I'm curious why you think this edit improved the encyclopedia. Could you please explain to me how this revert was more accurate, more neutral, and more descriptive than the previous version? Please don't reply with "I'm upholding consensus". Consensus is based on discussion, not polls. Viriditas (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is amply supported in the talk page discussion. There's no need for me to repeat all those points here. In addition, "Beer Summit" is consistent with WP usage for other events that came to have colorful titles. See, for example, the entries for Boston Tea Party (which was not a party) and Beer Hall Putsch (not even how this German political event is known in Germany, but most English sources so style it). And, both of these colorful examples are titled just this way in the current Encyclopedia Britannica. Any suggestion that such colorful common names for events are not used for encyclopedia article titles or headings is not correct. Regards, Pechmerle (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement isn't supported at all by the talk page discussion. As Google News shows, "Beer Summit" is not the most common term for the event, and isn't even used in the majority of articles on the subject. Most news articles on the subject refer to it as a "meeting" and do not even use the term "Beer Summit". The problem is that you and other editors are engaging in confirmation bias and only seeing the articles that use the term while ignoring the articles that don't. You are also claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on the "Beer Summit"? Show it to me. I have full access to the Encyclopedia Britannica and I will look for it now. The suggestion that colorful names for White House meetings is unheard of, is accurate. Do you dispute this? Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say that the Britannica has an article called Beer Summit. What I noted is that the Britannica has used as article titles two other colorfully named events, "Boston Tea Party" and "Beer Hall Putsch." The broken-record style of "discussion" is not productive. You have stated your arguments repeatedly; they have not been persuasive to other editors working on this article. I would hope you could accept that. Pechmerle (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments aren't intended to be persuasive because I am not arguing for inclusion of Beer Summit. All of the arguments made in favor of "Beer Summit" are not supported by evidence. Therefore, those arguments are not valid. Since I am not making a claim in favor of inclusion but rather adhering to the standard NPOV policy, it is incumbent upon those arguing in favor of adding "Beer Summit" to the article to support their arguments. So far, they have failed. I do not have to persuade anyone that "White House invitation and meeting" are neutral and accurate because that is the default position. One look at the Google News archives shows that the vast majority of articles on the subject use those terms and do not use the words "beer summit". That you and other editors do not find NPOV persuasive is not my problem. That is a problem you will have to deal with in another venue. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V, the problem we have with your argument is that Beer Summit has no pov issue. It is neither pro-Gates nor pro-Crowley. I don't recall seeing any response from you on this specific point. You keep repeating that there is an NPOV problem, but what exactly is the problem (that only) you see? Pechmerle (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that your user account is basically a SPA (238 edits total, of which somewhere around 160 are used to only edit the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident article) it's understandable that you don't understand the NPOV policy or how neutral naming conventions work. First, any section heading in scare quotes is automatically non-neutral. Scare quotes imply a value judgment that a neutral section heading does not have, and the NPOV policy is quite clear on the matter. We always prefer neutral titles over anything that has POV. Second, a section heading must not only be neutral but must accurately describe the topic. The section heading "White House invitation" accurately described two paragraphs that were only about the invitation. This section heading was deleted for no reason, and no rationale was ever offered for its removal, even after I repeatedly asked for one. And, the section heading "White House meeting" accurately described the private meeting between Gates, Crowley and Obama, but continues to be deleted and replaced with "Beer Summit", a sensationalistic, ironic and humorous title that is popular in tabloids and opinion pieces, but is not in fact the most common name for the event (White House meeting) or accurate for an encyclopedia (the meeting was neither about beer or classified as a summit). The major problem with single purpose accounts like your own, is that they are used 90% of the time to make non-neutral edits, to argue for non-neutral content, and to stack votes on matters related to consensus through the use of multiple accounts. These concerns may not be valid in relation to your account, but they are concerns nevertheless. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I of course agree, but what I'm trying to do is to get people to go beyond the emotional rhetoric and focus on the photo, and how it may exceed limits. I was wondering whether you might want to more explicitly comment on the testing criteria since I want to force people to think with their heads, rather than their guts. Mattnad (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pechmerle, I noticed your changes to the Schlieffen Plan page. I am interested in your view of the writer's view of the intent of the plan. It seems to me that the 'Schlieffen-Moltke' plan was never as prescriptive as the page states, rather that it was a means to force a decisive battle on the French army. The easier ground south of the French-Belgian border was preferred because the French could easily hold them off in the difficult, fortified ground behind the common border. Encirclement was only a possible means to that end and the strengthening of the left wing was possible because of the increase in the size of the German army, not a change in the intent of the deployment plan. Kier Liber has some information on the short war illusion illusion if you're interested. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, I don't have good library access, and so don't have at hand a number of articles I would want to have read before weighing in on the intensely-researched topic you mention. Do you have access, online or otherwise, to The Journal of Modern History 79 (June 2007): 335–387? That's a very extensive review article on the scholarly literature on 'the ideology of the offensive' and the events of the summer of 1914. I'm aware of the debate over the topic you refer to, but I haven't at all got sufficient study depth on it to give a meaningful opinion. I've been dropping in to this article out of interest, but not expertise.

You may be reacting to my use of the one word "concept" in a recent edit. But that was done for style rather than substantive purposes. The sentence was in need of a noun, and concept seemed to fit the context best. Regards. Pechmerle (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole I like the article, it's just that I've been trying to make my mind up about the pre-war calculations of all the participants. I think now that the 'short war illusion' is a post war fabrication ( 'a short war illusion illusion' ;o)) so the view of the Schlieffen Plan as a 'blueprint' or 'formula' for victory also looks untenable. Strachan in his history of the war points out that the Germans did take steps to fight a long war like rapidly increasing imports of raw materials (aluminium from Sweden for eg). Sadly, I'm skint so I can't get hold of the JMH. You might like a butcher's at Keir A Lieber's 'The New History of World War I and What It Means for International Relations Theory' in International Security, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 155–191. It was on the interweb but I can't find it. Hew Strachan and Robert Foley are also useful. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=157875 is a good debate on much of this. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit belatedly, but I just manually moved the conversation to a more appropriate spot. Should do the trick. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far so good on that. Thanks for taking hand on it.

I too wonder about the presence of the formal portrait of Chiang in the article. All those ribbons, though, do provide a symbolic representation of part of what Service found so wrong with Chiang and his KMT regime. And I'm not inclined to disturb the article in its present, pretty balanced form unless somebody comes along and forces a reaction by making further changes. --Pechmerle (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of Antonin Scalia's death in the Cibolo Creek Ranch article is quite self promotional.. As there is currently no mention of the several law enforcement officials questioning the handling of Scalia's body after being discovered by Poindexter, can you clarify your deletion of the only links mentioning such the unusual way Scalia's body was handled? 209.140.41.165 (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The only mention of Antonin Scalia's death in the Cibolo Creek Ranch article is quite self promotional." Sorry, I don't understand your point on that.

There is no factual evidence that the way Scalia's body was handled was unusual. The known facts are that an elderly man with several health issues died in what happened to be an out of the way place, a remote resort. Neither the law enforcement on the scene, including U.S. marshals, his doctor, or his family considered an autopsy necessary. That various people who had no actual involvement with the events say they would have, or might have, done things differently 1) is purely speculative and thus not encyclopedic, and 2) can't show that any different conclusion of cause of death would have been reached.

The only reason I can see that some editors keep bringing up "circumstances of his death" as a point of controversy is a wish to imply that there might have been foul play, which is not warranted and seems to have a touch of political paranoia about it. Really, we don't need to say any more than that "Justice Scalia died at the Cibolo Creek Ranch on February 12 or 13, 2016, of apparent natural causes." Everything else is really superfluous. I haven't edited the Scalia article back down to that minimal level, out of respect for editors who want there to be something about the circumstances. But speculating beyond the facts just isn't justified.--Pechmerle (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]