User talk:Moreschi/The Plague

Thoughts…

Thoughts? Moreschi ^Talk 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

First thought, be prepared to get accused of supporting the torch-wielding mob that is CSN ;).. My honest opinion.. it is very hard for NPOV to prevail. After working the issues that would lead to the ArbCom case "The Troubles" (which if you look at it, is really a perfect microcosm of what you state).. the problem is, usually if you know enough to qualify to write on it neutrally, you're likely going to have a bias one way or the other and it's VERY hard to write without that bias escaping. Both sides are guilty of that. There is also the "no factor".. IE, in discussion, one side can hold up consensus between other editors by being a loud enough and obstruction-oriented editor. More later when I digest this. SirFozzie 21:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a chance to write some of my thoughts on it, check it out User:SirFozzie/Nationalism SirFozzie 16:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I found your essay quite interesting. I agree that POV warriors are a big and growing problem (although I wouldn't say nationalism was necessarily the principal source of disruptive editors; those anxious to promote pseudo-science or far-left conspiracy theories account for at least as much tendentious editing). I think you make a good point in terms of why many POV warriors are attracted to Wikipedia; we're certainly a high-visibility site, and many readers assume Wikipedia to be more reliable than it is (due in part to the formal, encyclopedic tone of our articles), a weakness which is open to exploitation by those hoping to spread propaganda.
However, I'm not sure what can be done to deal with this problem, and I'm not sure what you meant by the need for "a small expansion in sysop powers". You're right that many admins, myself included, are reluctant to intervene in content disputes or to make rulings on content; the reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, the appearance of neutrality is key; since admins cannot intervene in content disputes in which we are "involved", many of us are extremely careful not to take sides in content disputes. Generally, when edit wars are reported to ANI or AN3, I issue stern warnings or short blocks to both sides, and move on; if I tried to resolve the dispute or to rule on content, I might be leaving myself open to accusations of "taking sides". Secondly, I don't have enough background knowledge in areas outside of my fields of interest to make any kind of definitive ruling on content. Yes, I can tell the difference between sourced, neutral editing and deliberate POV pushing, but it's rarely so clear-cut; often both sides are citing sources, and it comes down to a matter of wording or of undue weight, subtleties which I am hardly qualified to rule on in fields which I know little about. The same is true for almost all admins. A possible solution would be to promote more admins with specialist knowledge and editing experience in certain fields, but again, there might be neutrality issues (real or perceived) in their handling of conflicts. So I'm not sure whether there is a conceivable solution to this problem. Walton^One 11:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• I must say, I agree with this essay. A nationalist pushes POV claiming they're getting rid of it, and won't listen to any reasoning. They'll revert any good-faith edit without any respect for the other editors who make them. I acknowledge I am not perfect, of course, but it is frustrating in the extreme to edit on history-related articles and be reverted shortly thereafter by somebody who thinks he's "wiser than thou art". Master&Expert (Talk) 02:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hadith?

I think leading off with this hadith is a bad idea generally; same would go for a Biblical verse etc. Also: I can't find a source for it online, the final sentence of it is unclear in meaning (maybe aids->helps would clarify the object? It sounds like "he aids his people" and then "commit injustice" just hangs out there). Oh, and it was enough of a distraction that I haven't even read the rest of the essay yet :-) -- 146.115.58.152 06:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I like this quotation, and I can't imagine anyone really finding it offensive. Can't remember off the top of my head where I got it from, but AFAIK it's authentic enough. Moreschi ^Talk 09:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but still, better English would end with "The nationalist is he who aids his people in committing injustice" if that is the correct understanding. -- 146.115.58.152 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Like the essay, and the conclusion. Have also been once been one of the torch-wielding villagers at CSN and am currently awaiting arbitration on a separate matter. And, yes, am also probably thought of by some as a religious fanatic. Just indicating my own biases, here. Given wikipedia policy about free editing, honestly don't know how to do anything though. One posibble solution might be to get together a few lists of generally nonpartial "experts" in various areas who might be qualified to judge the relative quality of sources and the relative weight they might receive. Given the rather fluid nature of wikipedia, particularly with editors coming and, more importantly, retiring too often and too regularly, like Yomangani recently, it would be hard to know if they'll be on hand to do so. That's the best solution I can think of though. John Carter 19:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Cure, now that WP:CSN is gone

Do you have any ideas regarding how to go about editing restrictions now that WP:CSN is gone? WP:AN/I seems too fast-paced, highly-trafficked, and such. --Iamunknown 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaccine

Greetings. I'm wondering if you might join the effort to conquer the Israeli Palestinian "plague"? Even if only as an observer, perhaps you might give us (or me) suggestions on how to vaccinate (?) or otherwise deal with the problems in that topic area. Thanks muchly. Be well, HG | Talk 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your rapid and positive response! Given your effort to get a handle on the overall situation, you might find this interesting: WP:IPCOLL/BATTLE. Take care, HG | Talk 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Loose end

Well I like the new quote (not that I ever read this when the old quote was around), but now your essay refers to a Muhammad quote that's not actually quoted. My inner copyeditor is aghast. That being said, thank you very much for this essay; it's a lucid breakdown of issues that I've been irked by for years, and I'm happy to have stumbled across it.--Fullobeans (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The role of nationalistic history education

In countries where history education is regulated by the state (which basically means that the state prescribes to teachers and textbook authors what events are covered and how they are framed), the result is inevitably a narrative justifying state-sponsored events as acts of heroic patriotism and sources of great national pride, while presenting contrary views as stemming from a body of enemies plotting to humiliate and harm the nation, and bring it down. The students who have been subjected to such an education have effectively been brainwashed. They typically have never seen a healthy open discussion of issues that may negatively impact the national pride; coming to Wikipedia, they will naturally assume that the appalling and obviously completely wrong presentation they find in various articles is the result of the plotting body of enemies in action. (And they may actually be right, in some sense: there may be another side of brainwashed editors holding mirrored viewpoints that are just as one-sided.)

I'm afraid that there is little we can do other than try to deprogram and reeducate such editors.  --Lambiam 23:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My God, at last

What a great essay. I've been battling with ultra-nationalist editors on WP for the last two years at least. Although I am Irish and (in a generic sense) a nationalist I have never had as many problems with anyone as I have with a minority of my countrymen and women when writing about Irish history. My suggestions would largely concur with those expressed in the essay.

Basically, more power needs to be returned to Admins who can be relied on to be objective. It might indeed be fairly objected that this highly subjective and gives power to Mods to behave in an arbritrary manner. That is probably true. But this is a price worth paying and here's why.

A rule or procedure (such as 1RR or 3RR) cannot tell if a rule is being manipulated in pursuit of pov. For instance, I might partially quote one source to back up my view, or delete mention of another source that contradicts my view and then defend this edit with, "please don't remove cited material". The rule or procedure can't tell if I'm giving a fair summation of the sources - but they can block people who revert this version in favour of a more balanced approach.

Only an admin who is competent in the area concerned can do this. And this requires a degree of subjectivity on the Admin's part. This is unavoidable. The key will be recruiting good quality Mods and assigning them to trouble spots.

Let me also agree with another conclusion in the article, the only solution that will stick here is topic bans. People can be given warnings, that's only fair, but if they have a persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour and bad faith then a topic ban or, in extreme cases, an absolute ban, is the only way to go.

To finish, let me emphasise what I am not saying. I am not saying anyone with a nationalist viewpoint should be banned. I am not saying that nationalist views of whatever hue should not be given due coverage. I am not arguing for political censorship. What I am saying is that disruptive zealot contributes nothing but discord to WP. Signs of such behaviour: refusal to discuss the issues, constant reverts, constant involvement in arbitration disputes and (increasingly) gaming the system.

Jdorney (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Certain nationalists are more equal

A nationalist can use the rules of this Wikipedia to remove his/her opponents. Recently Moreschi banned a Polish editor, one of a series. Yes, nationalism is a plague, especially the one of smart people.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Great Essay

I enjoyed the read, and agree with you on most parts. I would, however, question your claim that religious editors are not as "bad" as nationalist ones. The problem with both groups, quite simply, stems from deeply held beliefs and the desire to see those beliefs supported by Wikipedia. In my admittedly limitted experience, it is those whose beliefs are most deeply held and most central to their self-image who typically cause the most problems. I agree that the nationalist disputes tend to attract more attention, but I think this is because there are, quite simply, more nationalist disputes with deep-running animosity on both sides than there are religious ones. Certainly one could claim that the Jewish/Muslim issue is such a dispute, but I think religious differences here tend to get expressed in terms of nationalist disputes. Thus the prime outlet for Jewish/Muslim animosity tends to be the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It becomes very difficult to distinguish where nationalism ends and religion begins. Rather than say it is not religious editors who cause the problems, but rather nationalist ones, I think it a more nuanced view to express the interconnectivity of naitionalism and religion. Still, excellent essay. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Similarly, while I agree that small blocks can seem ineffective, we must be careful not to be too hasty with indef blocks and topic bans. Escalating blocks, while annoying for those who have to put up with a POV warrior's continued indiscretions, still make room for those editors who come to Wikipedia desiring to assert their beliefs, but who can be coerced into playing by the rules with admin intervention. True, this does not work for many editors, but personally, I feel that the few editors it does work for justifies the policy. We must be careful not to make Wikipedia an exclusive community, as that kills much of the vibrancy that leads to article creation and improvement. Thus we must put up with the POV warriors until they cross the line one too many times, and assist those who do possess an ability to edit in accordance with the project's policies and principles. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Moreschi, I too am gradually beginning to appreciate that there's a 'nationalist syndrome' on Wikipedia. I first came across it at Ice hockey articles (concerning 'diacritics') & latter at topics related to the Troubles & the countries of the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can't be suggesting we Canadians are causing problems? We're so polite, yadda yadda Throwaway85 (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It'll take about 5-yrs, but we Canadians will have control of this project. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Damned well better. All this work for the CanCabal is tiring. P.S.: You got that email, right? The one about the thing with the guy, and the event? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have e-mails. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping balance

Yep, being a neutral in the middle of the Troubles-related discussions can be tricky. But, I'm not gonna be intimitated by either side. GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I'd say you've done a pretty good job. Kudos on mentoring Irvine, I know that can't be easy. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

As a, wait for it, brace yourselves, nationalist, the horror! I'm curious, are there any essays on unionist editors on wikipedia? Every time I hear sweeping criticism of nationalist editors it irks me a little. There are all kinds of nationalism in this world of ours. Jack forbes (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unionist are nationalist too. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, GoodDay. You don't often hear that being mentioned by neutral admins though. British nationalism tends to get overlooked. Jack forbes (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That hasn't been my experience at all. Working on the Provisional Irish Republican Army article, I've seen good neutral admins swing the b&hammer at editors on both sides. Whether good neutral admins are patrolling these articles is another matter, but the scourge of nationalism is hardly limitted to one side of one debate. It's everywhere. As a (hopefully) neutral editor with slightly Irish republican leanings, I've seen Unionist and Republican editors go too far in their POV warring, and I've seen both earn blocks. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of the Scotland article when I made those comments. It sometimes feels like trying to hold back a tidal wave when trying to combat unionist POV. I've heard in the past admins comment that (Scottish) nationalism is rampant when not a mention of British nationalism is heard. Jack forbes (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the situation on Scottish articles. Perhaps, as some might view Scotland as being "more british" than Ireland, the Unionist view is considered the mainstream, and the nationalist a rogue POV element. On Irish articles, unionist and republicans seem to be equiprevalent, and so admin oversight might be more balanced. It's a difficult issue. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Surprisingly, the Scottish mainstream might be viewed as pretty "nationalist" by the standard of other European sub-sovereign state entities. This creates strange situations on wikipedia, because views that seem highly extremist in Scottish society will often be received as mainstream by non-Britain/Ireland users (saying that "Britain is a nation, of which Scotland is a region", would be an example of this; while purely factual to your normal German or French person, if said in Scotland or even in England you'd probably be ignored as a nutter). Very few Scots will naturally self-describe as "British", despite Scotland having been controlled by the UK for 300 years. It's different from N. Ireland of course, which is separated from the island of Britain by some water, and is less like the English heartland of the UK, the south-east of England. (Ironically enough, the part of the British Isles most like England is the eastern part of the Irish Republic, most of which had been ruled from south-eastern England for 8 of the last 9 centuries!). Still Britishness is more popular in Northern Ireland than it is in Scotland, the big difference being that opinions on the matter are more polarised in NI, anti-Britishness also being much higher. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Scottish mainstream" is a lot less nationalist than, say, the Catalan mainstream. Besides, the recent financial crisis - which saw the U.K. government prop up failing Scottish banks - tends to confirm what most Scots know in their cringing heart of hearts, and what Niall Ferguson has observed: they're just not up to independence. They'll never wean aff sookin fae the paps o' mither England. Irvine22 (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Read it and weep: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622053/Happy-Hogmanay---and-to-celebrate-lets-put-Scotland-into-liquidation.html Irvine22 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Niall Ferguson's current views on Britain were representative of many people in Scotland (or England). I dunno if Scots would regard them as extreme either, but I do think Scots and non-Scots alike would reckon your own views to be extreme, as you yourself probably know. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, they'd reckon my support for my main man, my brother, President Barack Obama to be extreme? And how can Niall possibly be extreme? He's at Harvard FFS! (That's a better school than U Dub, as you yourself probably know....)Irvine22 (talk) 05:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

He has Thomas Carlyle syndrome, which is common enough with guys of that background. Do you believe his views represent the mainstream in Scotland? I'd say he himself would probably admit if not glory in the fact that they're not ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to insinuate that Niall Ferguson is from Ecclefechan? Irvine22 (talk) 05:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Scotland is a little too close to home for me, I think. The history of English/Scottish (over)achievement is really quite startling, and the fusion of the two traditions proved to be enormously productive. I can sympathise with the frustrations of both English nationalists (West Lothian question, Barnett formula) and Scottish patriots (North Sea oil), but ultimately, to cast away several hundred years of epoch-making history due to current (and minor) grievances seems very short-sighted. Moreschi (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, that was quite a political broadcast for the unionist parties. Do you know the history of Scotland? Do you know the percentage of people that voted the SNP into power? Do you know how many people have never considered themselves British in Scotland? Your epoch making history may seem great in the history books, but most of them were crap. The British Empire was won by fighting natives who had no more than spears by using the best armaments of the time. How brave were they. And before you say I'm biased, my own father fought for the British in the second world war. Jack forbes (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I am tolerably familiar with Scottish history, and with the SNP's recent electoral success. What that actually means is unclear unless we have a referendum on the subject of Scottish independence.

"British nationalism", by the way, is a rather fuzzy concept, as the "British" are not an ethnically unified group, and I suspect a large percentage of bona fide English nationalists would be quite happy for Scotland to go its separate way. Perhaps this qualifies as a supra-nationalism: at any rate, I am certainly not advocating any kind of Pan-Angloism, if such a term even exists, and would like to think that my view that the nations of the UK should remain fairly unified is based on something more rational than the usual ravings of the "ancient glories of Bharat/Armenia/MY NATION" brigade.

Your view of the British Empire, by the way, is really quite jaundiced, and although doubtless popular in many circles rather fails an examination of the evidence (and "natives who had no more than spears" - ouch, quite frankly). A somewhat more nuanced view is IMO more appropriate, but this is not the place to debate that, so we'd better leave it there. Moreschi (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a place for a "British historiography" article that could be along the lines of the Soviet historiography one. It could deal with British educational and social policies and propaganda since the 1950s that was designed to manipulate and alter the established views of the population and which has led to today's limp, pliant, guilt-ridden, Jack forbes-type of understanding of British history. I sometimes envy the Turks with their unreconstructed nationalism and self-glorification. And unlike Turkey, Britain has an immense amount of real things in its past to be proud about. Meowy 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees the sad irony in the fact that discussion about an essay on the plague of nationalism has devolved into a nationalistic debate? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the irony, too. GoodDay (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I love my country too much to be a nationalist." --Albert Camus. Irvine22 (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Ideological terrorism

In my professional life I have written defences of patriotism, albeit not on the basis of a rabid nationalism, and perhaps more along the lines of civilization-wide attributes. Nevertheless, it means that I see some uses for nationalism in terms of commitment to one's immediate community, one's state, one's nation (I smirk when Australian athletes beat American or British athletes at the Olympic games). But never as grounds for a sinister, malevolent ill will. Not even after war.

I think what Moreschi was getting at is actually a broader symptom just epitomised by nationalist battles in Wikipedia pages: ideological terrorism under some notionally respectable cloak, like nationalism, or religion, or political rivalry, or ...

There is never a rational answer for dealing with fanaticism. As a (semi)humorous diversion, try telling a Trekkie you don't give a shit how many times some galaxy has appeared on the TV show, or what the most odd inter-species romance 'ever' was. Duck and cover, my friends. Duck and cover.

There is, however, a deadly serious real-world analogue to the problem discussed here, and a formal policy that has some currency in many nations: 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'. The argument for that policy is pretty simple: do it just once and every crackpot in the universe will make demands.

I don't know that the 'no negotiation' strategy would work in a Wikipedia incarnation, and the plague on these pages will be fought in discussions, but what can be done there, particularly by admins, is to be much more ruthless about even implied threats, certainly explicit ones, about tediously repeated arguments and edit reverts (I don't say edit wars because that now seems to include heated discussions, which I don't always see as counter-productive, and which don't always vandalise the articles themselves), and definitely about any justification or suggestion that doing violence to, or killing people is any sort of proud achievement.

The English Wikipedia is a work undertaken in Western civilization and as a direct expression of what's best about that civilization, which includes rationality in debate, knowledge, understanding, and freedom (particularly of information). Upholding the values of that civilization should never be open to question by fanatics using the old ploys of 'my opinion counts too', 'Western imperialism', and meat/sockpuppet consensus for what is plainly subversive of this project or Western values. I can almost hear the sabre-rattling about promoting Western anything being equivalent to nationalism, but the simple answer is it ain't. The term 'Western' is a convenience to describe certain qualities, but actually includes nations on every continent, and people of all races and creeds (except, perhaps, Trekkies, who have transcended such meaningless categories).

In short, some confidence and back-bone by all who encounter ideological terrorism in these pages appears to be the only way the plague will be contained.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 02:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Appreciation & review

That was indeed a good read, covering something I had long thought few others realized (admittedly I hadn't really sought out others); but unfortunately I was linked to this essay by one of those scared admins you speak of, suggesting the text was fairly ineffectual (at least to this person). Given that there is apparently still no clear cure, maybe it's time to suggest to admins reading this essay that they simply step up and stop being scaredy pants. Wouldn't that be a cure? 3¢ ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This has 2 primary problems:

1. As explicitly stated in the essay, an indef block is likely to be overturned by an other admin, frequently with community consensus.
2. The ideal solution is a topic-ban. An admin isn't authorized to do this unilaterally, and convincing the community is typically difficult.

147.161.9.219 (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See from many different angles

Many nationalists are much more rational than the kind you describe in your essay. And for many peoples, their nationalism is what freed them from colonial rule and a second-class life. Don't just see the patriotic frevour in their words. See the entire history of pain and hurt and slavery behind them,too.--Wikireader20000 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Formal content arbitration

The idea of formal content arbitration is itself impossible in these situations:

1. The arbitors on any dispute need to understand the underlying issues. The users who understand these the best are precisely the users you want to keep away from the topic.
2. Nationalists know all the nationalist sources. For a third party to know how to decide the due weight of each source is nearly impossible.
3. Nationalists tend to argue on those details that are Greek to most users who are not INVOLVED with the nationalist dispute.

147.161.9.219 (talk) 07:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)