Hello,

I noticed that they took out your last edit, is there any reason why that keeps happening? I was unable to add it back in as I, evidently, have not been autoconfirmed just yet.

"Within 15 years of Columbus' arrival in the Americas, millions of Native Americans (estimates range between 1 and 3 million) died from disease, murder, and from being overworked in the gold and silver mines in which they were enslaved.^[1][2], including entire peoples' such as the Taino^[3] and the Arawak^[4]. Columbus was also the founder of the practice of European slavery in the Americas.^[5]"

Are you able to put it back in??

It keeps happening (i.e. they keep removing the edit) because a large portion of the editors on Wikipedia are conservative, pro-American zealots, who like to push their POV as fact, and do not like any history that negatively reflects on the U.S. or its allies to be talked about on Wikipedia, regardless of how well-sourced or factual it is. This leaves wikipedia with a very strong systemic bias. I just didn't feel like battling them on Columbus right then, while Columbus day was going on. I figured I'd wait until the hype died down, and there were less crazies guarding the page before trying to make any reasonable changes. Thanks for your interest and for notifying me, though. Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be discouraged. I understand how frustrating editing the Israel page can be, I gave up on that long ago. Its a page that is heavily patrolled but rather stubborn editors motivated more by POV than WP:V and WP:NPOV. Your contributions to other Israel, or more likely, Palestine related articles, would be more than welcome. Please visit WP:IPCOLL and WP:PALESTINE for more information. Tiamut^talk 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to internet meet you. It is indeed frustrating, but there are plenty of other areas that I can work on. Thank you for your support -- I will check out WP:PALESTINE later, and see what's going on there. I hope you have a great day -- and thanks for the digital cookies :) Jrtayloriv (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You have a great day too. Happy editing. Tiamut^talk 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've reverted your changes to Nonviolence because they introduced inaccurate information. You changed a passage about the powerful use of nonviolence in recent history and you introduced a statement about "numerous violent African American groups" working alongside Martin Luther King. Please take any outstanding concerns you might have to Talk:Nonviolence and start a discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was there something about "please take it to the talk page" that is troubling you. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, and I reverted your bold edit. Now, please take your concerns to the talk page for discussion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that in modern times, nonviolence has not been a powerful tool for social protest? It most certainly has, according to every historian on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am saying that. As have numerous reliable sources (Churchill's "Pacifism as Pathology" and Gederloos' "How Nonviolence Protects the State", George Jackson's "Blood in My Eye" and "Soledad Brother", for example). Whether or not it is powerful is an opinion. So I think it should be changed to something that is not. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the West, nonviolence is well recognized for its tactical, strategic, or political aspects. It is seen as a powerful tool for redressing social inequality." (Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict. Lester R. Kurtz, Jennifer E. Turpin. 1999. p.557[1]) There are literally dozens to hundreds of sources for this statement in the literature. I'm sorry, but you are seriously misinformed. It would help immensely if you would do the most basic research on this subject before editing the article. Viriditas (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's wonderful -- but there are also dozens of sources which say that it is ineffective. It's an opinion. It should be changed to something that is not. I have never seen a single source anywhere that would disagree with the statement "nonviolence is a commonly used form of social protest". I have seen numerous sources that would disagree with the statement "nonviolence is a powerful form of social protest". The former is a fact, the latter an opinion. And please drop the condescending tone and sarcasm -- it makes you look silly. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide source after reliable source showing that you are wrong. Now, please show me a current reliable source that disputes it. The ball is in your court. Please show it to me. No more talk. Talk is cheap. Show me a current source and page number or quoted passage that I can check. Because, quite frankly, I do not believe you. Viriditas (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please drop the condescending tone and sarcasm. It doesn't make you look tough or intelligent to be aggressive to a stranger on the internet. Just sticking to logical argument will suffice -- I promise I'll listen. Now, I think what you meant was that you could find "source after source showing that the author agrees with your opinion". I don't doubt that you could, since your POV is a mainstream opinion. I can also find you source after source from authors who do not hold this opinion. I've given you several already. Two of the books I mentioned (and which are already cited in the article's "Criticism" section are entirely about the ineffectiveness of non-violent protest as a means of social change -- namely, "Pacifism as Pathology" and "How Nonviolence Protects the State". Please see the other references cited in that section as well. I don't want to put either opinion in the lead though. I'd like to just stick to what is factual, which is that it is a common form of protest. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you specifically for a page number and a passage. Please provide these two things or admit that you cannot substantiate your claims with evidence. This means providing a quoted passage that supports your claim, and a page number or link where I can find it. This is the essence of WP:V and I request that you follow it. Viriditas (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for article. I'm done talking to you here. Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already seen the talk page and I've made the same comments there. What part of WP:V is giving you problems? Viriditas (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page for article. I'm done talking to you here.Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-answer. On the talk page you said what amounts to "go find them". You were asked specifically for the name of a source, a quoted passage, and a page number where I can verify your claim. You have not provided these things, and therefore, you are not able to meet WP:V. This means, by definition, that I can revert your changes at anytime. Viriditas (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have Ward Churchill's Pacifism as Pathology at home. When I get there, I'll pop in with a passage and a page number. The whole book is dedicated to a discussion of the ineffectiveness of non-violent protest, but if a page and quote is what is required, no problem, it can be done. Tiamut^talk 17:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also have Frantz Fanon's, The Wretched of the Earth, which discusses a bit on the importance of responding to violence with violence (to prevent pscyhological disorders whereby the society turns violence in towards itself). That's a simplified summary, but I believe a couple of quotes can be taken from there too. Like I said, when I get home, it will be the first I do.

Its very refreshing to see someone around here who recognizes that the liberal bourgoisie viewpoint represented as the only truth in most of our articles here, isn't necessarily in line with NPOV, and that there are other significant minority viewpoints, that directly challenge that viewpoint, that could stand better representation. Tiamut^talk 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amassing some relevant material at User:Tiamut/non. Tiamut^talk 19:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut -- thanks for grabbing the page numbers for me -- it will save me a trip to the library. Looks like you've got excellent taste in literature! .... Anyhow, I am a bit busy right now, but will have some time to work more on this later tonight, I think. I would also throw in some quotes from Nelson Mandela, who supported violence after discovering that non-violent methods weren't working in the fight against apartheid. (I believe there are some other quotes as well that are not on Wikiquote -- I'll search for these later). Well, I'm off for now -- thanks again. Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and understand WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Ward Churchill is not considered a neutral, authoritative, reliable source on the philosophy of nonviolence. In fact, Ward Churchill is guilty of begging the question , assuming his conclusion in his premises, and takes an open, non-neutral position on the politics of nonviolence. He has also been accused of research misconduct. Please make an effort to find, neutral, authoritative sources on the philosophy of nonviolence that do not automatically take one side or another, and can address the impact of nonviolence without resorting to specious epithets. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Churchill is not considered a neutral, authoritative, reliable source on the philosophy of nonviolence. -- According to who? He's a well-known author of several books, a former professor, he's been an activist for decades. I never claimed he was neutral. In fact, I clearly stated that he held the opinion that nonviolence was ineffective. Just like your sources hold the opinion that nonviolence is effective.

In fact, Ward Churchill is guilty of begging the question , assuming his conclusion in his premises, and takes an open, non-neutral position on the politics of nonviolence -- Is that your opinion? Original research on your part?

He has also been accused of research misconduct. -- yes he has, and a court ruled in his favor, stating that the charges were unfounded

Please make an effort to find, neutral, authoritative sources on the philosophy of nonviolence ... -- Would Nelson Mandela, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Franz Fanon work (in addition to the others I've already mentioned)? Or is anyone who doesn't agree with your POV not reliable regarding this article?

and can address the impact of nonviolence without resorting to specious epithets. -- Could you provide an example of which specious epithets you are talking about?

that do not automatically take one side or another -- "One side or the other"? If the claim that nonviolence is ineffective is one side of some argument, what is the opposing viewpoint? Is it perhaps "nonviolence is effective"? Are you saying that "nonviolence is effective" is an opinion, and not a fact? In that case, perhaps we'd better choose a way of including both viewpoints, or finding a way to word it so that it's a fact (like the one that I tried to add) instead of an opinionated statement. Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does Ward Churchill say about the philosophy of nonviolence? Where does he say it isn't a powerful tool for social change? His focus is not on nonviolence at all, but on criticizing the U.S. left. The article on nonviolence is not about the U.S. left. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]