I was only six years old, and therefore had a limited understanding of what had happened. Finishing a Dick and Jane pre-primer in school that day was almost as important to me.
But I spent a chunk of last night watching unedited footage from the CBS feed from that day on YouTube, preparatory to writing a blog entry about it. Once the footage gets past the chunks of As The World Turns, punctuated by commercials and brief bulletins read by the unseen Uncle Walter behind a plain bulletin title card, it's fairly compelling viewing. The technology just wasn't there yet to do what needed to be done, and the info reported by CBS was slow, sparse, repetitive and sometimes contradictory. But Cronkite and Co. did their best, pulling together whatever they could gather from wire services, the Dallas CBS station and Dan Rather at the hospital. The grassy knoll was mentioned, as were conflicting stories about who had been shooting from which floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and whether that person was dead. Given the chaos of that day, it's not too surprising that conspiracies arose from it.
But it's kind of remarkable how much staying power they have. In 1992, Donald P. Bellisario felt the need to refute them in an episode of Quantum Leap, and somewhere around that time my friend Julie B (who comments here) took me to the scene of the crime. There was a JFK assassination museum and research center nearby, from which I bought a fired rifle casing as a souvenir. The person manning the cash register was incensed when I used that term. "It's not a souvenir," he insisted. "It's research evidence." Uh, whatever. But other than Sam Beckett's fictional involvement, I'm pretty sure Bellisario got it about right.
In case anyone still cares, I will mention here that the Disemvoweling article is currently being taken over by a few people who have been disemvoweled here. I made one attempt to revert the edit and asked for a better example, and someone else made one attempt at a compromise edit; but of course it didn't work. I'm sorry, but I can't even bear to look at it again. kthxbye
And now, a couple months later, someone with a Wikipedia handle that matches that identified by TNH as the puppetmaster of the Boing Boing unpleasantness has linked to that BB thread in the Disemvoweling article as "numerous examples of [disemvoweling] being used as a means of effectively silencing opposing viewpoints." I reverted the edit because the thread itself doesn't remotely support that interpretation, but good grief, I really, really don't want to get into another Wikibattle over disemvoweling.
On the other hand, following that link to Boing Boing and thence to here gave me a chance to belatedly enjoy the parody song and poetry, which more than makes up for my confrontation-adverse anxiety. Thanks.
Addendum:
Oops! I now remember that there was a discussion about whether Wikimedia Foundation was going to express a preference as to whether the BB article should be deleted, presumably in light of the lawsuit. The deletion discussion was tabled until word came down that the Foundation was not going to interfere. discussion continued, and the result was to delete the article.
Okay, I step away for a few months, only to belatedly stumble upon this thread while Googling for a posted picture of a friend of mine. Funny how that works sometimes.
The Barbara Bauer article was deleted months ago on the argument that Bauer was not sufficiently notable to merit an article, along with concerns about the preponderance of negativity in an article about a living person. (Notability, in WP parlance, basically means that non-blogs have published material worth citing on the subject, along with the more usual meaning of the term.) It was not deleted because of the lawsuit per se; at least, I don't recall anyone arguing for deletion on that basis. Well, maybe one person, in passing.
Oh, and I would not characterize WB as "hanging out" with Mrk Yrk, any more than he was hanging out with me. Will was reacting to the fact that I didn't vigorously defend him in some thread or other; it had nothing to do with Mrk. Mrk's attack was just his usual opportunism.
Dang. It's late. This is one reason why I don't hang out here very often. Three hours go by in a blink!
Aww. Now I wish I could think of something good to say to cheer you up. I'll work on it. First pass: it's clear from the comments that everyone here respects the way you've handled a difficult situation. Hang in there.
Teresa @ 242 -
No, I didn't take the time to check those links out, but I will. I think I'm also carrying some style baggage around from my University of Phoenix papers several years back.
Here's a quick tangent for you. I've also been taught, more than once, that even fiction, outside of dialogue and the like, should be one step more formal than the point of view character would use in reality; hence, contractions are discouraged. Obviously we're not talking about Huck Finn here, but even in a non-dialect, third person limited story, is that completely ridiculous or is there something to be said for the idea?
I therefore shall not argue futher
...or further, either.
(Dratted typos. I swear they magically appear after proofreading!)
Teresa, you may be right, but I'm not entirely convinced. I have seen the contractions issue crop up before, sufficiently often that I try to avoid them on WP and sometimes edit them out myself. I may or may not have seen it in the WP Manual of Style somewhere, and don't feel like hunting tonight. Still, I'm unlikely to convince you that someone whose behavior was clearly out of line last night was initially less malicious than wrongheaded, and I know far less than you do about the particulars. I therefore shall not argue futher.
Thanks for your reasonable response to Jimmy Wales' request. I haven't seen anything further on the Talk and Noticeboard pages, so the issue appears to be resolved for now. Your request that Will Beback recuse himself from the relevant pages is a good one, I think, and has already been suggested to him on the admin noticeboard. Whether it will happen remains to be seen.
Thanks for the response, Teresa. I think the answer to your question is that of course Will knows about previous references to his apparently real name, but doesn't want it spread further. Nor does he want it used in connection with criticism of him (and let's face it, a bit of name-calling) off-Wiki.
I honestly believe that this conflict started with honest disagreements between the two of you about how Wikipedia should function vis-a-vis referencing, editing by the article's subject, contractions and so on, and became personal only after he targeted pages of interest to you for the purpose of conforming to his interpretation of the rules. (Looking into related articles and user contributions when one finds a perceived problem is a common practice on Wikipedia.) He's clearly overreacted with this whole "attack site" issue, and yes, it's tantamount to vandalism, but I doubt that his original intent in your earlier brushes with him was a malicious one. I can certainly see how it would appear that way, though.
If you're compiling a full list, see also the Talk page for the article about TNH. One point being raised is that posting personal info about Wikipedia editors makes it easier for people to stalk or harass them. (This is more likely to happen to admins with a controversial history than with ordinary, low-profile editors.) The refutation is that the information (or at any rate the claim) is already out there in this case. I doubt that anyone is going to egg car windows or make nasty phone calls as a direct result of Making Light, nor is such behavior being advocated here.
The removals of the links were done by Will BeBack specifically, and have been reverted and argued against by other editors. Wikipedia does tend to take a strong stance about sites that are critical of specific Wikipedia editors, especially if they publish real names and other personal details. This is not a full-fledged Wikipolicy, apparently, as noted in one editor's essay on the subject. In this specific case, Will notes (on Jules' Talk page at least - I haven't read through everything because I find conflicts like this depressing) that repeated attacks on him here have "crossed the line". He calls for civility in resolving the issue.
I personally think Will is in the wrong here for trying to remove all links to the site on the basis of a few specific comment thread remarks, but I do see why he would be upset. Really, I think the basic conflict between TNH and WBB has always stemmed from disagreements about reliable sources, the same issues discussed in this very thread. It's a shame that it's become personal; by and large, in my experience, Will does try to keep things civil.
I've been avoiding commenting on the other issues raised here. In a choice between spending hours developing and stating a complex position, or abstaining entirely from the discussion, I currently lean toward the latter. But I did want to clarify the attack site issue a bit.
As the former editor of a major Quantum Leap newszine, I should stick up for it here, although to be honest I haven't opened the last three seasons on DVD yet. (I'm too busy watching the 2005-2007 seasons of Doctor Who.) EW earned my disdain over fifteen years ago by saying nasty things about Quantum Leap, without giving any particular reason for their scorn.
There's still a fairly active fandom for Quantum Leap, although it seems to have devolved into an over-emphasis on its lead actor. You know the fellow: he also got stuck playing the least likable starship captain (excluding guest cast) in the history of the Star Trek franchise.
Aside from that one line item, this is just another in a long series of recent published "best of" lists that show a serious lack of in-depth knowledge of the subject. I'd scrap half of what's here, move the rest up a bit, and intersperse most of the glaring omissions others have mentioned.
Barbara #95: I agree. I once managed to base a poem on one of the nonsense phrases, "of previous Anacreon a Well." The only problem is that there's too much of the word salad about to appreciate the whimsy after a while.
Howard #192:
Was anybody else first introduced to Tlkn through Isaac Asimov's short mystery story about an overheard murder plot? That's what led me to seek out the novels.
I think that Asimov story, "Nothing Like Murder," was first published a few months after I first read Tlkn. I've remembered it fondly ever since.
Carrie #165: Oh, cool! Many thanks! (Yes, Teresa, I'm impressed, too.) Now I have two possible resources to try. A friend after church today pointed me to someone who has adapted Quechua text to music, but may or my not be familiar with Quenya.
My worry is that after all this, I'll learn that my obscurely translated yearbook inscription says, "Have a nice summer. See you next year."
Yes! I got that, too. I was sure it was a scam, since I haven't bought or sold anything on eBay in a decade or so, and never under that particular screen name; but I couldn't figure out how the scam operated. Now I know. Thanks! Incidentally, the same day as the email, I heard from someone who supposedly remembers me from the education program at Unfamiliar Initials University and tracked me down via Whatever. I'm still wondering whether to respond to that one.
Yes, that was it. (Sighs contentedly.) It does mean, however, that the Common translation was a rather free one.
I never made any serious attempt to learn the languages or the alphabets (except the G rune, which was a bit of a plot point), but that didn't stop me from working on my own fictional language a year after reading these books.
Well, I thought I had it, checked the link, decided it was a different passage, read the comments here, and am no longer sure whether it's the same bit or not. The one I'm thinking of, I only remember the first two lines, which started with a one-letter exclamation (or something), and the end of the English version of the C.T. translation given later on the same page.
As an aside, I asked my boyfriend in high school to write in my yearbook in Quechua, spelled in Qny. He did so, and I still don't know what he wrote. Dan's been dead for 30 years, so I can't ask him, and who else do I know with a penchant for both Peru and Tlkn?
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 19 |
| 2006 | 88 |
| 2005 | 7 |
| 2004 | 52 |
Total: 170 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Karen Funk Blocher:
Show all comments by Karen Funk Blocher.