User talk:George Swan

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Larry Sanger 14:35, 18 October 2007 (CDT)

What's this?

I.e., this? Stephen Ewen 22:48, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, I think you just made a mistake. If not, let me know. It can easily be undeleted. Stephen Ewen 23:26, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

A very quick reply to your query

Thanks for your message on my Talk page. Unfortunately, I cannot reply in detail because I am about to catch a plane. I will be back in Greece on Tuesday and we can have some discussion after then. I think there are three issues related to what you are asking about, and all three need to be dealt with simultaneously. The first is the issue of neutrality, and as you can see some editors are not entirely happy with how the concept is played out. I am almost certain that this will be a problem for your topic, although in my view it should not be.

The second issue, is that of "no original research". As with WP, we have a prohibition on it here. I can understand the reason for that, but there are borderline cases, which may be your situation.

The third issue is that of relevance or appropriateness, as I understood you had a similar problem on WP. The reason that this comes up is that pure factual details do not of themselves tell us much about what is going on. Therefore, we need some analysis and interpretation of these facts, which people can then claim is actually original research and disallowed under the rules.

I hope that we can devise some framework within which you can put the material. I am aware through my own work how governments behave, and I follow the critical investigations and research on your topic quite carefully. However, there is a degree of conservatism about many of these things on CZ, and you should expect a lot of opposition to what is actually nothing more than intelligent and unbiased interpretation of all available data. People's ideas about their country, and how the world is run, go deep and tend to overbalance rational discourse rather too often -- in all walks of life.

Anyway, good luck and i will be available in a few days. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:22, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, thanks for what is really a very detailed reply for someone about to catch a plane.

Concerning neutrality, when I first read about the wikipedia's neutrality policy I remember it seemed like a goal one could approach asymptotically, but never fully acheive. Concerning neutrality here -- I am the newbie, and, to the extent I end up participating here, I will do my best to conform to the majority consensus of what citizendium neutrality means. Among my choices are to pick selectively from among the material to which I am the sole author, only that material that uncontroversially fits here. It seems like there may be fora where these policy issues are still being shaped. Complying with the current consensus policies shouldn't prevent me from engaging in the dialogue and voicing opinions about how policies might be modified though should it?

Similarly, as a newbie I will do my best to conform to the citizendium's current consensus on interpretation of original research. Sorry if I left the impression with you that I would allow myself to inject any of those private conclusions I shared into any of articles. I was careful not to on WP, and would be careful not to on CZ.

As I have read the introductory documents I have wondered how people reconcile neutrality to providing a gentle introduction suitable for undergrads. It seems to me the latter really does require the contributor making interpretations that could stretch neutrality to the breaking point and beyond.

Maybe no one has requested this before, but what I was hoping might be possible would be for me to get some help looking at the exising CZ articles that most closely resember those I am considering porting, and then developing a proposed outline of what I suggest porting. The proposal could contain some representative examples of candidate CZ versions of articles I adapted from my work on WP.

When I developed that material on WP I did so piecemeal, as I came across sources, without a plan. Porting it, from a plan would be better. I could start with the parts least likely to raise a controversy here.

More later.

Nice to meet you.

Cheers! George Swan 11:52, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Just a quick interjection. CZ does not work by "consensus". It works as a republic under law. Stephen Ewen 13:23, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the correction. George Swan 13:58, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

old habits

Hi Geo, I'm glad to see that you are working away here. I did want to drop you a hint not to use acronyms here at Citizendium[1]. The idea is that it is confusing for newcomers who aren't familiar with the lingo and therefore they may feel left out. So, FWIW ;-), go ahead and spell it out! Thanks, Matt Innis (Talk) 20:24, 27 October 2007 (CDT)

a controversial article, but...

As this article 9-11 is central to much of the work you have put or intend to put on CZ, please participate carefully in the arguments we are having over there. At the least, you should find ways to make links with your own articles! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:42, 10 November 2007 (CST)

MANY uploads

George, I'm working to hack a tool that will upload every file you have in a folder on your computer, rather than one at a time. Thought you might like to know that. :-) Stephen Ewen 15:20, 24 November 2007 (CST)

Images with CC-by-2.0-de

George, we currently don't have Deutsch versions of the Creative Commons template so I adjusted the image notes for two images. --Robert W King 21:56, 12 December 2007 (CST)

err, cancel that. Stephen fixed it; now there is a {{Cc-by-2.0.de}}! --Robert W King 22:47, 12 December 2007 (CST)

WPAuthor

Hi, the {{WPauthor}} needs to go on the article's talk page, not the main article page. Also, if you want the arguments to it to include URL's which contain the '=' character, those need to be handled specially (for arcane technical reasons you don't care about): see the example at Talk:Uighur captives in Guantanamo‎ for how to do that. (And don't forget the '|' between the comment, and your signature!) Thanks! J. Noel Chiappa 13:02, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

OK. Thanks. {{WPAuthor}} goes on the talk page.

I'd noticed the argument wasn't showing up, where I was using it. I assumed it was a bug, and I should keep putting in the argument, even if it weren't showing up. IIUC, I need to escape each {{=}} in the URL, correct? There will another couple of dozen instances where I used {{WPAuthor}}. I'll fix them over the next day or so.

Cheers! George Swan 19:00, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Sure, glad to help.

The problem with the "=" is something I noticed with some of the places you used {{WPAuthor}}, where it was not working properly. It took me a while to track down what the problem was, and how to avoid it!

It's good you continued to put the argument in, because I went around a couple of weeks ago and fixed most of them for you, and you having put the basic info there made that feasible.

Yes, just put that {{ }} around each = and you should be fine.

PS: You can't say {{tl|=}} either! You have to say {{tl|1==}} (as I fixed yours above) - all these problems have the same cause, that "=" is a very special character in arguments to templates. J. Noel Chiappa 20:52, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh, okay. Thanks! George Swan 21:39, 23 March 2008 (CDT)

Guantanamo

Ok, well I did mention "PS you could have worked on it @ Wiki".. You could have been more accurate on your part about how much time you've spent..

I've thoroughly read the difference in revision - yours is too descriptive on how the prisoners are detained/mistreated - i mean, as if they are although they are definitely not supposed to be. "but were still being shackled to the floor." It's weasel wording (in Wikipedia its called that), and Dr. Jensen's edits don't leave anything out except those weasel wordings. (Chunbum Park 07:51, 9 April 2008 (CDT))

I saw you too have been a wikipedia contributor. I don't agree that the following passage uses weasel words.

The Washington Post reported, on August 24 2005, that fifteen Uighurs had been determined not to have been "enemy combatants" after all. The Post reported that detainees who had been determined to have been not enemy combatants were, not only still being incarcerated, but were still being shackled to the floor.

The Washington Post article I referenced said:

In the meantime, the men are still treated as prisoners. Sabin P. Willett, a Boston lawyer who volunteered to take the cases of two Uighurs in March, finally met with them last month, after he and his team went through their own FBI clearances. One of the Uighurs was "chained to the floor" in a "box with no windows," Willett said in an Aug. 1 court hearing. "You're not talking about your client?" asked Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court in Washington. "I'm talking about my client," Willett said. "He was chained to a floor?" Robertson asked again. "He had a leg shackle that was chained to a bolt in the floor," Willett replied.

I suggest that my paraphrase was (1) perfectly reasonable; (2) toned down from the WaPo wording. George Swan 08:25, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

As I see it, the issue with your wording here, George, is not really that it uses "weasel words." You provide a specific source for the claims you make, but they are inaccurate. It is not accurate to say that the Washington Post reported that they were shackled to the floor. The WaPo reported that these claims were made by Sabin Willett, the Uighurs' legal counsel (who is required, by law, to make the strongest case possible for his clients). Particularly when dealing with such a sensitive topic, it is crucial that we pay precise attention to just who is making what claims. Thanks, Brian P. Long 09:23, 9 April 2008 (CDT)

Oh, well, I guess they weren't weasel wording. But still you put too much focus & emphasis there. It's like "X was prisoned. He was chained with hard iron, and was pushed around until he found himself in a dark, cold abyss.." There's no need for that, I don't think. You can just say "he got imprisoned".

Also, I saw you referring to Citizendium's policies etc. as you would in Wikipedia like "see WP:NPOV.. or WP:NCGN says that xx y xx" - in a strict sense. I don't think Citizendium operates as you think like Wikipedia - we follow by the intent of the law, not the letter (strict wording), so there's no point in arguing technicality. (Chunbum Park 10:13, 9 April 2008 (CDT))

The issue is not about "weasel words" [a horrendous WP nonsense] but about proof of claims. It has not been proven in a court of law, or otherwise shown irrefutably, that the defendant was chained to the floor. Therefore, a precise account of the claim should be "was allegedly shackled to the floor", giving the source of the allegation. I realise that this sounds like a weakening of the claim, but it is the only correct way to report it. Otherwise, we are open to manipulation [e.g. crooked lawyers, etc]. I hope this makes sense to you, George. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:26, 16 April 2008 (CDT)

Thanks. I have no problem amending the passage to attribute the assertion of shacking to Sabin Willet.

For what it is worth, it might be worthwhile to bear in mind how consistent his report is with the other information we know about how the captives determined not to have been enemy combatants were treated.

• They were determined not to have been enemy combatants in late 2004 or early 2005, and released in dribs and drabs, over the next two and a half years.
• Ten of them were allowed more pleasant surroundings, in Camp Iguana. Even though these men had been cleared of all suspicion, a clandestine garden they had planted, from seeds from their meals, was destroyed when camp authorities became aware of it.
• The five Uyghurs were transferred to Albania mere days before the US judicial system was going to take over jurisdiction over their cases.
• Other captives who had been determined not to have been enemy combatants, like Sami Al Laithy, remained in solitary confinement.
• The Uyghurs report that had to wear shackles and be hooded during their flight to Albania.

Cheers! George Swan 11:34, 16 April 2008 (CDT)

your bio

Hi, George, I've been looking at your bio page and while it gives a lot of info about your interests, it really doesn't have a word about who you are or what your background is. I could be wrong about this, but I think that the user page bio is supposed to give some info about your good self beyond just your interests.... Hayford Peirce 14:20, 10 April 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I was also looking and wondering a little about your background etc. It would be nice to know a little about you! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:20, 16 April 2008 (CDT)