User talk:Calbaer

Articles for deletion

Hey Calbaer, thanks for your thoughtful comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allah_Is_in_the_House. Seing that this was unquestionalbly a notable blog, and the delete vote was being linked to by some of the bloggers mentioned, I think you helped Wikipedia avoid bad press (and, experience suggests, possibly preempted a flow of sockpuppet delete votes). ProhibitOnions 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much; the linkage and support was surprising and gratifying. Do you know which blogs (aside from Malkin) linked to it? Calbaer 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not offhand (the link has since disappeared from MM's site) but if I find it I'll let you know. Cheers, ProhibitOnions 23:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Glad to see you've created a user page. I've enjoyed reading your own blog. ProhibitOnions 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calbaer, I am new to Wikipedia and appologize for any inappropriate entries. Thank you for taking the time to review my submitted article. Based on your feedback, I am neither spammer nor crank, I have edited hopefully all to which you object. Further discussion for improvements of the netricity article welcomed. Jthomp4338 19:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diaconis

His Erdos number is 1 as follows from this publication:

Diaconis, Persi; Erdös, Paul On the distribution of the greatest common divisor. A festschrift for Herman Rubin, 56--61, IMS Lecture Notes Monogr. Ser., 45, Inst. Math. Statist., Beachwood, OH, 2004

Please revert your correction. Mhym 19:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - Diaconis' web page doesn't list such a paper and I let the question of what this alleged paper was stand on talk:Erdős-Bacon number for two weeks before deciding to make my "correction." Looking it up now, it was originally a 1977 Stanford technical report and it was posthumously part of a book of lectures. Thus it is debatable whether Diaconis "published with Erdős." However, by the definition given on Erdős number, that it merely be a mathematical paper with common authors, in this case a technical report, it qualifies. Calbaer 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mhym 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information theory intorduction edits

C, You left a comment on my talk page, and I have replied at Info theory. My changes were not motivated by any technical matter, but by clear writing concerns, and so, intellibility to the Average Reader -- the most difficult part of the audience for editors of technical articles. You may not tht I made not one change in a heavily mathematical section, nor to a technical point.

Is there a significance that an admin made changes not long after mine? As I understand it, being an admin (though not so actively admining one), there isn't any.

Thoughts? ww 01:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the changes were made by Chancemill because this user found the intro incomplete, e.g., no mention of lossless compression or entropy. Please see the talk section for my suggested more-thorough-yet-still-short intro paragraph. I didn't mean to imply that the admin status meant the user's rewrite was better; if I thought that, I wouldn't have reverted said rewrite. Calbaer 02:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C, Looks like we've some differences on the English writing side of things. I've been watching for a while, and waited until things seemed to have settled down before attempting a cleanup. Your reversion suggests a love of certain phrases (grasp when meaning understood, for instance) which doesn't coincide with my own. More importantly though, I still think we're moving too quickly in the intro after your edits. Quantification of information is tough (if central) for the Average Reader to get his head around. I was dodging that until I'd gotten that Reader hooked (maybe we need John Lennon or the Stones to help with the hooks?) before going to the slippery concepts. IT is sufficiently odd that it's only recently that humans have managed to get to it, and it took Shannon's unusual mind to do it.

If you were to argue that it's longer that way, I'd have to agree. But I would observe that, like programming's tradeoffs, you can have any two of the C's (clear, complete, concise) and maybe an I (intelligible, interesting) but not all three. I chose clear and both of the I's. In the interest of comprehension builidng in the mind of our Reader first and foremost.

Have you and I reached a compositional (English, not content) impass? Perhaps we should hash it out away from the article and install after having reached teh big A (accomodation or agreement)? ww 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how to approach this, but it seems like your revisions were trying to make things clear by adding notes and examples, but these made things less clear, in my opinion, for these reasons:

I believe that examples absent of context confuse, not clarify, e.g., "Spectrum allocations by national Communications Regulation bodies are directly affected by this work." I got my degree in the subject, and this sentence requires more explanation for me, since I thought that spectrum was allocated according to frequency and power, not capacity (which is affected by a third variable, noise). The relation between these values is important, but only to the user, not the regulation bodies. This will confuse novice and expert alike.
Rhetorical flourishes ("for the first time in human history," "intuitivly qualitative," "undersatnd the limits of possibility in maximizing use," etc.) distract flow.
There are numerous spelling errors.
Run on sentences make the revision very difficult to read, especially by a novice.

If you want to work more on the intro, it might be best to work it through on the talk page, since we seem to be able to find fault in each others' use of the English language, and Chancemill and 130.94.162.61 can contribute as well; hopefully, a middle ground will be more understandable to all. Calbaer 22:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allah in the House

My bad - a mistake on my part. I *did* nominate it - and then I saw that it had just finished a cycle with a KEEP result. I intended to go back and remove the nomination tag and forgot to do so. You are absolutely correct - there is no reason to renominate once it passed muster through that process. Sloppiness on my part for not cleaning up after myself. I'll fix it now if nobody has already fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out to me! --AStanhope 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for edit summary

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would help me if you told me to which article you're referring. Is it JPEG-LS? Special:Contributions/Calbaer shows that I do this for almost every edit that involves more than a word or two of change; when I don't, it's because I believe the edit to be self-explaining (by, for example, a diff). I can be more careful, but it's kind of a guessing game for me as to why you thought I needed a reminder. Calbaer 02:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collective punishment

I meant that those same supporters fell it should be applied, so it wasn't Pro-Israel POV, but you made my intention much clearer with your edit; Thanks! -- Avi 21:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when I realized that it was a matter of ambiguity, I probably should've changed the edit summary, but, either way, glad it's better now. Calbaer 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me

That addition to the article on American music is not "spam." It links to another article about an important form of indigenous American music, including the music of composers referred to elsewhere in the article, such as Billings. However, I understand that because it is on the first page you would revert first, and read later. I will add it in again tomorrow. Amity150 00:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our edits were nearly simultaneous, so I didn't even see what you'd written by the time I reverted. Note the time stamps. My revert deleted the "Hipinion" section. Calbaer 01:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim conquest

I had this question where did you get this information:

This, combined with military defeats and strong military resistance from Vikramaditya II of the Chalukya Empire and the Turkic Khanate in Transoxiana, I couldn't find those in the two pages you referenced.

The problem with the Turkic Khanate and India is bigger and one I was intending to re-orient they don't go well with the article which is limited to the Umayyad era. Indian expansion was basically driven by the Turk tribes who took over the Abbassid eastern portion, i.e the Ghaznavids and the Ghurids, while Persia and Arabia was overrun by the Seljuk Turks (against whom the crusades were launced) before they were all replaced by Mongols in the 13th century. For the Umayyads there was not one Khanate in Transoxania to contend with, while the Khazar-Arab wars particulary taxed the Umayyads in Caucasus, however all over Transoxiana was in flux after the crumbling of the Gokturk empire and the entry of the Tang, anyrate the contest with the Turks countinued for over 300 years until the Turks assimilated, converted and took over the Muslim worked, by the end of the 11th century. Anyrate I was intending to rework and fix a lot of that page just can't find the time!!--Tigeroo 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Like I said, I just poached the information from a variety of sources (especially Umayyad), some of which may have been changed to something else by now. I was just trying to get enough in there to get rid of the "Western viewpoint" tag. Thanks for doing it for me (from a more knowledgeable perspective). Calbaer 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Lebanon War and Hezbollah power

Saying Hezbollah came into power in South Lebanon in some nebulous "80s" timeframe as a result of this conflict, isn't false, it just makes too many leaps along the way. Various militant factions clashed over the territory southeast of Beirut when Israel retreated to the Awali river, and yes, the militia movement got a huge boost after the Lebanese army collapsed, but that wasn't until 1984. Hezbollah was barely even concieved in 1982, and certaintly didn't jump out from behind a rock and suddenly overcome all the other rival factions fighting the Lebanese Civil War and fill the PLO vacuum. Look at who was fighting in the War of the Camps, for example, and you would think you were staring at a bowl of alphabits.

Of course, the '82 war did lead to the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict, which does tell the tale of Hezbollah slowly growing in and consolidating its power, and the outcome of that conflict was indisputably Hezbollah control of Southern Lebanon.

I suppose my edits were only mildly more acurrate than what you put back. I'd be happy with "Various militias controlling South Lebanon (1983-present)" or you could even say it resulted in "Hezbollah's conception" or that a result was "the 1982-2000 South Lebanon conflict" -- otherwise you are lossy compressing 18 years of history here. -- Kendrick7 01:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is the definition of the "war" and when it ended; that seems to have been left nebulous. It's important to look beyond 1982 for the result, just as saying the result of the Vietnam war (Second Indochina War) was ceasefire, although technically accurate, doesn't include the eventual collapse of the ceasefire and North Vietnamese victory. The war period is difficult to define and the result can't be determined on the day the war ends. Another part of the problem is that some people like to say the war result was "Hezbollah victory," which, in light of your reasoning, is utterly ridiculous. This is another reason why the extended timeframe and explanation are needed. Keeping that in mind, the results section is entirely consistent with history. What isn't consistent is saying that Southern Lebanon was controlled by Israel until 2000 since most of it was not. Calbaer 07:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMAO

Thanks for the editing of the IMAO article. Since I saw it up there, I figured it was best to leave it alone if I wanted it to survive.--AmericanRonin 13:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lead to AOIA article

Are you saying the David Matas reference supports what you've added? -- Kendrick7^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was just lazy referencing on my part; I fixed it. Calbaer 05:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0.999... Discussion Page

Thanks a lot for what you added about squaring a "smallest possible number," which was passed off by JohnLattier as an infinitesimal. I was a little shaky after I started reading some of his comments, but I'm clear about it now. Robinson0120 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear it. After looking at JohnLattier's responses for a few weeks, I realize that he's not gaining much out of the discussion, so it's very heartening to know that others are. Calbaer 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0.999...

I tend to respond when JL has made an obvious error and I think he might actually understand it. There's no real purpose to it, I suppose, except that other people who are curious about the arguments will see that we actually do know how to answer his objections. His ranting about how I'm evil bothers me very little; my wiki-fu is strong, and I know exactly how far his accusations will get him. I guess in the end I'm just amusing myself, and not accomplishing much else. You may have a point that we should all, collectively, stop answering him... I'm not sure. -- SCZenz 02:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should. He drives down the signal-to-noise ratio. I mean, he didn't even bother to look up the meaning of the word "bound"! He ignores the more mathematically interesting/involved posts. And his name-calling, while silly, allows us to suspend our assumption of good faith. Hanlon's razor prohibits me from judging him a troll. But, as is said on Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith, "Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank." Calbaer 02:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Package Merge Algorithm

Don't you think we ought to remove the "importance" and "verify" tags from Package-merge algorithm? Those tags were posted when it was a struggling stub; it's filled out quite nicely, IMHO. Vegasprof 10:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jellybeans

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Newman

Copying our conversation from my talk page: "When you write a song for yourself, people sort of tend to expect the 'I' in the song to be yourself. That's not the case in my songs." So if you want to say that Newman's background is described by "Dixie Flyer," you're going to have to come up with some evidence. Yes, it is based on his experiences, but that doesn't mean everything that happens in the song happened to Newman. (By the way, I see you're a fellow E/Eels fan. I assume you've heard the French interview where E mentions Newman as an influence and the interviewer isn't sure whether or not he's kidding....) Anyway, I have the box set liner notes somewhere and that might have something to say about it when I find them.... Calbaer 01:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good old Randy. If you're curious, I wasn't the anonymous poster who posted the lyrics originally, but I saw them (after you reverted them) and thought, "hey, done right, that could be a cool addition to the entry." --Captadam 14:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Marquisdebarrabas

Our friend from the Unreliable narrator article seems to be back, bitching about an edit summary I used two months ago. In a related note, if you have no objection, I plan to add back The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari to the list with a reference. IIRC, it's in the AFI top ten (certainly in the top 100) and is one of the best known examples of a film with an unreliable narrator. I'll leave it to you to determine which of the movies on that particular list to take out. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification and your explanation on the page you link to. My view is that anything reliably sourced is fair game and anything not is not; in fact, I was thinking of deleting everything in the list without a source. The list is meant to be helpful rather than exhaustive, and it might help circumvent whining if everything were reliably sourced. Maybe some day.... Calbaer 07:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters

Thanks for this excellent edit. Would you mind checking my subsequent edit? See also Talk:Reuters#March 2007 Changes. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reuters 'Allegations of Bias' section, also the Little Green Footballs blog

Hi sorry to bother you, I just didn't want to clog Reuters talk page up any more.

You said LGF blog was well regarded?! It seems to me it sometimes takes Arab bashing almost as a sport. Of course people should be free to criticise, but this blog seems quite polarised. Any diplomat would be a disaster if he talked like this. Of course confrontation is sometimes necessary, but I think Iraq has shown that confrontation alone will leave the Middle East in a very big mess. I would think LGF is only 'well regarded' in well right of centre American circles. Wikipedia is supposed to be international. I'm sure that the LGFs blog would be seen as niche opinion in Europe. It is pretty strong stuff at times. It isn't highly likely to make new friends and influence people. There are some groups it would really antagonise, often more than it needs to make its point.--83.67.127.181 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While one could quibble over whether Arab extremist bashing and Arab government bashing are the same as Arab bashing, I'll concede that it's a distinctly partisan website. However, if an employee of Reuters had threatened George Galloway or Le Pen (or Rush Limbaugh) with death, would that have been unimportant merely because they were partisan/extremist? I'd say not, as both are very popular and prominent. That's my point. A threat of death from a Reuters email to a prominent individual is notable, especially when it fits in with the anti-America pro-Arab-extremist bias alleged. Calbaer 20:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway and Jean Marie LePen are politicians, massively in the public eye! One was a final candidate in a presidential election, the other WAS elected as an MP! An email to these guys would vastly exceed the 'man in the street' factor of Little Green Footballs. [later additional remark: don't forget that the email that was sent did not threaten death. It said 'I hope you die'. Not the same.]

Let me put it like this: would Reuters do much reporting on Little Green Footballs? No! Would they do much reporting on Galloway and LePen? Yes, and yes.

To tar Reuters as a corporation with this email is not for Wikipedia articles. I could go into work tomorrow and send a filthy email, and my employer might well be shocked and entirely unsupportive. To suggest that you then 'don't know what my employer did with me' means they support me is stretching it. We shouldn't be stretching points in Wikipedia articles.

I want to see more evidence of this 'anti-American' bias accusation. I'm very unhappy about it. In my view, the presumption on Wikipedia should be: "no allegations to be repeated here". The exception would be where allegations were widely considered intertwined with the public image of a subject. Do Americans in general have a problem with Reuters? I don't buy it.--83.67.127.181 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you have valid points, although I think more Americans would openly associate with the views of Johnson than Frenchmen with Le Pen and (I hope) Englanders with Galloway. And I think that the way Reuters handled the threat — basically not giving any information about it except the vague "suspension" — is indicative of something. But, as you say, the anti-American bias is more difficult to show than the anti-Israel or pro-terrorist one, so perhaps the other allegations should be underemphasized. The fact that 9/11 didn't warrant "terrorist" but 7/7 did isn't necessarily anti-American, although many saw it that way. (To be fair, though, the allegation is that Reuters is anti-American, not that Americans are anti-Reuters!)

By the way, thanks for taking this to my talk page — we should probably come to an understanding about each others' views before subjecting them to others! Calbaer 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with your last paragraph, that's what I thought too.

"(To be fair, though, the allegation is that Reuters is anti-American, not that Americans are anti-Reuters!)". Clever point. But it slightly misses mine. 'Allegations' are not encouraged to be repeated on Wikipedia. For such allegations to be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia it is not sufficient that they come from Johnson, or other websites which you admit may be 'distinctly partisan'.

To get into Wikipedia articles, I think 'allegations' should need to be accompanied by substantial evidence, or else represent concerns easily demonstrated to be shared by at least substantial parts of the relevant societal groups.

Excuse me if I didn't spot it, but Reuters didn't use terrorist for 9/11? Really? If this is true then it should be contrasted directly with the 7/7 treatment in the Allegations of Bias section. This would improve the section, and increase its justification.

Just before we contrast when we talk about 7/7 vs 9/11, are we sure that when they used terrorist on 7/7 they were not quoting a police statement?

And woah, woah! I just spotted you said 'pro terrorist'. That is out of order. To decide that terrorist is a loaded term, use a different one, describe the actions of said individual and allow the reader to form their own views on the actions is I think a valid neutrality policy. Now they may stand accused of not sticking to that policy, but pro-terrorist??! HUGE LEAP.--83.67.127.181 21:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I think I've made my perspective and concerns pretty clear. It has been great to exchange views, but unless you or someone else wants me to comment further, I won't.

I will have a look at the Reuters entry from time to time and give it a ponder. I will either eventually come up with ammendments, or else if I can't be bothered I will go away and shut up.--83.67.127.181 23:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 7/7 — 9/11 contrast is useful. We could say:

On September of 2001, regarding their coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist." Reuters policy is thus to only use the word "terrorist" in quotes, whether quotations or scare quotes. However, when reporting the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the service reported, "Police said they suspected terrorists were behind the bombings."

By "pro-terrorist," I meant that they hired and tolerated folks who were terrorist collaborators and sympathizers and permitted them to use Reuters to further their agenda. I guess "terrorist-friendly" or "terrorist-tolerant" or something milder would have been better phrasing, but this is a talk page, not a Wikipedia article or news report, so hopefully I'll be forgiven for sloppy language. Anyway, Johnson gave evidence that wasn't refuted. His being partisan doesn't change that. And his #11 ranking among American political blogs (liberal and conservative) seems to easily demonstrate that his concerns are shared by at least substantial parts of the relevant societal groups.

Finally, no need to shut up, but I think our reply times will increase and quantity of information decrease as a discussion continues, so if you have nothing more to say, that's fine with me. Calbaer 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose I have a bit more to say.

I do not doubt the email was sent. But, we have no evidence to support Reuters' sympathy for that email sender whatsoever. We have no evidence for the idea that Reuters PLC management takes any notice of LGF Blog comment at any time. Since Johnson is so partisan (and had previously been attacking Reuters), we shouldn't be repeating his suppositions on what the incident said about Reuters (not on Wikipedia). I don't find #11 very impressive, considering it is only a blog. What did the New York Times say about the matter? Anything? They certainly would have said something about the Hajj matter.

'Collaborators'!!. What do you think Reuters is, Al-Jazeera?! I am concerned that people with such partisan views may be editing the Reuters article. Reuters neutrality is generally highly regarded around the world. Why do you think the vast majority of news organisations subscribe to them? I believe it's partly because editors find they can take a Reuters story and put any spin on it they like.

To put all this in perspective, go take a look at the article on Fox News if you will. This is an organisation for which a senior CNN figure has said (despite claiming the Fox CEO is an old friend) it is mainly 'an extension of the Republican party'. I doubt you could trademark a common parlance term like 'Fair & Balanced' in the UK. And yet Fox News feels the need to own this term. I see it a (little) bit like 'Deutsche Demokratische Republik' or 'Democratic Republic of Congo'. Why did they feel the need to call themselves 'democratic'? Why does Fox News feel the need to own the term 'Fair and Balanced'? Fox news is widely regarded as partisan. Even many Republicans would admit that.

And yet despite all this, we have given Reuters an 'Allegations of Bias' (stronger term) that is just as long as the 'controversies' (weaker term) section on Fox News. It seems to me that some people editing the Reuters article have an axe to grind with Reuters. This is the trouble with Wikipedia. Those who feel most strongly about a subject are most likely to write about it.

Good suggestion for the article. Do it. You may also have a look at my suggestion on the Reuters talk page.--83.67.127.181 17:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand. I don't mean that there's some bigwig up at Reuters saying, "How can we help the terrorists today?" I mean that the structure of the organization — having stringers such as Hajj, hiring and retaining people like the still-anonymous death-threat fellow, refusing to call acts against Americans and Israelis terrorism under the assertion that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter — all help terrorists. Contrast Reuters' neutrality policy with that of Wikipedia's. Wikipedia lets anyone do anything, but then corrects any bad behavior and has them face consequences for what they've done. It tries to avoid charged words, but not because Jimbo Wales thinks that they're wrong, but just because other words can often work in their place. Reuters doesn't have the freedom to operate analogously, but it's undeniable that not only the rules but also the spirit is different: a disputed photo remains, the death threat matter was dealt with nontransparently, and Reuters is basically saying that the murderers of their own employees are freedom fighters by any other name, seeing as they struck America. That seems quite worthy of criticism.

Terrorism has an easy definition: The deliberate targeting of civilians for political motives, especially when committed by nonstate actors. (Mao, Stalin, and Pot were not considered terrorists, for example, though "terror" would be an apt description of what they wrought.) If you're consistent, that's fine, and it's a lot quicker than saying "The deliberate targeting of civilians for political motives by nonstate actors." Even Wikipedia uses it in the first sentence describing 9/11. Yet Reuters — which I sincerely doubt has "neutral point of view" as its first fundamental principle — won't use it unless they're describing attacks on the UK, and maintains a policy against it.

I don't expect you to buy my point of view on Reuters, but just to agree that they've been heavily criticized by people that matter. And, by the way, in Wikipedia, neutral point of view describes what's written in the articles, not who writes it. I'm not so concerned about what contributors may be thinking, but what they actually write, so the fact that I have an opinion on Reuters isn't a disqualification (and any notion to the contrary is basically argumentum ad hominem). You seem to have no problem with Reuters and feel passionately about it, so you've modified the section accordingly. Others, who've been more passionate, have deleted the section altogether. And, as I've noted, it wasn't restored until over a month later, so clearly the strong feelings work both ways.

I don't watch Fox News. I can't stand conservative television, so I don't know enough about the "fair and balanced" claim to argue about it. (I've heard other people argue that Fox News is closer to centrist American thought than its rivals, that it reports from "both sides," etc., but I'm not sure, because I don't watch it.) If you want to change "allegations of bias" to "controversies," that's fine; I think the former term is more specific, but if you think it's inflammatory, I don't mind its being made more general.

I'll probably get around to modifying the article later, especially regarding the 7/7 comparison, assuming you don't do it first. Calbaer 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say Reuters policy is only to use the t-word in quotes. Actually, Reuters policy is to only use the t-word when it is attributable to another party. Please search www.Reuters.com for 'terrorist'. Look for non-UK stories in the results, there are several. You will find the word terrorist in these stories and NOT in quotes in most cases. In each case the word is attributable to the statement of another party.

They were overzealous in applying their policy on 9/11. They made a mess of explaining themselves, and apologised for that. But I'm not sure they've ever broken their t-word policy--83.67.127.181 00:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a change in policy; if you can find older articles like this, let me know. Anyway, at the risk of running up against WP:NOR, perhaps we could say:

On September of 2001, regarding their coverage of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes wrote, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and that Reuters upholds the principle that we do not use the word terrorist." Reuters policy is thus to only use the word "terrorist" in quotes, whether quotations or scare quotes. However, when reporting the 7 July 2005 London bombings, the service reported, "Police said they suspected terrorists were behind the bombings." Although Reuters eventually stopped referring to the perpetrators of this event as "terrorists," the news organization has subsequently used the term "terrorist" without quotations when the article clarifies that it is someone else's words, thus apparently relaxing their policy.

If we can verify that they apologized for their policy and/or explanation, we should definitely say that. I certainly want the article to have responses to accusations (where there are any) along with the accusations themselves. Part of the problem, though, is a lack of response. Representatives may have explained themselves, but I'm not Reuters has ever had an "official" explanation that lays out just what a reporter should or should not write (and why). I get the feeling that information remains internal. Calbaer 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters' t-word policy, such as it is or was, actually springs out of their wider editorial policy. An official explanation is at: http://about.reuters.com/aboutus/editorial Other than this see my link on their 9/11 apology re self explanation, below--83.67.127.181 01:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want remembered that much of the 'wording' allegations of bias against Reuters arise out of what Reuters would see as their attempts to AVOID bias. This has a certain irony. Accordingly I would like to see two sections. First 'Reuters Neutrality'. This would detail: t-word policy (was it applied re IRA? if so mention here), Malvinas policy, and general editorial policy with a link to their statement on it on their website.

Then I would follow up with a section called 'Criticism of Reuters Neutrality'. Here could be laid out the allegations against them, including of course Hajj. That there have been criticisms I accept.

Just on 7/7 inconsistency I did a quick general internet search and couldn't find anyone who accused them of hypocrisy or changing tack. They may be out there but I didn't find them--83.67.127.181 00:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Reuters apology and I think their final explanation for 9/11 handling: http://homepage.mac.com/bkerstetter/writersblock/reutersexplanation.html --83.67.127.181 01:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very POV approach. The criticism isn't that Reuters is "too neutral," it's that its supposed "neutrality" policy is actually bias in disguise and/or that it's offensive. Your headers would imply that the Reuters policy actually results in neutrality. The criticism and policy should be simultaneously explained. (It would be ironically appropriate if the section were titled, "Reuters 'Neutrality'." However, that's a little to snarky for a serious article.)

The 7/7 complaint you seek is linked from the Reuters article, one of the Wall Street Journal links: [1] The original article reporting it is no longer up and no archive (legally) exists. The explanation you mention should be linked to (if it hasn't already been), and clearly their copious use of the "t" word nowadays contradicts an attempt to "avoid the use of emotional terms" (assuming that still applies to "terrorist" and "terrorism"). They've probably relaxed the policy to use the word whenever someone else does. Calbaer 01:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a 'very POV' approach. And I know exactly what the criticism is.

Look, Reuters make certain efforts, including some of the strictest editorial guidelines. These are stated to be part of a neutrality effort. This stated intention deserves to taken in good faith first before it is brought into question. Before we consider the more complex hypothesis of 'twisted neutrality efforts to disguise bias', we should first consider the more simple hypothesis that they are actually trying to be neutral.

Insisting on taking offence because of what they won't do? OK, but never confuse what they won't condemn with implicit support for something. That is a leap I won't take. If they were a Government I might. But a news agency has a different role in society. They have made it very clear they are not in the business of condemming people.

One of my problems with what you're saying is that you seem to insist on taking the idea of Reuters neutrality as a joke, straight up. I say: I don't think that's how they got into a position where almost every news organisation in the world subscribes to their wire. On the contrary, they built up a reputation for neutrality--83.67.127.181 01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That implies that their official neutrality policy precedes their becoming a significant source of news. Do you have any evidence of this?

I'm not insisting that Reuters' policy is a joke. I'm insisting that it's widely criticized as diminishing, rather than contributing to, objectivity. And it is widely criticized. Whether the criticisms are valid is left for the reader to decide.

I still insist that your proposed headers imply that they're being criticized for being neutral, rather than for their "neutrality policy," and that having a (sub)section on the policy, without mentioning criticisms until later, would diminish this article. Calbaer 01:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first of my two sections is supposed to describe their efforts to be neutral, and not to comment too much on whether or not they succeed. The section would extend the courtesy of assuming they are trying to do what they say they are. Perhaps I did not hit the right title. OK yes I did momentarily lose the distinction between detractors from their neutrality itself, and detractors from their precise polices. Both criticisms have been fired according to the current Reuters article, and are in any case closely intertwined.

I do think the notion that Reuters attempt to be, and often succeed in being a very neutral reporting organisation is widely held. I guess I better start looking for sources. Perhaps I will fail to find them. That would teach me! --83.67.127.181 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely your time on Wikipedia has taught you that even the best sources need to be taken with a grain of salt. Anyway, I still think having two sections is a bad idea, for the reasons outlined above. Don't be offended if you decide to have two sections and I decide to merge them.... Calbaer 02:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment previously written here removed by me. I had felt... ...well never mind.

Anyway, I thought I'd better go back and read the section yet again. I've come round to the view that it now is couched in fairly neutral terms, which allow the readers to form their own analysis... just so long as the reader knows that Wall Street Journal Ed Op is not really down the centre. As a non-American, I had of course heard of WSJ but previously had no idea that their Ed Op is quite so stongly right wing. But WSJ is linked, so reader can go learn.

The allegation that Reuters might be "anti-Jewish" is quite serious. But it is based on a link titled "Reuters Questions Holocaust". Not actually strictly the same thing as 'anti-Jewish' (flying leap 1). Then, when you read the source, you see that they have got 'questioning the holocaust' from 'downgrading 6 million Jews killed to only a "widely held view" rather than "a historical fact" ' (flying leap 2). All this barrage, simply because because Reuters were refusing to take sides against Ahmedinejad. They probably did not want to be drawn into a position of debating the exact number of Jews killed. I do not think 'allegations' based on not one but two leaps of logic should be included in Wikipedia. The source is in any case a review of internet news on one day. There is no allegation of anti-Jewish bias over a period of time.

Just for the record, I'm quite sure that millions of Jews were killed by the Nazis. Possibly quite close to 6 million or even above. But due to the appalling circumstances, it is difficult to speak of precise numbers as fact. I reckon I could have come up with a less offensive formulation than Reuters did and still avoid taking sides against Ahmedinejad (if that's what I was trying to do), but this is a tricky editorial course to chart. --83.67.127.181 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]