are sincere then either provide a retraction of your allegation (not simply strikethru or delete) on the Talk:Ward Churchill (9/11 essay controversy):

What's the story, Doug, with every single many edit summaries you make insulting me? (some at the NA project, and elsewhere). Ah well... I guess it might help you get it out of your system.

or substantiate this by identifying the edit summaries in which I insulted you. Until this is resolved, your peace offering is simply rhetoric. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the comment from the article talk page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. Either provide a retraction or substantiate. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you've performed the substantiation on my behalf already. If this is really your bete noir, there were some additional jibes at me in edit comments to my talk page, MONGO's talk page, and a few other places, that you are welcome to dig up. I commend me on your documentation efforts in support of my offhand comment; but I'm not going to play this silly game any further. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is my bête noire. I made it easy for you. Just go highlight the insulting comments (I added my edit summaries from your talk page and MONGO's talk page). If there are other comments you want me to include, let me know, but simply making vague references to "other pages" is not providing any substantiation. You may consider this a "silly game", but I take assuming good faith seriously and have bent over backwards to do that with you. You have made a number of disingenuous comments that have implied that I am not assuming good faith, but this allegation is specific. If I have indeed been insulting you, then simply point out where. If on the other hand, your "offhand comment" was incorrect, what is your problem with providing a retraction? You can't simply defame someone's character and then expect not to accept responsibility for your comments. You made a peace offering, which I'm assuming in good faith was genuine, but if you aren't willing to resolve this issue, then what does the offering mean? – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters&oldid=42095365"