Jump to content

Talk:IBM and the Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fred the Oyster (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 12 April 2010 (→OTRS complaints: {{Unsigned|Saxstudio}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title of this article

Wikipedia policy is unambiguous on this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) states: ""In general, use the title of the work as the article's title...When using the title as written by the author, and nothing else, possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV; Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy includes not to tamper with what authors of notable works want to express with the title they give to their work (see also Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names). If there are opposing views about the book title, these are better explained in the article text and not crammed in the Wikipedia page name.

"Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages. Examples:

So this article should be moved back to its original title; failure to do so would be against clear policies. RolandR (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong object -- an unqualified title will give them impression that this article is literally about IBM during the Holocaust, which is clearly not the case here. Given the ease of confusion as to the actual content of the article coupled with the fact that the book is highly subjective and the accuracy of which is disputed, I see no advantage of dropping the (book) qualifier, and plenty of reasons why doing so would be a Bad Thing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the policy immediately above; this states "possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV...Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages". Since this is not the case here, your subjective objections are irrelevant, and against policy. The current title "creates a new POV", and cannot stand. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) is a guideline and nothing more. Secondly the article wasn't about IBM and the Holocaust, it was about a book with the same title. Thirdly who are you to say that there couldn't be a genuinely neutral POV article created about the subject and not the book. Fourthly it makes no difference to anyone looking for the book as the search will show the book page if someone enters "IBM and the Holocaust" into the search box. And just for good measure why don't we just point out that I am absolutely neutral in this matter having never edited (or been interested in) Jewish political articles or even anti-Jewish article. The same cannot be said for your good self (I don't state that as an accusation, merely as a fact that your user page can testify to). As it happens I don't give a flying fuck about politics full stop. What I do give a flying fuck about though is not pulling the wool over people's eyes. Without the qualifier readers will be expecting to see a standard Wikipedia article about IBM and the Holocaust. They wouldn't be getting that though. Now they get exactly what they expect... an article about a book. It's all about clarity. Quite a simple proposition really. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RolandR is right, the guideline is explicitly about this exact situation. And I think you are underestimating the average reader if you think they would confuse this article as an article about the subject and not a book on the subject. Factomancer (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is just that, it is not policy and it is not compulsory and it will not be appropriate in all cases, which is why WP:IAR exists, and yes I know, it's another guideline. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested outside input to this using the RFC tag. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (A dumb layman's perspective:) Whatever the issues here are they aren't being solved by a needless qualifier in brackets. Readers are left in no doubt what they're reading about as soon as they arrive at the article, if anyone feels it can be said clearer then they can edit it in. Because there are issues surrounding this subject, treating something as basic as the article's name differently to the next book's article is a cast-iron way of pissing at least somebody off. I'm sure you can all hammer out something here without getting snagged on non-issues like this. Someoneanother 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS complaints

Hi folks,

The above and other comments have led to complaints to OTRS under Ticket:2010040110042855. Contributors are requested to refrain from using offensive language or casting aspersions about anything other than the topic at hand. Please contact me if you have any queries about this. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a certain person has OTRS on speed dial. And I'll use whatever language I feel like using at any given time. A self-important author won't change that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, I understand your position but I recommend not stirring the pot unnecessarily. Stifle, can you help me identify the "offensive language" that is improper? Noting that the book's factual accuracy is disputed is exactly on-topic and proper for this sort of discussion. The only discussions in the archive are all seemingly from the sockpuppets that were blocked shortly before Mr. Black appeared on the scene, and I don't see any improper comments at all. Was this just a generic OTRS notice, or are there specific examples of what we shouldn't do/repeat? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The offensive language is contained in Fred's post of 22:09 on the 5th of April. The important thing to do here is to make clear whether one is referring to the Wikipedia article or the book. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion, how about using some plain language, or even a quote so that we actually know what the fuck Black is whining about. Instead of this ridiculous double talk. This is Wikipedia not spy school. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, that's really way out of line -- Stifle is just trying to help, and has done an excellent job of trying to deal with a difficult situation. No need to be uncivil or aggressive with him; in my past experiences (as in this one) I've known Stifle to be a patient, reasonable, and responsible admin. Please stop the vitriolic language and incivility; he's only trying to help (and is doing so!). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My ire isn't aimed at Stifle. I'm well aware that he's in the middle of a shit storm. I'm also aware that Black is trying a runaround his block by emailing OTRS and getting poor sods like Stifle to (unwillingly?) act as his go between. I will not be told what I can and can't say by Black via an intermediary. I'm also pissed off by not being told straight what the problem is, if indeed there is a legitimate problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Black has asked me to post the following:

This is Edwin Black. I am not yet prepared to request my account be unblocked, save for a short window to make this brief message which follows: "Numerous individuals in numerous countries have been and are addressing this matter continuously. Stifle has played an excellent and useful role for the Wikipedia community. More will be hopefully be announced soon. Thank you."

I am working through his concerns and ask nothing more than that people make clear, where relevant, whether they are referring to the article or to the book, and consider moderating their language. That is all. They are requests, not instructions on what you can or can't say, and there are no other problems (at present). Stifle (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you aren't telling us which comments. As we don't know which comments are under scrutiny, we can't say whether they are about the book or the article. This is what I mean about the double talk. Everything is as clear as mud. Additionally as a blocked editor Black has no say whatsoever in what we can or can't say (depending of course on its legality), he most certainly cannot dictate how we say anything or what words are used.
Now as far as I can figure it no-one has said anything about the book, and all comments above refer to the article and to the article's title. It's rather obvious that we have no say in the book's title. That should be abundantly clear even to an award-winning author of Mr Black's calibre. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone clarify who, what, or where has allegedly disputed the accuracy of the book? Stifle (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has, at least not recently. All the recent discussion here has been about the title relative to WP article naming conventions. The contents of the book haven't come up at all. Maybe it was on another article's talk page. Possibly on the IBM history article? That's just a guess, I haven't looked. How about on the original article's talk page, the one sans the (book) qualifier? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean on Wikipedia, or elsewhere? Specifically:

And yet one wonders if Mr. Black has properly calculated the degree of the company's culpability. Indeed, many questions suggest themselves in "I.B.M. and the Holocaust." Is Mr. Black really correct in his assumption that without I.B.M.'s technology, which consisted mainly of punch cards and the machines to tabulate them, the Germans wouldn't have figured out a way to do what they did anyway? Would the country that devised the Messerschmitt and the V-2 missile have been unable to devise the necessary means to slaughter millions of victims without I.B.M. at its disposal? ... Mr. Black's contention is that I.B.M. is morally responsible for that difference. But that difference has been well noted by historians who have considered various factors to account for it — national character, the division of France into two zones, the very topography of the countries in question. Mr. Black, in his fervor to find I.B.M. culpable, weighs only punch cards in this particular balance. Of course, he is right that it would have been better had I.B.M. not sold them to Hitler. It would have been better had many things been done differently by many people. Mr. Black's case is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done.

— The New York Times[1]
  1. ^ Bernstein, Richard (2001-03-07). "'I.B.M. and the Holocaust': Assessing the Culpability". The New York Times. Retrieved 9 April 2010.

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anywhere would do. That's fine, Blaxthos. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.

Edwin Black: see it Edwin Black: this might be better formatted Edwin Black: I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxstudio (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IBM_and_the_Holocaust&oldid=355634371"