Talk:History of Russia/MetaDiscussion

Moved from main talk to a subpage

I think this is pretty much a matter of sourcing- it appears that piotrus and cholchicum have a source - and if you can find one (which should hopefully be easy) then we can simply present alternate opinions.--daniel folsom 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, a source of what? A source that does not use the term "aid" when referring to the Soviet-German relations? Here is one: USSR article in The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05, besides it was just one google search away. Also, check the Britannica's subarticle Union of Soviet Socialist Republics::Foreign Policy, 1928-1940 (you may need a subscription for the latter) Those sources were just one google-click away.

I appreciate your input to this content dispute but I am afraid you are trying to solve the dispute from the wrong end, by approaching the very specific and narrow disagreement and applying the most general policies that we have (WP:V) alone. Wikipedia has a multitude of policies and guidelines none of which is absolute but they work together and that's how we come up with great articles. WP:V, if applied alone, can produce some quite weird pieces consisting of collection of quotes, all referenced btw, that would lead us to believe that, say, "United States is a global Empire<quoted>" or that "religion is a set of backward views that are contrary to science" (both false but can be referenced.) Thanks god, the WP:NPOV working together with WP:V, other policies and guidelines, the commons sense, good faith of editors and the principle that the WP is an "encyclopedia" prevent this from happening.

Even the referenced opinion remains nothing but an opinion and cannot be included in the encyclopedia the way it was done as if it was an undisputable scholarly state of the art on the issue. Otherwise, an editor with a political agenda and enough time at his hands would be able to comprise the horrific articles, all fully referenced, by going to google books and picking the strongest possible quotes and comprising the articles as such.

Facts and opinions are different things. Facts are that the SU-DE trade for the XXXX year amount to YYYY golden rubles and included ZZZZ tons of ore exchanged for YYYYY units of locomotive engines (or whatever). That the trade increased is also a fact. That this trade can be termed as aid is a POV. POV may be referenced all right but the referenced POV may be fringe, not fringe but unusual or maybe a POV that reflects the mainstream scholarly consensus. Depending on that mainstreamness, this referenced POV should be presented in the correctly chosen articles in the best way to provide the reader with the adequate representation of the state of the art in the given field. Choice of the article, choice of the presentation, the form of the attribution all make a difference between the encyclopedic writing and POV-pushing. In my good-faithed opinion, presenting this particular information in this particular article in this exact particular way is non-objective. The discussion on how important (and unique compared to other nations) was the Soviet trade with Germany belongs to a very encyclopedic article that already exists Soviet German relations before 1941. At the same time, the History of Russia that covers 15 hundred years cannot be the place for the opinionated elaboration on this subject. In the specific article, we can (and will) discuss the references and the way they are best to be presented. --Irpen 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the issue winds up to: is it a common held opinion. If it is - then we have to include it, per WP:NPOV, however if it is a minority opinion, then it needn't be included.--daniel folsom 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielfolsom, there is a lot of room between the minority opinion and the widely held opinion. It is not like the coin that only has two sides and whenever it falls it is either one side or the other. There is a lot of room between the fringe and mainstream opinion and some scholarly opinions may fall somewhere between these two clear-cut cases.

This is why the content disputes of these kind are rather subtle and take more subject knowledge, good faith and commons sense to resolve rather than knowing and citing policies. --Irpen 06:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woho - there's a lot of room! Irpen i've been in these debates before - I'm aware of this. However the first step to finding out if the material should be included is to see if it's a minority view.--daniel folsom 10:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to see yourself as an expert in civility, I will leave it up to you to self-reflect on the style of your newest entry. Now, exactly the path you mentioned "finding how exactly mainsteam is certain POV" is more difficult than to find a reliable source to establish a specific fact. It takes more than knowing policy or finding a quote in Google books. Let me suggest a better "first step" once we are all familiar with all the applicable Wikipedia policies: better familiarization with the subject on the article on which we give out opinions. From your prior entry of lack of interest to the topic, as well as your active participation in the discussion which shows your obvious interest in the article's improvement, I assume you would be interested to review a couple of sources where the entire history of Russia has been compiled and put together as a very brief introductory course. Those sources are the Columbia Enc. articles titled Russia and USSR (2 articles), the eponymous articles in Britannica *for Russia only a History section is of our concern now) as well as the "Russia, a Country study" at the US Congressional web-site. Links would be first in the list in your respective google search results. Happy edits, --Irpen 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that slight sarcasm wasn't allowed. I am aware that comments like this "Since you seem to see yourself as an expert in civility" aren't either - so I guess we're even. Seriously now - calm down, I have no clue why your freaking out about this - I made a joke because you were saying obvious statements to me like "Facts and opinions are different things.". However, as to the sourcing it seems three editors are interested in finding out and you're not - I'm just saying that if Colichrum and Piotrus find a source- then we can easily include both arguments. And (I'll ask you again) stop saying I have a lack of interest in the subject - check my edit history I edited a lot of this and it's kinda ridiculous for you to make snide (uncivil) comments just so you can exert whatever dominance you think you get by pretending to be an expert.--daniel folsom 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you that this is more than finding a source that says something. This is opinion rather than facts we are talking about. Now please either help us resolve this routine editing dispute by arguing content or stop making comments where you merely attempt to instruct experienced users who solved in the past a host of similar disagreements with the lectures about some basic rules of DR, civility and calls to "calm down" which are just as unhelpful. If you look back at this dialog, you will see that your joining it did not help to resolve this particular issue in any way. Nor it would unless you start giving some input on topic rather than on "rules". Thanks for understanding. --Irpen 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I reverted what seemed to me a premature good-faith archiving as threads as recent as less-than-an-hour-old were archived. Let's not rush into that. The off-topic discussion is moved to my talk for anyone interested. --Irpen 20:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I didn't notice that you had commented in an otherwise dead discussion, well we'll see what happens - but if no one responds by tomorrow (which is reasonable to assume as there haven't been any responses in a while) then we can archive the whole thing.--daniel folsom 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, please give it somewhat more time than one day. Talk pages are not supposed to be archived at such pace. Also, the problem with excessive tagging is not resolved. Removing/adding the tags that some see unwarranted and some see necessary may well continue and the users could use an explanation of what is going on here. --Irpen 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's fine - although again, you kinda commented on a dead discussion, and even then it was kinda open ended - "I'll see what I can do" is your closer - so just don't expect a response, but who knows, you might get lucky.--daniel folsom 21:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I get a response or not is of secondary importance. Note, that the comment, as well as the proceeding discussion, that you removed was about the issue that remains unresolved: tagging and a good faith disagreement as to how much citation is excessive, how much tagging is helpful and how much tagging is unhelpful. Since the article still carries quite a lot of (IMO) unnecessary tags as well as (IMO) unnecessary citations that provide references to the facts that are merely trivial (the Earth is round does not need a citation), addition/removal of tags and citations are likely to continue and the side viewers are better off seeing at the talk page what these mysterious tags that are added and removed are all about. --Irpen 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually done by date - you can typically assume resolution by the fact that no one has responded - but repeat (in case you didn't see it) Ok that's fine--daniel folsom 22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]