User talk:Chicaneo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Chicaneo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Good to see you here editing! If you ever need anything, just drop a note on my talkpage. If I don't respond within a few days, just shoot an email my way. PAZ, --Rockero 09:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

helpme

I'm a newbie in need of help & I can't access the bootcamp.

My question is regarding citing sources for corrections. An article about my deceased uncle is based on two primary sources which have incorrect information in them. The family wishes to get the information corrected in Wp and I don't know whether to cite the source of the particular family member providing the information. Also how is it done? Do I submit an entry to the discussion page? Do I add a footnote?

Thanks.

Chicaneo 12:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi and welcome. I would suggest reading through some key Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines before you make substantial changes to an article. In particular, policies of verifiability and neutral point of view will be relevant in this case. Also understand what a reliable source is. Finally coming to the way you cite, you can go through WP:CITE. I know I have given you a lot of links to read but its better to be armed with knowledge before you actually begin to edit articles. Let me know on your or my talk page if you need further help -- Lost^(talk) 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lost for your information.

Chicaneo 12:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome :) -- Lost^(talk) 12:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources, etc.

Hola, Chicaneo, y Feliz Día de los Muertos.

I'm not sure if you got your question answered yet or not, but the best way to determine what sources are acceptable is to read WP:V, which discusses verifiability. Without getting into the gritty details, it says we editors should prefer texts from respected and mainstream sources when they are available. Oral histories, such as those of your family, would not be verifiable unless they were both recorded and accessible to the general public. For example, if the authors of the Arte Público book compiled oral histories in their research and then that research was archived at the library at the University of Texas, then anyone could go in there and verify that the recording says what we, the editors, say that it says. Any information from that source would also have to be cited as having come from that source. If an oral history was heard at a family reunion, it would not be verifiable. Even if you recorded it and had a copy of it in your desk drawer, it would not be a good source because it would not be accessible.

With family members, the other problem that arises is that of conflict of interest. That is, it is important that information on Wikipedia be presented as objectively as possible in order to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. To this end, there is a general guideline that asks that people not write or edit articles about themselves, their family members, their places of businesses, or organizations with which they are involved.

I realize that many articles on WP neither adequately cite their sources nor corform to the COI guideline, and that is one of the problems around here. The best way to avoid this problem is to have a third party (such as myself) make the desired edits, as you did in the first case. In the case where all published information is inaccurate, the last option (failing writing a book yourself) is to post a comment on the article's talkpage stating who you are and the nature of the inaccuracy. You can see how this is a poor last option, but according to our poilicies and guidelines, it is the only one available.

The other problematic aspects of citing sources are those of 1) conflicting sources and 2) deriving all (or most) information from the same (or the same two) sources. When all information is derived from the same source, I usually just list it at the bottom under "references", and this is an accepted practice. When sources conflict, it is important to cite facts and their sources individually. This is usually handled through an in-article discussion of the sources and the conflicts. For example, "According to the Ramos text, Garcia was ..., while the Ignacio Garcia text says that ..."

I hope this info is at least a bit helpful. I suggest you read through some featured articles to see exemplary cases of writing and citing sources. This is one area where I have some catching up to do and improvements to make on articles I have written or to which I have contributed.--Rockero 00:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help. Now I have my question answered.Chicaneo 11:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Proyecto

Thanks for the additions to the list, y bienvenida. I hadn't listed papel picado because, while it is used in the Chicano arts, it is not uniquely Chicano. But I suppose it does belong. For articles that are not written yet, they should go under "tasks". Check out the list--there is plenty to work on.

If you want to start working on the Chicano Art article, I recommend that you do so in a sandbox, which will not be at risk for being deleted, and can be easily transferred to the main article space once it is complete or near completion. You can use this one to begin with, and use the same format for any future sandboxes you may need. Of course hit me up with any questions or problems.--Rockero 00:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - I'll move the items I added over to the task list. Thanks for the links. Glad you mentioned it because I have other artists to add. About folk art ... There are several notable Chicana/o papel picado artists out there so yea, it probably should be included. Also, even though it is not uniquely Chicano, I wanted to add "la calavera" to the list as well because they are so prominant in Dia de los Muertos celebrations and because many contemporary Chicano artists are really into them regardless of their primary medium. There is also already a stub I could add onto. Right now the only calavera that is explained is the sugar skull which is typical of traditional Mexican/Mexican American traditions, and not the more contemporary Chicano art forms and interpretations of the calavera. I know I can get some great pics on the site with permission from the artists so no copyright infringements here. What do you think?

There is also the issue of Calaveras - the satirical poems which are published around Dia de los Muertos. Do you think they could be added to the Chicano list? Or perhaps another list? I couldn't find a stub. Chicaneo 10:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The calavera/calaca article should probably be rewritten to say something like, "The term calavera is applied to numerous forms of Mexican and Mexican-American art concerning death, including sugar skulls, poems, and visual representations of skulls and skeletons." Sugar skull should probably get its own article. As far as pics go, the more and the higher quality, the better the article, so upload away! If you need guidance with copyright tags, just ask me or another editor, although if you ask me, it would be better to do so via email (see how long I took to answer this comment?) PAZ, --Rockero 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I don't want to be a pest and my sense of time is pretty dysfunctional anyway. If I need something in a hurry, I'll use e-mail, otherwise there's no rush. Plus, there's always plenty of other work to do during "down time". That's what I love about WP -- one's never at a loss for something to create, edit, make contributions to, etc. Muchas gracias, Chicaneo 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Thank you for your comment. The portal was needed. --JuanMuslim ^1m 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		For bringing an important civil rights issue to my attention! evrik (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• I feel strongly that when an article gets proposed for deletion, that people with some experience or interest in the subject should be asked to look at it - especially with minority issues. --evrik ^(talk) 21:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't deserve this one.Chicaneo 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elvira Arellano

You're welcome to change your vote: Just cross out your previous one to make the decision clear to the closer. -- Shunpiker 06:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Chicaneo 07:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP

Please stop asking people to "vote" on the AFD. AFDs are not votes. I repeat it AFDs are not votes. -- Drini 23:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have been contacting people. I have only contacted those who have a pre-declared interest in Mexican-American, Latino, or Hispanic issues and who are listed on one or more WikiProjects relating to these issues. You were one of those people. We are all busy, and those who are interested and/or knowledgeable about a particular issue need to be made aware that their attention is needed on a particular issue. This is not spam as you stated on the Elvira Arellano page. It is communication and networking utilizing grass roots efforts techniques. I offer my sincere appologies to to you and all those who feel that these actions are "in poor form". Chicaneo 12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gayle. No need to apologize. I, for one, see no harm in soliciting the advice of other editors, especially when they have some expertise on the topic. But when you go to everyone listed on the project page and ask for their support one way or the other, some editors may frown on that. In fact, I probably should have told you when I saw the message that AfDs are not determined by numbers of votes. Now you know. 8) PAZ, --Rockero 14:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I am receiving a fast education regarding AFD's. Thanks, Chicaneo 17:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Racisim Discussion (moved over from Illegal Immigration Talk Page)

The following dialogue has been moved to my page from the Illegal Immigration Talk Page:

Victor Davis Hanson, neo-conservative historian and author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming" has argued that "undocumented worker" is a euphemism or politically correct term for "illegal alien." He states: "'undocumented worker,' for example, is the politically correct synonym for ‘illegal alien.’ . David Ray, of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) a proponent of immigration reduction, has also criticized the use of the phrase “undocumented immigrant”. He states: “referring to an illegal alien as an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is "like calling a bank robbery an 'unauthorized withdrawal.'"

That was on the actual Wikipedia page, but when removed the racist comment went with it, being totally new to Wikipedia I'm not quite sure what just happened.

Please explain your case for this being racist before removing it. It has been in the article for awhile and I, personally, (as apparently do the majority of editors) see nothing wrong with it. You might have a valid point, but please make it before deleting sourced content.-Psychohistorian 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

While up there it said something a lot different, I'm actually not quite sure why that happened, to tell you the truth. I didn't save exactly what was seen on the page, though.

Hey User:KyleAshcraft don't worry about it. **it happens. Just remember to sign your posts. You can do this by clicking on the four tildes in the box underneath the "Save Page" button. Also, leave a message on the talk page if you believe that justification for your changes will be necessary, for instance if you believe that someone will challenge them. If any major changes are made, it's always polite to initate a discussion on the talk page prior to making the changes so that a general consensus can be reached and any issues can be hashed out before a stupid editing/reverting/editing/reverting/editing war ensues. - Chicaneo 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am told that this is a collaborative project. I am not aware that Psychohistorian has been given free license to speak for a majority of the editors. He certainly does not speak for me. Perhaps he assumes that silence means agreement. Sometimes though, silence means "I'm just too busy to jack with it right now." Establishing and maintaining the ingetrity of all WikiPedia articles is extremely important. So if you notice something that jeopardizes that integrity, by all means, please speak up. Thanks for your contributions. - Chicaneo 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Silence may not mean consensus, but it is often the closests measure we've got. Chicaneo, I'm confused as to why you feel it necessary to post "I am not aware that Psychohistorian has been given free license to speak for a majority of the editors. He certainly does not speak for me." It implies that I did say that I speak for you, which makes no sense given my last post to you.-Psychohistorian 13:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You stated in your post to User:KyleAshcraft "I, personally, (as apparently do the majority of editors) see nothing wrong with it." This implies that you are aware of the opinions of, and speak for, the majority of the editors. Silence can mean many things, and no, it is not the closest measure to consensus that we've got. Open discussion of the issues, and a subsequent agreement or compromise is. - Chicaneo 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, in the United States, "apparently" means "appears to". It doesn't mean "definitely is". In fact, it is common in the United States to use "apparently" to make the distinction between certainty and appearances. What country do you live in, by the way? I'm curious because of the regional difference here which has caused this confusion. -Psychohistorian 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am very familiar with U.S. culture. If you would have bothered to look at my user page you would know where I live. By the way, both of my parents were born in Texas. There is no confusion here. And our disagreement can not be attributed to regional differences, but instead to Marriam-Webster, which defines "apparently" as "manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid". To even justify your actions by declaring that the majority of the editors "apparently" concur with you is simply wrong. If you want to play semantic games do it with someone else. My goal with WikiPedia is to help establish and maintain the integrity of Wiki's articles. If that is not at least one of your goals, then perhaps you should move on to a different forum. Oh, and take your pompous attitude with you. It does not belong on this page. - Chicaneo 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand what the point is that you are trying to make. You are saying that when I use a word which means that something "may or may not be factually valid", that I am, in fact, claiming that something is a fact? -Psychohistorian 11:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this dialogue over to my user talk page. This discussion is taking up space and is not relevant to the article. If you care to continue or follow the discusson you may do so at my talk page. Psychohistorian, I will answer your question there shortly. Chicaneo 13:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian, the word means: "manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid". Do not truncate the definition and then try to play a semantic game with the alterted version. As I stated earlier, if you want to play semantic games do it with someone else. I have already made my point and I will not make it again. Please re-read my last post to you from November 19 where my point is clearly stated. If you don't get it then that's too frickin' bad. Chicaneo|Chicaneo 14:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are whinning about. I used a word in compliance with its definition and you are, apparently, upset that the word doesn't mean what you think it means. That, as far as I'm concerned, is -your- problem and not worth my time. If you want to be an adult, admit you were in the wrong, and drop the issue, go ahead. If you want to just ignore your actions and hope it all quietly goes away, go ahead. If you want to continue whinning about me on your talk page, go ahead. I don't care.-Psychohistorian 15:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I brought this discussion here is because it does not belong on the illegal immigration talk page and to give any interested party a proper location in which to continue and/or follow this discussion; not to finger point, not to engage in a blame game with you, not in hopes that it all quietly goes away, not to accuse or listen to accusations of who is more emotionally mature, and most definately not to whine about you on my talk page. Chicaneo 17:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You said, "The reason I brought this discussion here is..not to finger point, not to engage in a blame game with you..not to accuse". I think that's pretty clear. After all, when you wrote, "your pompous attitude" in the article's talk page, you made it very clear that you have no problem finger pointing, blaming, and/or accusing in the article talk page, so avoiding doing so couldn't have been your reason to bring it here.-Psychohistorian 17:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

When I wrote "your pompous attitude" I was commenting on a personal observation that I made from reading previously posted comments which you have made to me, specifically, on 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC) and to others on the illegal immigration talk page. I have no problem sticking by my statement, because based on your previous comments, yes, you do have a pompous attitude. Also, it's OK with me if you question and/or do not trust my stated motivations for moving this discussion here to my own talk page. Chicaneo 18:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The following is what I wrote that you claim demonstrates "a pompous attitude", "Sorry, in the United States, "apparently" means "appears to". It doesn't mean "definitely is". In fact, it is common in the United States to use "apparently" to make the distinction between certainty and appearances. What country do you live in, by the way? I'm curious because of the regional difference here which has caused this confusion. -Psychohistorian 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)". That's not pompous. So far, you've claimed that you didn't want to attack, blame, or accuse, and then when I pointed out that you already did so, you try to justify it by referencing a comment I made that doesn't support your attack. This is going exactly the direction I expected it to. I'm done. You can post the last word. I won't be reading it.-Psychohistorian 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Dr. Hector's article

Hi Gayle. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was up in San Pancho with my pareja's family for the Día de Acción de Desgracia. If you look at edits our colleague made to the article, you'll see that he did not delete any information, but simply broke up the large block of text into smaller paragraphs. Hope you had a good Thankstaking,--Rockero 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah. <:) (wearing a dunce cap) I didn't notice that at first.

Chicaneo 05:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced comments

Please review WP:Reliable Sources which states

, "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{Fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. You can also make unsourced sentences invisible in the article by adding after it, until reliable sources have been provided. Leave a note on the talk page or edit summary explaining what you have done. [1]

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [2][3]

In the future please check for the existence of {{Fact}} tags when restoring unsourced content. Thanks.-Psychohistorian 19:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Please do not delete whole paragraphs before allowing for discussion on the talk page."

When content is marked with a {{Fact}} tag, an opportunity to discuss that fact becomes identified. The fact that you did not avail yourself of that opportunity is really not my problem. Deleting unsourced content should be done aggressively. As a courtesy, a {{tl|Fact} tag left in place for a week is commonly done. This has been done. Wikipedia is a shared community project. You are expected to abide by its policies. WP:Reliable Sources is one of the core policies of Wikipedia and I intend to continue operating as it expects.-Psychohistorian 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's page. Chicaneo 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletions

Some people don't think it's important. Go vote to save it. --evrik ^(talk) 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

{{hellpme}}

A fellow user keeps deleting whole paragraphs on a few articles on my watchlist. He claims that the the article has been "unsourced for -well- over a week and a week is the standard time to allow content with the fact tag to remain in the article)". I have informed him that if the fact tag is up for a while then he should put the issue up for discussion and to please observe Wikietiquete because someone at sometime thought their contrib was important & perhaps didn't know how to reference. I can't seem to find any guidance on this issue on the help pages. I don't want to get into a revert war. Any suggestions? Chicaneo 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."" - From Verification Policy

Sorry, that dosn't seem to be the awnser you were looking for. :( ---J.S ^(T/C) 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was the answer I was looking for. I -did- say I did not want to enter into a revert war, didn't I?. Thanks for your time. Chicaneo 20:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, Chicaneo, I respect you. Of all the people working against correcting poverty (that is, all the people who are pro-illegal alien) who are working on this article, I've found you to be, by far, the most reasonable. But you made a groundless accusation against me and I pointed out that it was groundless. You then complained about the fact that you never took advantage of an opportunity to discuss the issue. Finally, you accuse me of being rude? That's out of line.-Psychohistorian 12:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page Chicaneo 14:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You "don't engage in groupthink", but automatically jump to assuming that I consider you pro-illegal alien because your userid is Chicaneo? That's an example of you groupthinking right there. This issue isn't about labels and your userid has absolutely nothing to do with it. Do you assume that anyone who opposses your pro-poverty stance points it out because of your userid? I'm well aware that there are a large number of Hispanic legal immigrants in the United States who are for constructive solutions to poverty in Mexico and the United States (which includes being for national sovereignty and against amnesty for illegal aliens).-Psychohistorian 14:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. Chicaneo 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are biased as well as your comments regarding them. They are biased towards being pro-illegal alien. A pro-illegal alien stance is pro-poverty. Inevitably, promoting illegal immigration between Mexico and the United States results in continued exploitation both in Mexico and the United States. If your edits demonstrated a neutral stance, this wouldn't need to be brought up. I will grant you that you are far more neutral than Jossi or Will Breback. But I don't see you as neutral.-Psychohistorian 17:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. Chicaneo 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If the fact that a pro-illegal alien stance is pro-poverty is news to you, it seems pretty obvious that you haven't studied the subject. The primary barrier to the Mexican poor is the corruption in the government. Dialectical materialism and circumscription theory are subjects I'd like you to read up on regarding that and how to fix it (pay particular attention to how a weak border between the US and Mexico would affect the circumscription). Regarding the US poor, I direct you to the work of George Borjas among others. You question whether I'm prejudiced. Prejudiced against who, the exploiters of the poor in Mexico and the US? If so, yes I am.-Psychohistorian 12:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. Chicaneo 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"By prejudice I meant a bias against members of the group which you refer to as "illegal aliens". Your insistance that everyone else adopt this term as well seems, to me, extreme and, well....., prejudiced. I am of the belief that this label is POV. "

First, as to whether "illegal alien" is POV. All labels are, to some extent, POV. I'm told by a linguist friend of mine that all words are POV, though I'm not sure that I agree with that, it is something worth considering. I am not biased against illegal aliens. You seem to be confusing my recognition of the fact that illegal immigration in this case is ultimately destructive (that it perpetuates the problem) with a dislike of the people who do it. I'm not sure why you can't make that distinction, but it suggests that you are too emotionally involved in the issue.-Psychohistorian 12:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. Chicaneo 17:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You used an awful lot of big words, but when you boil it all down, what you end up with is two basic claims. One, you are claiming that we should be politically correct - like calling a child molester a "sexually liberated individual". That's demeaning to the sexually liberated and to children. Likewise, calling illegal aliens "immigrants" is demeaning to immigrants and the people who embrace/support/value immigrants. Immigrants are people who enter the country with the intent to follow the laws of the land and embrace the local culture (notice I said "embrace", not "replace their own" - we are talking about the US here - the great stew pot). The definitions in use by the US government reflect that. Two, as for appeals to authority, if we are going to use a common term, we must appeal to something and I'd much rather appeal to an authority/expert than to something/someone who is not an authority/expert, but merely an activist. Your argument there is like protesting an appeal to authority when someone points out that modern medicine does not consider homosexuality to be disfunctional. Propaganda involves the blurring of the line between two distinct categories. That's what you are trying to do by attempting to confuse immigrants and illegal aliens. You're on very weak ground here.-Psychohistorian 18:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. 70.120.70.30 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC) aka Chicaneo 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Child molesters have a specific label that is defined and agreed upon by experts and categorized in the DSM-IV as a mental disorder."

"Immigrant" and "illegal alien" are official categories with well defined meaning used by the US government. As for talking about what the terms mean outside of the US government, you are free to cite experts. The fact that you haven't done so tells us more than I think you've intended.

"because you do not recognize the waves of people who enter other countries illegally as migration and immigration"

We aren't talking about immigrating to other countries. Look at the title of the article in dispute. It specifically restricts itself to the United States.

"nor do you fully understand the intentions of these people"

Unless they were brought into the US against their will and forced to remain in the US against their will, I know that their intentions include violating US law.

"I'd like you to read Guests and Aliens by Saskia Sassen"

This text focuses on immigration. I have no problem with immigration and think, like chemotherapy, it can be a positive thing. However, it looks like an interesting book and I will try to get it into my reading list (I work in IT full time and am going to grad school part time so, as you can imagine, my reading list is pretty full).

"your inability to make the connection between the harm which can be done to our society"

I'm well aware of the harm - a move towards further global economic disparity and hardening of the global economic caste system brought about as a result of illegal immigration. The thing is, I don't think that you are aware of that harm.

"you are unfamiliar with social construction of reality theory"

This is a good opportunity to ask - what is your academic orientation? I know you aren't trained in anthropology, sociology, political science, history, or economics (as anyone with a decent education at, at least, the junior level of college in these fields would be more than up to speed on dialectical material and circumscription theory - these are really basic things and I was hoping to jump quickly into world systems theory rather than cover remedial ground). My background is anthropology (specifically urban applied anthropology and computational anthropology) and systems architecture (which is why I'm just going to ignore your claim that I'm unfamiliar with the idea of the social construction of reality (except to point out that its not a theory, but a model in which a number of different researchers (Geertz, Harroway, Stewart, White, etc.) have done work - though I won't harp on it as a number of people don't seem to know the difference between a model and a theory). If I, at least, understood your academic orientation I feel it would help me in working towards building common ground between us.-Psychohistorian 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response on Psychohistorian's talk page. Chicaneo 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Bonked (Perhaps even bonkers!)

Later, Chicaneo 15:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on this issue?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PsychohistorianLukas19 18:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Chicaneo, I make a very clear distinction between being educated and being intelligent. Like yourself, some of the most intelligent people I've known have not had degrees. On the other hand, being educated on a subject means that a person is familiar with various models, various perspectives, etc. For example, a person can be intelligent and not educated in calculas. Knowing whether they are educated in calculas lets me know, when discussing an architectural subject that draws on calculas, how deeply we need to dig into the remedial content. Being intelligent but not being educated on a subject has no value. Being educated on a subject but not being intelligent (which I take as "not thinking for one's self in a critical and honest manner") has no value. And, unless a person is living in a third world country or is suffering severe mental problems, there is no reason why he/she can't be educated - none. My mom went to school despite being blind and deaf. I went to school and had to give blood to have food to eat to support myself (and slept in winter clothes (because I couldn't afford heat) on a hide-a-bed mattress pulled out of a neighbor's trash at the time). Even if a person doesn't go to class, they can still read books (by which I mean books of merit, not some pop psych book written by Dr. Phil). In fact, one of those people I mentioned earlier as being one of the most intelligent people I've known who didn't have a degree had a learning disability which made the classroom a bad fit for him, but he read all the right books on his own. Its why I try to point people to books on a given subject so they can read them. Education is not the same thing as a degree. Do not mistake the fact that I don't support illegal aliens as evidence that I don't see their side or have monocular vision. I could just as easily say that anyone who is pro-illegal immigration cannot see the side of the American and Mexican poor. The truth is that whether a person can see the other side (whichever side that is) is revealed more by how well they can support their position, not by what that position is.

"Also, not everything can be blamed on "illegial aliens". "

I never said that everything could. You mentioned some of the other problems. There are others (such as the 14th amendment which, in my opinion, is at the root of the way-too-big federal government), but I'm going to assume that we are both familiar with these other problems. Again, the artice in question discusses illegal immigration. We can discuss the 'other' problems elsewhere.

"Perhaps you are making one point without acknowledging the existance of the flip side because you believe that I am oriented a certain way. (I'm not sure that made sense. Oh well.)"

Yes, that makes sense and that is part of it. Until very recently, the editors working on that article have been overwhelmingly pro-illegal immigration. That has played a factor in the hard stance towards the other direction that I have taken. BUT, the arguments that I have used are legitimate, just selective (because the editors on the other side have also been selective). There is one thing that has had nothing to do with this, however. That is that I will try to call something what it is. You don't like official web sites, but that means nothing. Official web sites have official content (or, at least, they should). Links to the term "illegal alien" being used by the governmnt are in the article.

"Do you want to talk about terms used outside the US and then not talk about other countries?"

In the article in question, terms used outside the US are irrelevant. When discussion is restricted to illegal aliens in the US, we should restrict ourselves to the US.

"Breaking the emmigration laws of their own countries, and the immigration laws of ours is just one peice of a very large puzzle"

You're dancing around the issue, I think. The issue is whether they intended to break US law. If I break into a pharmacy to get much needed medicine and I do so knowing what I'm doing and being under my own control, then I've intentionally broken the law. I do not want to dress up a pig and call it a girl scout.

"Personally, it would help me to know that we have the same knowledge base, and are up to speed on the same basic things. I'm sure this is irritating to you, but it is essential to me for further discussion."

One way to get up to speed is to read the material. There are excellent books (and web content, incidentally (which is free and easily available)) on these subjects.

Incidentally, thank you for the words you wrote on the RfC. There were some things I liked to read and some things I didn't (but needed to). You pointed out a couple of things about me that I was unaware of and found enlightening. There were some things you wrote that I disagreed with, but I know you wrote honestly and professionally. There are a couple of things I would like to comment on, however. First, if you look around at various user pages, you'll find that there are users from all over the world. You came into an article I was working on and, it seemed, didn't understand a common turn of phrase used in the United States. You have a non-English user name. Given that cross-cultural understanding is an interest of mine (I did study Anthropology for four years in school, after all), I still think asking what country you were from was a legitimate question. I am sorry if it came acorss as an attack. Second, perhaps this is my own limitation, but I cannot comprehend how someone could have a degree in Sociology and not know about the work of Karl Marx (specifically dialectical materialism). To my mind, its about as bad as someone with a degree in Soc not knowing Durkheim or Popper. This isn't meant as an attack, but I'm trying to wrap my brain around that. Third, while you point out that I was rude to you in saying that you were "whinning", to be fair, it was only after you claimed I had a "pompous attitude". When discussing that incident, I believe that it would have been more fair to point that I was rude to you then in reply to you being rude to me. Again, thank you for acting professionally on this issue. We might disagree, but as I said elsewhere, I've come to respect you.-Psychohistorian 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC) -Psychohistorian 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"My experience in working for and with large bureaucracies is that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing."

If we are still discussing everything within the context of Wikipedia, then your point is original research and irrelevant. It has no bearing on what content should be in the Wikipedia article. Further, even if true, to use it as a determinant in what goes into the Wikipedia article would set a bad precedent for the content in the article (a precedent which says its okay for the opinions of editors to decide what content belongs in the article). If, on the other hand, we are discussing things without intending for it to have any bearing on Wikipedia, then I'll admit that you have a point. I, too, have worked for the government - since 1998 - and have had the same experience.

"is it appropriate to call the person who stole the medicine a thief, a hero, a looter, or a finder" Don't know. Don't care. All those words are attempts to reframe the discussion to be built on emotion rather than reason. We weren't discussing whether such a person is a theif, a hero, a looter, or a finder. We were discussing whether they were intentionally breaking the law.

"Whether we like it or not, we must admit first and foremost that illegal immigrants are victims." No, we must admit that -some- illegal immigrants are victims - just like some percentage of any other group are victims. When discusing social dynamics on the macroscale, we must be careful not to stereotype. The major dispute between you and I regards our different views as to how to get them to stop being victims. I believe that illegal immigration to the US simply perpetuates the victimization. You do not.

"Remember that labels encite emotions in people." Exactly why I do not want to see these people be called "immigrants". It clouds the issues. They are "aliens".

"It is because I have first hand experience as to how the use of negative terms can become general ideals and how they can be used as weapons against the non-thinking masses to further the agendas of non-thinking people in power"

Interesting. My experience was similar, but in addition, I grew up in a far-right religious fanatic cult (which I balanced with studying Anthropology under far-left professors in college (no, they weren't all far-left)). So, what I learned is that, just as the use of negative terms to describe neutral things creates problems, the use of positive terms to describe neutral things (or even, as was my experience, downright evil things) creates problems as well. Demogogues of all types try to control the language becuase it blinds people. "Prettying up the language" is an early sign that someone is trying to get others to base their decision on emotion rather than reason. Its up to us to think without all the emotional baggage and to call a thing what it is. So, my stance is to call a rose "a rose" and fertilizer "fertilizer".-Psychohistorian 16:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"However I'll also point out that that WP also puts less bearing on internet sites (I'm not referring to pulling valid materials off the net) than on those of more academic orientation."

I'm not clear on what your point is here. Are you arguing that a government site is less of a reliable source than some non-government site? That's painting with too broad a brush. What we can do is put out an RfC to see if the consensus agrees that a government site is a reliable source.

"That is true, but isn't the use of the word "alien" also built on emotion? This brings to mind the words of your linguist friend regarding POV."

All words have an emotional content. Still, we can't get away from using words to communicate and whether or not words have emotional content is seperate from saying that words have been chosen for their emotional content.

" Yes, you are correct, but I also believe that characterizing all illegal immigrants as "aliens" is also stereotyping in the other direction because it does not recognize that "some" of them -are- victims."

"Victim" and "alien" are not mutually exclusive terms.

"Which will recognize the illegality of what they are doing but also recognizes that they are immigrants?"

I know you were just joking here, but I feel the need to reiterate anyway, so bear with me. They are not immigrants.

"I'll lay it all out on the table right now: I am anti illegal immigration."

Thanks. You forgot about the creation, maintaining, and further bullwarking of a caste system as a result of illegal immigration - such a caste system only making it easier to victimize both the people immigrating to this country as well as the poor already in this country.

"what we call them publically also clouds the ability for non-thinkers to think and thus they remain ignorant"

I think its hubris to push for a terminology which mollifies people we don't agree with. I do not accept that I and those like me are better than others (that we are the only ones who can transcend labels and think about issues).

"But we must also help others to think without their own emotional baggage and sometimes that means that in order to deliver the facts we must first speak in terms people can understand and accept. "

There is a saying that I've taken to heart. It is "beware those who seek to withhold information from you, for in their hearts they think themselves your masters." Prettying up language - dressing up a pig and calling it a girl scout - is just a way to withhold information from people. If I'm able to think past the emotional baggage, then others are as well. I've seen, first hand, what happens when people take the attitude that they need to spoon feed others (through giving them no more information than they think they can handle). Its ultimately destructive.-Psychohistorian 02:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC) 18:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Did you mean inclusive? If not then please expand, I'm not getting it."

I meant exclusive. There is nothing which prevents an illegal alien from also being a victim.

"The title of the article we are editing is "illegal immigration.." not "illegal aliens..". Please tell me why you think they are -not- immigrants"

Because, in order to be an immigrant, they have to follow immigration law. That's a point which is supported by every reliable source in the definition section in the article. None of those sources use the term "illegal immigrant". Several of those sources say that in order to be an immigrant, they have to have a green card. That position is well supported in the article. There is no verb for "illegal alien" other than "illegal immigration", if there were, we'd be using it.

"Alright then, I recognize that the perpetuation of illegal immigration results in..blah"

I really wish you'd give this fact more respect and more awareness, considering how catastrophic a caste system would be.

"I am trying to get them to a point where they will stop and listen"

By changing the message? What then will they be listening to?

Considering discussing my personal life over wikipedia, no - and even if I was ever inclined, I wouldn't do it during the middle of a witch-hunt.-Psychohistorian 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC) -Psychohistorian 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy your passion. I like to be able to be in a discussion with someone who isn't afraid to let it all out and speak frankly and honestly, yet not accusatory. So, don't apologize for that, please. As for sexism being a caste system, I don't agree. I see the issues you point out, but a caste system implies that one group is socially priviledged compared to the other group. Evidence doesn't bear that out in this case. There are many situations in which women are priviledged compared to men (yes, the opposite is also true, but everyone is aware of that - I want to focus towards what people seem to be not so aware about.)

Psychology The high school dropout rate for boys is much higher than that for girls and, in fact, the situation has gotten so bad that some states have finally taken up affirmative action for males to get into higher education, but many have not. The New York Times has reported that about one-third of the nation's homeless are veterans and, in New York City, the proportion of homeless men to women is ten to one. Incarceration is much higher among males. Rape of women is considered a horrible thing not worthy of joking about. Male prison rape is regularly lampooned.

Physical Health Look at public health notices. A massive push for breast cancer education has existed in this country for decades, but there is no such massive push for prostate cancer. Breast cancer receives $4808.40 per woman dying of it. Prostate cancer gets $1352.83 per man dying of it. That's three and a half times more funding going to breast cancer. "By just about any measure, men's health is abysmal. American men have an average life expectancy of 75.2 years, and even less - 69.8 years - for black men, compared with 80.4 years for women overall." (according to the San Diego Union-Tribune) and it goes on to say that men die of just about every one of the leading causes of death at younger ages than women, from lung cancer to influenza and pneumonia, chronic liver disease, diabetes and AIDS. You've heard of female genital mutilation - practically everone in the United States has - how societies will pressure women to go through horrible procedures which result in life long injury to the sexual organs. But noone ever seems to speak of the practice in third world countries of forcing a young man to have his penis filleted open and pinned with needles back together such that he has to carry a tube to put around his dick so that he can piss. I've seen pictures of this. You don't want to.

Law and Government Many states have organizations for the treatment and support of womens' issues (such as the California Commission on the Status of Women), but no such state run organization for men exists as far as I know. In addition, many state funded schools offer womens' studies classes and programs. There are no such Mens' studies classes and programs that I know of. These womens' studies classes and programs have done a valuable job of shinning light on the dark corners of hell that some women go through, while the plight of men is generally kept unseen. Women cannot be drafted.

Economics Men have to pay higher insurance premiums. Many medical conditions (such as obesity) are commonly not factored into the cost of insurance, but sex is. Society slants economics so that men are most often the primary breadwinner. That forces them out of the house and away from their kids which leads them, in turn, to often losing primary custody in the case of divorce and, in many cases, being forced by the legal system to becoming nothing more than wallets. People just seem to want to believe that, if a divorce happens, it is the man's fault and that men don't want the responsibility of taking care of kids. According to the United States Census Bureau, female householders have a net worth 141% that of male householders.

When I mentioned "caste system", I was not talking about some dickweed claiming that women are the lesser vessel. I was talking about institutionalized, objectively verifiable, systemic discrimination. It exists among women just as surely as it exists among men (for example, the glass ceiling - while vastely overblown - does exist), but, seriously, being called "the lesser vessel" by some dickweed isn't an example of it. Again, let's say what we mean and mean what we say.-Psychohistorian 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"So please don't talk to me about there -not- being a class of socially privileged. (another eyeroll) I beg to differ. Also, I have seen, first hand, the class of underprivileged here, in California, in Oklahoma, and in the DC area. I have witnessed generational poverty."

You are using the term "class" interchangeably with "caste" and discussing sexism as an example. We aren't communicating. See below.

"Historically, women's health and life expectancy has always been higher accross all ethnicities. No big deal."

Unless one starts to ask "why". It used to be claimed that they were genetically predisposed to living shorter lives, but as work place environments for jobs that are typically male have improved and men have started living longer as a consequence, it looks like its the work envrironment and diminished access to health care that is the culprit. I don't know very many women who work as roofers or in a steel mill or as tobaccco pickers or in many other traditionally male occupations where the injury and mortality rate has historically (and remains) so high.

And you cannot, in one paragraph, dismiss genetic mutilation as being "ancient history" and, in the next paragraph, talk about the ancient history of women without also having it dismissed. You also have tried to compare the lives of upper class men with lower class women in your ancient history section. Besides, why do you think, in our society, FGM has gotten so much more attention than MGM (and I wasn't discussing just circumcision, I was discussing something far more heinous than that).

"But I'd guess it's unofficially 50/50."

Anecdotes are poor evidence - not to say that your anecdotes are wrong, I've got two brothers with the same experience, but anecdotes don't prove anything on the macroscale.

Regarding terminology, I am using the term "caste system" in a very specific way. It means a system of economic disparity, like a class system, but one with no social mobility. That's how its used in Anthropology and I tend to use social terms the way they were taught to me in school. I realize, in hindsight, you weren't an Anthropology major, but a Sociology major and might not have used the term in the same way. Sorry for the confusion.

yes, we were discussing illegal immigration and how encouraging it will lead to a caste system which will lead to the poor being further exploited. Let me see if I can expound on that. The poor have basically one thing to offer in the market place and that's their labor. On the other hand, the more plentiful something is, the cheaper it is (basic Economics 101). So, the more poor there are, the cheaper their labor is to purchase. The more poor we allow into this country (the United States), the less business owners have to pay them (as I mentioned, George Borjas of Harvard University is one person who has talked about this and done research which supports it). The less discretionary income the poor have, the less they have to invest (such investments being the only way that they can climb out of poverty). Make their labor cheap enough and they have no discretionary income which means that they can't make investments which means that they can't climb out of poverty (and, in that case, we have a caste system). Now, let's turn to dialectical materialism. Marxist theory states basically (I can't squeeze all of Marxist theory into a paragraph) that history is composed of two diametrical forces working in opposition. Those that "have" (the thesis) and those that "have not" (the antithesis). Take any group of people and it will happen over time due to chance or skill, that some will end up continually getting more and others will end up continually getting less (if you can make sound investments, they can generate wealth which you can reinvest to generate more wealth, etc. etc.). When the economic gulf between these two becomes sufficiently wide, the antithesis will revolt, there will be a struggle, the end result of which is that the thesis and the antithesis will combine and form a new thesis (what is called "the synthesis"). Of course, a new antithesis will arise and a new struggle will occur. However, if you look at history what you see is that a group can become too large, too disperse, to organize into an antithesis (as I remember, there's a great article on this in a book called "Race" in relation to the Civil Rights movement, I'll see if I can find a link to it). If an antithesis can't organize, it can't create an effective struggle and it basically dooms itself to an ever increasing amount of oppression. So, a global labor movement is doomed to failure. The bourgeosie in both Mexico and the United States are trying to expand their respective antithesis (what's the plural for that?) to such an extent that it can't organize and, so, cannot lodge an effective struggle against the thesis. What I've observed often happens in such a case is that the proletariat, instead of forming an effective antithesis, turns on itself. (A perfect example is how poor minorities and poor whites fight each other over affirmative action, both want it, but aa actually benefits neither - its just smoke and mirrors to keep the poor fighting amongst themselves while the thesis keeps everything for itself).

I want to hit on circumscription theory, but I'd rather get the above point established before moving on.-Psychohistorian 01:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While I tried to let this go so that we could focus on illegal immigration, I found I just had to speak up on it. You said that we are in a male-oriented society. No, we are not. There are two major reasons why we aren't. One, the difference between a man and a woman when they go out on a date is that a man never knoows if he'll get lucky, a woman always does. Women have a near monopoly on that point. That means that men must go the distance to "earn" sex. This is a very important part of why men don't talk about MGM. We know that women would much rather have sex with Colin Farrell then Woody Allen (there are exceptions, but they are exceptions). Research has supported this. Now, women want men who are more in touch with their feelings to be husbands (and will likely marry such men), but for a one night stand, they prefer men who are tough rebels, not touchy feely. So, the message that men are told by women is that their sexual prowess is measured by being tough rebels. That's actually very unhealthy for men, psychologically, (I believe single men have a higher suicide rate and a higher propensity towards being involved in homicide/manslaughter, but I don't have those statistics on hand). The point is, women control the sexual arena. Second, women control the financial arena. While men usually are the breadwinners, it is women who make the majority of purchase decisions. Everthing is shifted towards making a profit (since we live in a capitalist economy) and that means its shifted towards attracting customers. Since women tend to make the majority of purchase decisions, everything is shifted towards women. (there are some few areas where men still make the majority of purchase decisions - such as power tools, but there aren't many such areas). Let me ask you a queston. I assume you have kids. How many kids' shows can you name which have a male and a female and the male is smarter than the female (I can think of one, Dexter's Laboratory). How many kids' shows can you name which are the other way around? (Scooby Doo, Monster House, Ben 10, Harry Potter, the list goes on). The same thing is true of sitcoms. This is what we're indoctrinating the next generaton with. Is it any wonder that boys drop out of school at a higher rate than girls, considering what we're telling them?-Psychohistorian 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Carneiro argued that the force driving the development of complexity in a society is economic circumscription. He starts with the premise that all societies need resources to support themselves. He then assumes that a society becomes circumscribed (surrounded) by some collection of forces (such as nearby societies with stronger militaries who can lay a stronger claim on those resources). So, a society which needs more resources can't get them. His circumscription theory states that the society, unable to get or create more resources, turns instead to finding more efficient ways of using the resources it already has. He specifically speaks about how this lead to the creation of agriculture (the loss of space for foraging led to horticulture, the loss of space for horticulture led to agriculture). Each time the limiting resource (that is, land) was cut, the other resources which had been used (such as manpower) were also cut (after all, you can't have too many farmers on the same acre - they'll trample all over the crops). This resulted in freeing a lot of manpower which could be used elsewhere. This extra manpower developed into specialty labor and with specialty labor, complex societies arose. So, what does this have to do with the plight of the Mexican poor? Its all in the way it perpetuates the economic conditions which have made these people oppressed. It only takes a minute to realize that, since there are more people left behind than who become illegal aliens, if supporting illegal immigration harms those who are left behind, supporting illegal immigration is not humane. That being the case, it follows that a truly humane treatment of this situation requires treating it at its source, not at the level of illegal immigration and, in fact, stopping illegal immigration, if it leads to improving the chances of improving the people left behind, may seem cold and heartless, but is actually a courageous act of compassion (okay, that came off way over the top, but I think you know what I'm getting at). What are the two things needed to fix the root of the problem? Leadership and force. Old fashioned hedonistic calculas says that Mexican leadership is not going to change anything in the way it treats these people unless it has to. Leadership requires a network of specialist laborers whose specialty is leadership. Force requires economic strength - which, in turn, requires the development of specialist laborers. How do we get these specialsts laborers? According to circumscription theory, we circumscribe the society. Instead, what surrounding societies have chosen to do is pluck like vultures at the dying corpse of these groups of people because, hey, its practically a free lunch for the upper classes. I could almost learn to deal with this - after all, noone said that the world was a nice place - but the hypocrisy in claiming that its done for humane reasons just really sets me off.-Psychohistorian 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a man's world?

"These arguments do not however, provide proof that the US is -not- a male-oriented society but are simply examples of male issues in a male-oriented society."

Well, no. I really can't provide proof unless you tell me what you would consider as proof, but the larger question is "do I need to provide proof that it is not a male-oriented world or do you need to provide proof that it is?" Which of us is making the positive asserton here? The point that I have been trying to make here is that it is neither a male-oriented world nor a female-oriented world, but that gender roles and power distribution just don't break down that easily. Anyway, I hope you have a terrific Christmas (or Kwanzaa or Hanukah or Yule or whatever) and I look forward to continuing discussion with you later. *grin* Regarding animal rights, I find it appalling that noone ever speaks about the rights of plants. At least animals can run away! So, I make it a point not to eat vegetables and, instead, shift my diet as much towards meat as possible.-Psychohistorian 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Alvira Arellano article

Hi, I am asking you, Will and Rockero to take a look at the aforementioned section on the talk page and offer your opinions. I think there is nothing violating NPOV in my additions. Basically, it is a recitation of the facts as stipulated to by Ms. Arellano in the legal brief filed on behalf of her son. If I'm wrong, fine, but if not, I think the tag needs to come off the article. --LordPathogen 22:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind. Evrik has just done as he wants (again) and unilaterally reverted the article back to May 9th. And no one who has the power lifts a finger to stop him. --LordPathogen 13:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LP, I'll post my answer on your talk page.Chicaneo 08:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, don't see it. --LordPathogen 13:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, just saw it. I do take it personally because he specifically mentions me as the reason the article is not POV. And, as I posted in the neutrality section, according to wikipedia guidelines he has to make a case listing specific examples of why it vioaltes NPOV, not just his feeling. He has done that at all. But, like I said above, it does not matter now. He reverted all my changes going back to the May9th version of the article. He is out of control. --LordPathogen 13:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LP, I'll post my answer again on your talk page.Chicaneo 14:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Chicaneo. I'm not trying to be contentious and frankly would much prefer doing other things but at the same time I think the intellectual honesty of the article is being compromised by Evrik and Ramsey2006 and that is not good for Wikipedia. I would like to ask, however, if you would be willing to withdraw your support for reverting the article back an entire month in lieue of the fact I have now submitted the disputes Evrik, Ramsey2006 and myself have over it for Mediation? Again, thanks. --LordPathogen 15:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer on your page. Chicaneo 16:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your position but I only asked if you would be willing to withdraw your support for reverting the article back an entire month, not withdraw from participating at all. There are several problems with reverting the article such as basically starting the edit war all over again. More importantly, however, Evrik did not point to specific cases of POV as he is required to do when inserting the NPOV dispute tag. In short he did not make his case in spite of my repeated attempts to ask him to do so. "Prima facie" does not equal "specific" as the wiki guideline requires and I quoted on the talk page. I had hoped that after the comments by Admin Tony the Marine stating the "improvements" to the article were "well-written" as well as "well-sourced" you might have a change of heart. I see now unfortunately that has not happened. In any case, there is no point in us debtaing this over the talk pages. :-) Let's see what happenes with the formal request for mediation. Thanks --LordPathogen 17:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer on your page. Chicaneo 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of Pocket

I'll be out of pocket from Friday, June 15, 2007 through Sunday, June 17, 2007. Will return to normal editing on Monday the 18th. Chicaneo 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration - Elvira Arellano

You are hereby advised that a formal request for Arbitration has been initiated by me regarding the article on Elvira Arellano. LordPathogen 17:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1