User:Collect/archive 14

Jeffrey Toobin
These weren't reverts. I completely rewrote the material. Roberts1963 (talk) 13:20, September 3, 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing methods
With a general interest in problems related to canvassing, I came across your post from June at Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing. I was intrigued by your suggestion that there is proper and improper canvassing. Would you care to elaborate or point me to the relevant essay or guideline? Regards, Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk  11:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:False consensus draws on Arbitration Committee findings from the past where that committee makes clear the nature of the problem.  The general principle is that any attempt to influence in any way a discussion by either choosing the people to be notified on a non-inclusive manner  (that is, if one notifies recent editors on an article but only chooses those who hold a specific position), or by phrasing the notice in any way that an outside person might view as being non-neutral, or by soliciting people whom you reasonably believe would hold a specific position in accord with your own, is improper.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed
An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
 * 1) Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
 * 2) Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
 * 3) To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
 * 4) If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Nazism
Hi Collect, this is just to apologise for my breach of wikiquette in moving your comment on Talk:Nazism. I'm trying to keep all related discussion together, so that we can get the discussion closed by an admin and have a concrete indication of consensus. I hope I'm not treading on your toes too much here, and let me assure you that I bear no ill will. In fact, I think your suggestion is a very good one and possibly just what we need to resolve this dispute. Let's see what everyone else thinks of it. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
I guess you're aware that this is your 3rd revert in less that 24 hours. Anonimu (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks - try using another term than ""engineer" as it substantially understates his position -- I suppose "male" would be worse . Please find a term in keeping with his academic credentials as a minimum. Collect (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think calling him "engineer GBL, Ph.D in Economy, expert in economical cybernetics and decision theory" would make him any more reliable.Anonimu (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the fact that he has written on material directly relevant to the experiment as part of his studies in human behaviour? Seems that would, indeed, be far better than "engineer."  Linus Pauling was a "chemist" by such standards, and Einstein a "violinist" I suppose.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he has written material about the "experiment" because he thought that as a former political prisoner he has the authority to make any judgement regarding the regime that imprisoned him. His book doesn't seem to be reviewed by historians, sociologists or legal experts, much less by experts in economy or cybernetics. The difference between Pauling and Einstein and Boldur is that the first two had their expertise in novel scientific domains (domains which did not have an established curriculum, like law, history or sociology, so becoming an expert was not possible just through formal education) acknowledged and positively reviewed by the scientific community. Boldur is just making some judgement calls, and no scholar seems to care about them. Why should WP do? Anonimu (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you explain the other papers by him not related to his personal experience?  And why not use the NYT cite I proffered at RS/N as absolutely a reliable source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? People (and especially those in teaching positions) usually write papers in the domain they have expertise, expertise acquired nowadays through formal education, or experiments in the case of novel scientific topics such as those taking place at CERN or JINR (although even those guys had formal education in physics). NYT says what the article already says: Basescu said that the communist authorities were responsible for crime against humanity. It says nothing about Pitesti as a crime against humanity (as a side note, Basescu's report is pretty elusive in saying what the purported "crimes against humanity" allegedly committed by communist authorities actually are).Anonimu (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The NYT states that the report singled out the "experiment" and that the report asserted that the acts corporately constituted "crimes against humanity."  Cheers - reread the NYTimes article and note the immediate succession of the statement about crimes. Collect (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That its not obvious from the article. It seems more like your personal interpretation. Let's stick to clear, unambiguous facts.Anonimu (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not just directly quote that section from the NYT article - that should be neutral. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Frederick Article Edit War
Hi, what can we do about the editor VaBio1 who is insisting on use of biased references? --Zeamays (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * References are not biased. If you have a specific objection to a reference, please identify the specific reference and what your objection is and we can work toward consensus. Zeamays is refusing to provide specifics about his objections and deletes relevant and updated information that is sourced by objective third parties, generally reputable news outlets.  Vabio1 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss the article. I was addressing Collect. --Zeamays (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please stop editing Jeff Frederick page until mediation complete, or provide specific objection on each omission or deletion of content on that page
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick Vabio1 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from User:Collect
Please stop editing Jeff Frederick page until mediation complete, or provide specific objection on each omission or deletion of content on that page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_September_2011/Jeff_Frederick Vabio1 (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please recognize that WP:BLP is a policy of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, he seems to have missed the bit where the mediation cabel is an informal arrangement... ;-) --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he gets it - he's currently appealing a 48 hour block with the rationale "Please unblock so we can revert to historical content while dispute resolution is continued." yeah that will work. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is he setting a record? Collect (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to address all the prior concerns. That is, it was stated by you that if reliable sources are used, content can remain.  I have taken out all votejeff sources, except for two that refer back to specific original writings by Frederick that are posted on his campaign website.  If the article is talking about his own words, it seems appropriate to be able to link to those original words, even if they are on his campaign website.  A good faith effort has been made, and I am open to addressing any additional concerns.  But the wholesale deletion of relevant content, like the fact that his mother is Colombian and that he is currently running for state senate are not irrelevant and are of interest to any reader.  I'm reaching out to you for help and assistance -- I want to get this right, by making sure that longtime content on this article remains (most of this content that I seek to restore has been in place for multiple years), but by also ensuring that those things requiring citations are properly referenced.  Please help to achieve this goal, while also preventing the persistent vandalism taking place on the Frederick page.  Thank you.  Vabio1 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry BLP Facts vs POV's
--Prose072 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. For example, under the policy on biographies of living persons, where negative unsourced content is being introduced, the risk of harm is such that removal is required.

The information on provide is NOT a POV. It is Factual Content and is sourced. If you choose to have an edit war on Factual Sourced content or source-able content I suggest you review the editing rules. When editing on a BLP can be introduced on a specific issue and is source-able content it is NOT a POV therefore it stands andit should not be reverted.

In addition if there is a conflict on an editing issue it should be discussed in the user talk page rather than having an edit war. Reverting a page is against the rules of editing when there is a conflict, instead it should be discussed like adults to have the content reviewed and clearly understood as a source-able or non-source-able edit thereby being a POV on a BLP.

Therefore, I am suggesting we clear this issue on the edit I have inserted and it be reverted back. If you would like me to insert a source, by all means, give me a minute. I have a family to tend too, however, at the statements the I have inserted are a matter of FACT not POV. I happen to like Gov. Perry and have for at least a decade, but that does not change the FACTS ON JOB GROWTH.

Please state your concerns on the issue without a Biased POV. That's what wiki is about Facts not Bias POV's


 * I suggest you read WP:NPOV, WP:RS and all the other policies you might appear to be eliding. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sourced Data in support of edited Page on discussion that was deleted.

Edit Warring
I suggest you read "WP:EW" redirects here. To report editors who are edit warring, please see the Edit warring noticeboard.

Shortcuts: WP:EW WP:WAR WP:EDITWARRING

Cheers as I will follow up and place my factual information with the source provided as it was inserted prior, however, i will include the source link and the info i pasted above as you have engaged in conduct that is not of the wiki rules stated WP:WW

If you have any objections prior to my edit as it is a Neutral posting, I suggest you comply with the rules, NOT misusing the rules to benefit a bias opinion. I have in good faith made an attempt to resolve the dispute and the unauthorized reversion as the post is sourced and a Neutral Edit not a POV as the user has suggest.

I will allow ample time for user to reply before I continue with said edit as the rules state to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prose072 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I will again point out that the proposed edit violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV etc. Cheers, and I suggest you ask others their opinions before leaping headlong into an ill-chosen fray. Collect (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Also read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH noting that the explicit claim must be made by the source, and editors are not allowed to analyse statistics in order to reach some sort of claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted an earlier post as it is a copyright violation per WP:COPYVIO and is removable on sight from any article or talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Chavez
Please see Talk:Hugo Chávez, as I can't add them myself. 99.50.186.240 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work . ..
. . . on the Paul article. -- Jo3sampl (talk) 02:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Source for where you're saying I said Johann Hari said he committed plagiarism? This is getting silly, isn't it? If you're not acquainted with the facts about Hari, why are you trying to edit his biographical page? Hari has admitted he used other people's work to put together his own articles. That's plagiarism. His admission is cited in the article. Do read it.

But I can see this is going to turn into one of those endlessly pointless wikidiscussions where the point is not to establish the facts and set them down accurately and neutrally, but to uphold a wikibanner of wikiprinciples and slam people who aren't proper wikipedians, which God knows, I never was, being more interested in facts and good writing than in wikiquette. Yonmei (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari
Source for where you're saying I said Johann Hari said he committed plagiarism? This is getting silly, isn't it? If you're not acquainted with the facts about Hari, why are you trying to edit his biographical page? Hari has admitted he used other people's work to put together his own articles. That's plagiarism. His admission is cited in the article. Do read it.

But I can see this is going to turn into one of those endlessly pointless wikidiscussions where the point is not to establish the facts and set them down accurately and neutrally, but to uphold a wikibanner of wikiprinciples and slam people who aren't proper wikipedians, which God knows, I never was, being more interested in facts and good writing than in wikiquette. Yonmei (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * His article of 15 September does not even use the word "plagiarism." Period. Saying he apologized for something he did not apologize for is improper use of sources in a WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the multiple sections, do feel free to clean this up. I got an error message and assumed nothing had been left. Yonmei (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Collect, looking at the Johann Hari discussions I'm getting a bit confused about the problem with using the word plagiarism. The Independent article clearly says he has admitted plagiarism so why are you arguing that the header should be "accusations of...." when they are seemingly no longer accusations but they have been proven and admitted. By including "accusations" in the header it implies that there is some dispute about whether it happened or not, which there doesn't appear to be any longer. Polequant (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The section deals with accusations - not with any admission. 2. Hari has carefully never admitted "plagiarism."  3. WP:BLP states that we must reflect accurately what the reliable sources state - and the sources in that secton deal specifically with the accusations, not with any "admission."   4.  When using reliable sources, the content of the source (as opposed to headlines) govern what the claims can state.  5.  In his return of the Orwell Prize, Hari does not make any admissions of plagiarism.  Nor was the Orwell Prize controversy founded in that - but n the claim that he made up an "atrocity" which did not occur.  So since the section with the title "accusations" contains claims about "accusations" then the section title should reflect what the section contains,  since the Orwell Prize article was not accused of containing "plagiarism" then that sectin can not be called "plagiarism" and since his actual apology does not contain "plagiarism" at all, we can not state on our own that he "admtted plagiarism" - there is no reason for us to make the charge on our own.  The principle on Wikipedia is that we do not make conslusions at all, but can only recite what is in the body of reliable sources, especially and specificaly when a "living person" is involved.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * . I don't get it - this seems pretty clear to me. Or is this not a reliable source? And, please, save the lectures on BLP, I know the policy pretty well thanks. Polequant (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A quick learner with only 78 total edits, to be sure, then. Ascribing words to a person which the person did not say is rather improper. In the case of Hari he at no time and in no place apologized for "plagiarism." Thus saying he did do so would require an actual source saying that.   Headlines in a source do not qualify as more than "headlines" and, in many cases, headlines are not borne out by what the source actually says.   The Chicago Tribune in 1948 ran a headline "Dewey Defeats Truman" though I doubt it qualifies as a source that Dewey defeated Truman in 1948, Thus the insistence by a number of editors, not just I, that the section title accurately reflect the material in that section, of all things.   My positionon BLPs is not affected by political, religious or other beliefs I have or do not have - I uniformly seek the use of WP:BLP in all articles touching on living people. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Make it about 7000 actually (. It is not just a headline, it is the content of the article (e.g. "Independent Print Limited (IPL), the owner of The Independent, said that Hari had acknowledged embellishing quotations in articles and plagiarism following an examination of evidence by Andreas Whittam Smith") I am really struggling with your line of reasoning here. There are multiple reliable sources saying that he has admitted plagiarism, but it is your opinion that he has not. I was under the impression that sources trumped editors opinions. As it happens I think when he says "When this happened,...I would use those words instead." is an admittance of plagiarism. You clearly disagree. But the sources seem to be with me on this one including his own paper. Polequant (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry -- did not look up your prior username as it is not shown under "number of edits." Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs - can we discuss the actual issue rather than willy waving over who knows policies better then? Polequant (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And the material in the section is about the accusations. Cheers, your 79 edits clearly gives you more than sufficient experience on how Wikipedia section names are chosen. Collect (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, can you not even read, I said I had about 7000 edits (as you can see by the link on my talkpage to my previous account). (e/c)
 * The header title is a primary one at present, and as such incorporates all of those below it (WP:MOSHEAD). It is supposed to be descriptive of what follows, including what is in sub-sections, which includes his apology and so on. Polequant (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Political positions
Hello. I thought you might be interested to contribute to a thread I started at NPOVN Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you did not respond due to potential canvassing concerns, I posted at the talk page of all five people who commented under NPOVN. I am arguing that all Political positions of... articles violate NPOV through a non-neutral article title which does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I am suggesting we move all of these articles to Politics of... articles. This would end the current problem all these articles have: they encourage editors to find only political positions of the said politician (one viewpoint) even if no notable person or organization has commented on that position. If you have a recommendation about how I can move this conversation along, (am I not in the right venue?) please assist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism
There is nothing about ideological origins of Nazism in the text that I removed. If you want to put that text somewhere, you can put it here. I will not revert my own edit, but fell free to revert me if you think that I'm wrong. You can do it one more time this day. Regards.-- В и к и  T   18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The material is not in any way biographical about the author - it is about "National Socialism" which does not redirect to the BDP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

3RR warning
Your team has reached 3RR at the Baltic states article with your removal of the tag noting an ongoing dispute on the talk page. I ask you to stop edit warring and discuss your edits first per the rules on edit war. MAke an honest attempt to resolve the dispute before edit warring on the tag. (Igny (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC))
 * As I have no "team" I suggest your warning is simply snark based on your actual and direct 3RR which occurred. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts. Just passing by. Grey Hood   Talk  16:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Igny hit 3RR in a very short time on the article - I did not. Exceeding 3RR is a "bright line" violation, but the policy does not make it an automatic license to hit 3RR. Collect (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please familiarize yourself with WP:TEAM. (Igny (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Please note that grossly unfounded accusations of tag team may end up in the accuser being sanctioned. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. The only thing he did in September was edit warring in several articles . Biophys (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for sorting out the issue on the Pamela Geller page. It was copyright infringement before I sorted it out, but I'll concede that the word cartoons is more appropriate as it does seem more appropriate. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

A draft of the AE request
Dear , I consider a possibility to file the AE request as explained on the MCuCR talk page. However, since the sanctions are not my primary goals, I would like to discuss this draft with you first. I hope it would be useful to look at the issue again. That may help to avoid some negative consequences and to save the arbitrators' time. Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the possiblitity that such a request might have a different result or effect than you likely would consider optoimal should weigh heavily. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved to ANI
Collect. I have moved the recent WQA that you commented on to AN/I per the suggestion of another editor there. I considered reposting the question only, but since both you and MoP were critical of my post, I moved all of it, so as to maintain that criticism in the record. This means, of course, that your answer to me is at AN/I now and I'm informing you of that. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring warning report
Hi, you have been reported for edit warring on the Johann Hari/Talk page. Thank you! Yonmei (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC/Tenmei
Thank you again for your participation in Requests for comment/Tenmei.

As it turned out, the RfC was cited as part of an ArbCom findings of fact which explicitly endorsed the complaints of Qwyrxian here and Bobthefish2 here.


 * Tenmei and disputes
 * Although Tenmei was counseled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; )

As remedies, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision included:
 * Tenmei advised
 * Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.


 * Tenmei banned for one year

In retrospect, I would have preferred you did something different in the RfC. It would have helped me if you and others had argued forcefully that the complainers needed to help me by addressing the direct questions I posted as an initial response:
 * A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point?


 * B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point?


 * C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point?


 * D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point?


 * E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why?


 * F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment?

I explain this now because I hope it will influence your thinking in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious concerns
I have serious concerns about. In that Wikiquette response, you appear to focus on content issues - I'm honestly surprised you don't know that the Wikiquette board is not about content - but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that you, in your response to Mathsci suggest that Will do something.

It appears to me that you have confused Mathsci and Will - two editors who are very, very different. There are a number of possible explanations for this - I would appreciate it if you could provide one. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of the difference - and the topic was Cla's diffs - which are properly dealt with in that venue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote "I suggest Will reread the discussions about removing all the Proquest factoids and BLP violations, and act in accord with the clear consensus thereon." Can you explain why you referred to Mathsci as Will, please? Hipocrite (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not refer to Mathsci as Will -- I referred to Will as Will as he is the one apparently using Proquest to get all the latest factoids. Did you read the discussions thereon?  Collect (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you suggesting that Will do things about content in a discussion about Mathsci's Wikiquette, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can not see any intertwining of Mathsci and Will and Cla with regard to the diffs provided, then there is quite little I can do for you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are engaging in battleground behavior - intertwining your perceived adversaries as one. What can we do to stop that from happening? Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are the one at a "battleground" here - persisting in finding "enemies under the bed" where none exist   Is there any actual reason why you are pursuing this after I gave nice short and explicit answers to your queries?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I'd like to get you to be a productive contributor to the discussion, or at least to stop driving off productive contributors. It is unhelpful for editors who were specifically asked to step away from protracted disputes to try to drive off other editors who were not involved in those protracted disputes - especially if such attempts are made with the mistaken belief that two editors are the same person. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would scarcely have thought my post drove off anyone at all. And since I do not and have never thought that Will and Mathsci are the "same person" nor do any of my edits make any such implication or assertion, I am aghast at your rudeness here.  Kindly leave.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes
Please take a look at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and User:Smallbones/drafts and let me know what you think. Smallbones (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

EW form requirements:
When folks file an Edit War complaint, the form states specifically:

It is unusual for anyone to not notice this specific instruction. I find folks who insist that this is not a specific instruction to be deficient. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthony Bologna
Hey, why did you unilaterally delete that page? What is your objection to it? If you have an issue with it, you should propose it for deletion, not delete it. PromiseOfNY (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the discussions at the AfD for the incident article? There is a clear consensus that the entire incident does not merit an article, much less an article on a single police officer as part of the non-notable incident. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

anti-Semitism query
Thank you, happy 5772!

Boy, your query is a tough one. This is the perfect example of a basic point well-understood to anyone knowledgeable about hermeneutics 9and I am not trying to talk down to you, just making explicit my own frame of reference): unambiguous words often do not convey unambiguous meaning, because their meaning depends on the context. In this case the sequence of edits is not sufficient context, that is why you need to ask for my interpretation.  The fact is, I think that in this case one would actually need to know the kinds of things which are usually unverifiable at Wikipedia: Paul Seibert's religion, relations with Jews, his view about communists, his views about people who do not like communists, his (if he actually is a he) life history, his personality.  I do not think there is anyway to know the answer to your question with any confidence without knowing all these other things.

The immediate question here is: was this editor being sarcastic?

The problem is that there probably are many WP editors who are anti-Semitic, some mildly, some in the rabid Stormfront neo-Nazi way. These people, like Hitler, may well identify Jews with Bolshevism and really believe that the blood libels were true. Such a person would make this comment in seriousness. Perhaps your experiences at WP make you lean in this direction.

But if I knew that the person making the comment was either generally sympathetic to communism, or highly skeptical of red-bashers (and the two do not go hand-in-hand ... in the US the reaction against McCarthyism was not driven by communists but rather by people who did not like communism but who disliked even more people who used the fear of communists as a cover to persecute non-communists), and if I knew that this person is Jewish, or has demonstrated through his life and relationships with others a genuine sympathy for victims of anti-Semitism, I would immediately interpret the comment as sarcastic. In fact, given the conditions I just specified, I would probably expect the person to make this kind of comment!! Perhaps Greyhood's experiences with Paul Siebert lead him in this direction.

That is my diagnosis of the problem. Now, I would not have made the comment you made, even though it was certainly well-intentioned. If the user making the comment were an anonymous IP, I would have checked the IP contributions to see if this IP had made other anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic comments or edits. Often times though an IP has made only on or a few edits. In that case, I would have asked the anonymous user if she is serious. In my experience, most anonymous editors are not anti-Semitic but most anti-Semites hide behind anonymity, and if the user is anonymous I would be immediately suspicious but still ask for clarification. A real anti-Semite would not back-peddle!

In this case the user is named. I have known several named editors at WP who are anti-Semitic and the obvious ones (ones who might make this comment in all seriousness) are banned. But I know many more named editors who are not anti-Semitic which does not mean I would immdiately assume th best, but I would take even more time to try to figure things out before making an accusation (and you know my view about anti-Semites: calling someone an anti-Semite is not "incivil" if they have actually made an anti-Semitic comment; making anti-Semitic comments is worse than accusing someone of anti-Semitism; anti-semites should be banned, incivil people should be tolerated. But before accusing someone of anti-Semitism I would want more evidence because intention is an issue, especially when a comment can be read different ways). The user thus has a well-established record of edits and I would definitely check to see what articles the person has edited and look at her user page and look at some past edits. In this specific case, I would certainly have asked if the user were serious.

You didn't, but in this case I am sure that if you had Paul would have given a similar (but perhaps gentler) reply, that she is quoting a novel. I don't know the novel and I would have asked (in as neutral a tone as possible) to share the name of the novel with me. If I could verify that this is a quote from a novel, I would be inclined to accept the interpretation that the user was making a sarcastic joke.

Now, since context is often everything and is certainly very important in this case, I will tell you what I think is the eal issue is and if you think I am off-base you can tell me to go shove it.

I think the question of a "red Holocaust" is much more contentious than that of the Holocaust. It is not contentious because of the "facts on the ground" - only an idiot would deny the extraordinary numbers of civilian deaths under Stalin (or Pol Pot), including deaths through deliberate campaigns. It is contentious because many of these facts are open to interpretation (not that they happened, but why exactly); because many Jews consider the Jewish Holocaust a unique event in history and are offended by people who compare it (in nature, not in severity) to other times and places where huge numbers of civilians were murdered ... or, they might not be offended by comparing it to other cases of genocide by which I mean the attempt to eliminate an entire race, ethnic group, or nation, but might be offended by comparing it to mass-murder that had another basis; and finally, because in many countries there are legal communist parties that have no history of genocide and it matters not only to members of these parties but even to many of their political opponents that these parties not only should be tolerated, they should be legally protected, whereas explicitly fascist parties are illegal and not tolerated ... such people might be concerned that an article on a red Holocaust is an attempt to discredit communism in general (rather than Stalin and Pol Pot) and thus threaten the legal standing of their party. Any editor who falls somewhere within this space might be very angry about the wording, or, if the person is not of a choleric temperment, might simply wish to mock it.

You may not be consider any of the reasons I just gave as reasonable, and you may not consider the above position acceptable. If you don't, you will find it much, much harder to assume good faith on the part of any editor who is critical of this article. You might even find it hard to believe that otherwise reasonable editors would not only disagree with the wording of the lead but would be profoundly offended by, and deeply concerned about it. If so, it might be hard for you to recognize a mocking or sarcastic response.

I think Paul was responding to this: "These mass killings are known as the Red Holocaust, mirroring the Holocaust in Nazi Germany." I know intelligent people who would agree with this claim. I also know intelligent people who would consider it absurd on its face. Of the people who consider it absurd on its face I cannot say for sure how they would respond were they WP editors but my guess is that they would consider the anon. editor who wrote this to be either an idiot, or deliberately provocative, and this would color their response.

(Speaking personally: I have not heard of the phrase "Red Holocaust" and I have only heard non-communists use the word "Red" in derogatory ways, making the term in my view non-encyclopedic, non-neutral. If there are people who (1) call these "Red Holocausts" and among these people some or many who (2) further liken it to the Nazi Holocaust, well, then of course it should be said so in the article - but the view would have to be attributed to someone through reliable sources and some effort has to be made to determine whether it is a minority view or majority view among historians and political scientists, or among citizens of Russia, Ukraine, China, etc.  Speaking solely as a WP editor my sense is that this discussion would belong in the body not the lead.  I certainly think that the text Paul was responding to is poorly written for an encyclopedia; there really is a lively debate among scholars as to whether this laundry-list of means of persecution all had the same cause and reflect a deliberate pattern, and also whether or in what way this can be likened to what the Nazis did)

If Paul replied to my question that she is joking or being sarcastic and is criticizing the lead and quoting a novel, and if I personally believe that there was a "Red Holocaust," I would say that the real question to ask Paul is, can he explain his objections in a non-sarcastic and more specific form. I would try to have a good faith and reasonable debate with him about the lead where we rely on reliable sources and WP policy to decide how to introduce the article and try to bracket my own political views and feelings and ask Paul to do the same.

It is still possible that Paul is an anti-Semite but from the way the discussion unfolded personally I suspect he isn't. I think it is really important to find out the name of the novel and who wrote it - obviously h is alluding to the novel and if the novel is generally considered anti-Semitic, then his alluding to it may be a sign of anti-Semitism, but if the novel is generally considered serious literature (or even written by a Jew!!) then I really would abandon any suspicions about Paul and anti-Semitism.

If I reached this point in a conversation with Paul, at most this is what I would do: I would write a note on his user page (definitely not the article talk page) saying that I do not think he is anti-Semitic but he has to understand that of the million or more people who read Wikipedia, there re a great many who would not recognize that she is being sarcastic and would not be familiar with the novel. I would point out that this comment could just as easily be offensive as it could be funny and that it all depends on the context. I would point out that the problem with WP is that we usually do not have enough of the right context to interpret these kinds of remarks correctly. I would ask Paul to consider that, given the nature of Wikipedia &mdash; that the typical reader of this article talk page does not know Paul personally, does not know her sense of humor, does not know that she is Jewish or is a gentile who has always spoken out decisively against anti-Semitism &mdash; she has to take into account the likelihood that many readers will misinterpret her remark and he intentions, and that the problem is not that she is anti-Semitic but that under these conditions, making these kinds of statements is terribly insensitive. You could suggest that if she really feels that the appropriate response to the proposed text, given the last sentence which Paul might find offensive, is simply to take a little bit more care to express herself clearly, for example writing something like this: "you forgot to mention the well known habit of "jewish bolshevik cossacks" to drink Christian infants' blood, as novelist X wrote. X was mocking (blah blah blah) and I think that vague and unattributed claims like "These mass killings are known as the Red Holocaust, mirroring the Holocaust in Nazi Germany" are so offensive that the only response I have is to mock them too." This kind of message shows Paul how she can write in a much more sensitive way that would spare the feelings of any Jewish editors who are not as well-read as Paul, and would in fact make his point to the anonymous reader even more strongly.

Best, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 06:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. any time an editor is using sarcasm, consider using this link/essay Sarcasm is really helpful as a point of reference. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just in case all you haven't understand the double oxymoron: real Cossacks were anti-Bolsheviks and were ethnically Russian/Ukrainian. Hence Bolshevik Cossacks and Jewish Cossacks are nonsense, and no any anti-Semitism here. Cheers! Grey Hood   Talk  11:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I fear you did not know some of the background wherein Paul et al insisted all the new anti-communism is founded in anti-semitism.  'This reasoning has been described as a new form of anti-semitism" TFD (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC),   out) I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  showing TFD's explicit accusation of anti-semitism on the part of other editors.   This new thinking, which is especially popular in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states, where Communism is associated with Jewry, has been to diminish the significance of the Holocaust, with the Holodomor presented as a crime of equal magnitude. This reasoning has been described as a new form of anti-semitism.[3] --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)  Also showing Paul; explicitly using "anti-semitism" as a charge against those who ascribe killings to communist regimes.  Not referring to any novel at all -- but explicitly making a charge of "anti-semitism" .  I suggest you read some of those past discussions.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * None of what you now say is relevant in the last. it was you asking whether something that he wrote is antisemitic.  You didn't ask me if it is true that much current anti-communism is tied to anti-semitism.  It wouldn't surprise me if it is, but this is a simple matter of seeing what the reliable sources say.  I have no opinion and of course neither do you; we editors do not put our own opinions in the article, we look for what reliable sources (in this cases experts on the history, culure, and politics of the former Soviet union) have to say.  You asked me if his comment is anti-Semitic and rereading his comment in light of what you just told me I would say that the answer is "no."  I am surprised that you would think it an anti-semitic comment, given the context as you have explained it to me.  How strange. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And you splendidly answered my query. Another editor, as you may note, leapt in, and I rather think that called for more exposition that heretofore.  The query,moreover, was not whether the remark per se was anti-semitic, but whether it was used to impute anti-semitism to other editors, which I regretfully feel it did.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am glad I could help. Anyway, it is pretty clear to me that the comment is implying an unreasonable bias against "reds" on the part of the anonymous editor, not Jews. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the second claim that all Cossacks were anti-Bolshevik -- that is belied by, thus such a group certainly did exist. Ditto the existence of "Jewish cossacks" per, etc. It is amazing how often absolute statements turn out to be errant. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * En masse these statements are right, and that's enough for humour, especially in the context. Don't know about the old discussions but anyway trying to find the anti-semitism in this phrase, which is more about Cossacks than Jews, reminds me of a Russian language meme translated as "If there is any anti-semitism here?". Grey Hood   Talk  12:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue on that talk page has been iterated claims that some editors are anti-communist therefore anti-semitic. TFD has, indeed, made such claims. (out) I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC) for example.  I trust you find that one an explicit accusation?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the meme could be applied to TFD's question as well. I'm not interested in digging old discussions where I haven't taken part in, but hope I've made myself clear about the joke. Grey Hood   Talk  12:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence the query, and thoughtful response by Slrubenstein, as to whether it truly was joci causa or was a sideways attack at an IP editor.   The charge "anti-semitism"  has been bandied lightly on that article talk page, and I am rather getting tired of it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Collect, I presented several sources that comment on some of the sources used for Communist-related articles. Much of it reflects what slrubenstein said, many Jews are offended by the comparison ot the Holocaust to other mass killings, and anti-Communism has been used to attack non-Communists and Communists who have no connection with Stalinist crimes.  Another issue is that it is used in disputes between different national groups in Eastern Europe.  Also, the external link we discussed is owned by a group set up by the World Anti-Communist League, which is a controversial organization.  While we are all free to believe whatever we wish, we must accept the controversial nature of the analyses used in these articles.  TFD (talk)
 * Your quote stands for itself. The accusation that anti-communists are therefore anti-semites holds no water, and when made as an accusation of another editor is uncivil.  Nor did the EL enter into any of this discussion here, so I am a tad bemused by your apparent assertion that the group you mention is specifically "anti-semitic."   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources do not say that "anti-communists (sic) are therefore anti-semites", but that some anti-Communists are anti-semitic. That is actually clear in the article about the World Anti-Communist League which was criticized by the Anti-Defamation League for including anti-Semites such as Ron Gostick and Paul Fromm.  TFD (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All well and good - but out) I am pointing out the inherent anti-Semitism in the point of view you are pushing. TFD (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC) seems quite clear as to your own POV.  "INHERENT ANTI-SEMITISM was a strong charge for you to make.   I rather think almost any group can have "anti-semites" in it   (including some groups of Jews, I rather suppose), but to aver that the mere fact of "anti-communism" is INHERENTLY ANTI-SEMITIC was a reach.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have noticed through my interactions with you that you have a strong aversion to anti-Semitism and wish you would read the sources I provided. TFD (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I abhor anti-semitism, and I abhor improperly charging anyone with being anti-semitic who is not an anti-semite. Your quote above stands on its own, as well as your position here that if a group has anti-semites in it, that therefore the entire group can be labelled as anti-semitic.  I assure you that this is an abuse of a word which applies to a real problem in this world.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Last Angry Man and other editors with whom you agree on the anti-Communism articles make those arguments on articles about the British National Party and other far-right organizations. TFD (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have made remarkably few edits on "anti-Communism articles" and certainly am not allied with any group of editors thereon, I wonder just what sort of point you think you are making.  I do, however, think the "left right spectrum" has significant problems - do you associate that position with anti-Semitism in some way?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with the political spectrum. People who promote racist views are called the "far right".  It could be they are actually left-wing, centrist, or outside the political spectrum, or the political spectrum could be meaningless, but that is what they are called.  If you prefer, we could call it "identity politics".  TFD (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazingly enough, people on the "far left" can also be "racists."  A splendid example of why using a "left right spectrum" is fatuous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. There is a group of ideologies commonly called, for want of a better term, the far right, which includes neo-nazis, skinheads, Klansmen, etc.  Where they fit on the political spectrum is irrelevant, that is what they are commonly called.  If you have another name for them, such as identity politics, then I am fine with using that term.  TFD (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What you state is that the "far right" is not actually on the "right" of a "left right spectrum" which means then clearly that the "left right spectrum" is meaningless as to "left" and "right" and is pretty thoroughly useless.    Your semantic argument is wondrously clear.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not say where it actually is. It may be a misnomer, but it is the term normally used.  Koala bears for example are not bears, but that does not mean we cannot use the term.  TFD (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Where a term is exceedingly misleading, I tend not to use the term, and to suggest that use of the term is less than helpful.  I refer to "Koalas" and not to "koala bears" and so do most people who actually have dealt with them in any way at all. Cheers.   Collect (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I have never dealt with koalas. Your objection to the left-right political spectrum is noted.  Do you have an alternative name for "far right"?  TFD (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about we just call "racists" "racist"? I rather think that would be both accurate and straightforward. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

bad nom IMO
You were correct, I closed the debate, would you be good enough to ensure it has been done correctly please? The Last Angry Man (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed changes in lead of 1953 Iran coup article
I'm polling editors active in the 1953 Iranian coup article on the issue of adding a short subsection titled ’Iranian coup supporters’ since the article has no mention on why they opposed Mosaddeq other than being bribed to do so.

Iranian coup supporters
''Iranian opponents of Mosaddeq have been described as including "religious leaders and preachers and their followers, as well as landlords and provincial magnates"; "conservative politicians such as prime ministers Ahmad Qavam and General Ali Razmara .... and commanders of the military, most notably General Fazlollah Zahedi ... led by the Shah." They have been described as forces that would "have been crippled without substantial British and later U.S. support," while authors Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr say "it would be mistaken to view the coup as entirely a foreign instigation with no support" in Iran.

''Observers differ on the opponents motivation for supporting the coup. Mark J. Gasiorowski describes them as "very ambitious and opportunistic." Another author calls Mosaddeq's Iranian opponents elites "determined to retrieve their endangered interests and influence, and unconcerned with the lasting damage to Iranian patriotic sensibilities and democratic aspirations." Money was involved with the US CIA paying out $150,000 after March 1953 to "journalists, editors, preachers, and opinion members", giving Zahedi $135,000 to "win additional friends", and paying members of the majlis $11,000 a week.

''Other authors (Ali Gheissari, Seyyed Vali Reza Nasr) describe the opponents as agreeing with Mosaddeq that the "British position was unjust and illegal," but believing that after the 1946 attempt by the Soviets to separate Azerbaijan and Kurdistan from Iran, "Iran's interests lay in close ties with the West to ward off the Soviet  threat." government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh organized by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

On "the" and "his" of Mark Twain
At the beginning of Mark Twain, I noticed you changed to "...better known as his pen name Mark Twain...". Could you explain why, as we don't see the difference? --Sateros (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Likely "by his pen name" would work as well. Collect (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah,but how do they differ?...make little difference probably.--Sateros (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ed Witten
Nice work on the Ed Witten article. Sometimes removing information can be as useful as adding. SocratesJedi | Talk 03:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See the Joseph Widney article. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

AE
Since you refused to self-revert, and the 48 hour period has expired, I had to take some actions. See this. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Refactor please
I suggest you remove your statement about SPIs. I have been targeted on SPI by a number of now indefinitely banned users,. Mathsci (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As have I - including several CUs etc.   Cheers.   I take accusations that I somehow am backing a "sock" quite seriously. Collect (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)