User talk:Collect/Archive 38

MKuCR
Collect, Aquillion is absolutely right: we should not spam the discussion section with our conversation. I am not sure I understood your opinion about writing the article in a purely descriptive style. Do you have any objections to that? If not, let's discuss it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem at this point is your apparent misunderstanding as to how RfCs work. Collect (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * These are two independent questions. You insist you want neutrality, I also think neutrality is important. I think, by making the article purely descriptive we can achieve this goal. Are you ready to discuss it?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I take it that you might want an article on mass deaths attributed to communist regimes which avoids any mention of numbers. I think that might be interesting but highly unlikely to get a consensus.  The issue as to "neutral wording" for any RfC is, in fact, much different.  The wording of the RfC must be neutral in the sense that it presupposes no specific outcome of the RfC at all.  And then it must be aimed at getting outside viewers who have no dog in the hunt as far as editorial positions or friendships or collaborations with any editors already involved on the article.  Is this quite clear? Collect (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Re numbers. It seems you fundamentally misunderstand me.


 * Re outside editors, during the last RSN discussion, some editor noted that the RSN request provided not enough information to make any input of uninvolved users helpful. That means, you seem to misunderstand how a good RSN/RfC question should be formulated.


 * Regarding the descriptive article, I see its plan as follows:


 * MKuCR did occur.
 * What happened in the USSR, why, when, how many were killed, who were main perpetrators. Discussion of controversial cases.
 * What happened in PRC, why, when, how many were killed, who were main perpetrators. Discussion of controversial cases.
 * What happened in Cambodia ... etc
 * General theories linking MKuCR and communism: who proposed a common cause, what is the main idea, who supports it, who criticises. Attempts to calculate a common figures, pro et contra.
 * Other general theories (Rummel should go here, because he connects his "democide" not with communism, but with totalitarianism in general). Valentino also goes here, because his theories also focuses not on ideology.
 * Other general theories (Rummel should go here, because he connects his "democide" not with communism, but with totalitarianism in general). Valentino also goes here, because his theories also focuses not on ideology.


 * That would be a neutral way, and that allows us to discuss all estimates, including much more accurate numbers provided by country experts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * One problem which I think might attract dissension is the idea that we must only list deaths associated specifically with communism as an integral part of such governments and discard deaths which were parallel to other totalitarian regimes which were not specifically communist in ideology. That seems to be a weird bifurcation of what should be a simple topic "Noncombatant deaths attributed to communist regimes'" which avoids all that strange separation, especially since that bifurcation is not made by the reliable sources used. As for the RfC, any additional information simply gets placed at the start of the discussion, not in the neutral statement outlining the RfC.  You might note that RfCs generally have only a two or three line content … twenty lines is outside the normal level by an order of magnitude. Collect (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Collect, the topic is not so simple, because there is no universal definition of a "communist regime". Actually, I see no problem to combine Cambodia and USSR in a single article, however, I have strong objections to the claim that the article describes the deaths that were universally attributed to communist regimes. Let me explain why.


 * 1. We can combine Cambodia and USSR in the same article, because at least one source did that (BB is an example)


 * 2. We cannot use Fein's or Kiernan's study as a source for Cambodia, because they do not attribute Cambodian genocide to communist government: they do not claim it was not communist, but they do not see Communism as a primary driving force of that genocide. The same can be said about the USSR: many authors carefully avoid the work "communism", and use "Stalinism" instead. Actually, Stalin killed more communists than Hitler.
 * 3. In addition, there are sources (I already cited them, so I will not do that again) that say: "Khmer Rouge rule and Stalinism had almost nothing in common, and it is incorrect to combine them together"


 * How do you propose to resolve this problem? My approach is as follows (for a moment, let's imagine only two "communist regimes existed in the world, Kampuchia and USSR, and keep in mind that the facts and figures are used just as a placeholder):


 * MKuCR


 * "''Mass killings of non-combatants occurred in countries that claimed adherence to a communist doctrine. These countries were the USSR and Democratic Kampuchea.


 * ''In the USSR, most mass killings occurred during Stalin's rule. Stalinist regime executed or indirectly killed about 6 million people during political repression campaigns, 3 more million people died as an indirect result of stalinist policy. Several reasons were proposed to explain a mechanism of these mass killings, including inconclusive agrarian reform before the revolution, the overall brutality of the WWI and the Civil war, the personality of Stalin who used massive terror to obtain an absolute power, as well as the influence of the Marxian idea of "dictatorship of proletariat" (see below). Mass killing came to the end after Stalin's death, and they were generally condemned by the successor regime of Khruschev.
 * ''The genocide in Cambodia started immediately after the victory of Khmer Rouge, who adhered to an ultra-Maoist radical agrarian doctrine. Using a social tensions between desperately poor rural population, which consisted of ethnic Khmers, and a urban population, part of whom was on non-Khmer origin, KR unleashed a genocide campaign against the urban population, in an utopian desire to convert a whole country into a large urban commune. The genocide was fueled with Khmer nationalism and revenge traditions. About 1.8 million (20% of pre-revolutionary Cambodian population) were killed in that genocide, partially via direst executions, partially due to hunger, diseases and overwork. The genocide was stopped as a result of a military invasion of Vietnamese troops.


 * ''Some authors argue that there was a commonality between these two cases, because both regimes were totalitarian, and totalitarian regimes are significantly more likely to commit mass killings.


 * Other authors (XXX) claim that Communist ideology was a primary cause of mass killings in these two states. These authors estimate that the total number of Communist victims was 50 million, and, based on that figure conclude Communism was more criminal regime than Nazism. This conclusion was severely criticized by other authors, who point out that these two cases are too different to combine them into a single category. They point at some methodological flaws in the estimations and argue that the figures of a total Communist death toll are incorrect and inflated. "
 * This text (actually, a very raw draft) reflects all important sources: the data from country experts (experts only in the USSR and only in Cambodia), the opinion of proponents of a "generic Communism" doctrine (the one proposed by Malia and, implicitly, by Courtois), and the opinion of their critics. Note, all figures are there. (I use the figure of 50 million because in this artificial case I excluded China and other states. Again, this figure is just a placeholder.)


 * You must concede that this structure is much more encyclopedic and more neutral than the current version, which is focused on two aspects: (i) how many were killed (the more, the better), and (ii) how all of that was connected to Communism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


 * With regard to RfC, an optimal solution would be to discuss that with you before I started it. Next time (if we will not come to some consensus) I'll discuss it with you first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, since we need added voices and suggestions, I would prefer not to "settle the details here" in any way … might you reexamine you discussion on my original (and mercifully short) RfC and see if you could work from there? I know it will  not be "perfect" from your viewpoint, but it could move to being a tad less contentious if you would accept imperfections. Collect (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Frankly, both RfCs are going nowhere. Actually, I do not care much about that, because if we resolve our dispute, both RfCs will automatically become redundant: if you accept what I propose here, I am totally neutral regarding the results of the first RfC, because any result works. Regarding the second RfC, I think the proposed structure will satisfy Fifelfoo, Aquillion, Ramirez, and other users whose position I can predict, but who haven't voiced their opinion yet. The only problem may be with MVBW, in that case it also might be resolved.
 * By "accept" I mean "accept in general". Details can be resolved later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It is not up to me to "accept" anything. It us up to everyone to follow Wikipedia policies. Nor do I feel that this article must somehow define what "communist regimes" are, but only that where a reliable source says something is a "communist regime" and ascribes deaths to it, that such material falls under the umbrella.  To that end, I suggested in my RfC that we not assert that any regime is "Communist" in Wikipedia's voice, but that we simply use what the reliable sources say.  Nor do I feel that this is an unreasonable position. That is We are not the ones who need to define "Communist Regime at all, and in fact, that is not what Wikipedia is here for.  It is our task to present to readers what reliable sources say on the topic. And that alone. Collect (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this your post. Obviously, under "accept" I meant the overall concept of the article. This is exactly what we are supposed to do according to our policy: to establish consensus on how will we present the facts and sources and act according to it. Of course, it is not our goal to define communist regimes, and I am somewhat disappointed that you refuse to understand I am not defining them. The above draft exactly follows your own proposal: to include all regimes that were described (or self-described) as communist by at least one source. However, to avoid synthesis and preserve neutrality, these regimes should be described according to what majority sources say, and majority sources are written by country experts, not genocide scholars. In summary, the only reasonable approach is: we include all regimes that were described as communist at least by one source, but the overall structure of the article is purely descriptive, and all theorisings are moved to the bottom as sugnificant minority views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The overall concept of the article is up to an entire consensus and not my sole opinion at all.  I do no make consensus.  As to saying you need experts on the individual governments, and not experts on the deaths caused by multiple governments  - that part seems outré at best.  Right now, you seem quite focused on "dis-reliableizing" Rummel, and that is intrinsically outside the scope of the article. I would cut the article size down, but doing that to Rummel would be castrating some of the major components of the entire article. Is that a goal? Collect (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You and I represent two polar views, and if we achieve some kind of general agreement, I anticipate no serious problem with achieving a general consensus. Currently, the article's talk page is totally unreadable, and most discussions take place between just two editors. Outside editors are incapable to break through these walls of text, and that may be a reason why we have a minimal external input. Let's agree about some coordination of our actions, and you will see yourself that the situation will start to improve.


 * Re "As to saying you need experts on the individual governments, and not experts on the deaths caused by multiple governments." Collect, you again do not understand. Currently, the article is based primarily at writings of genocide scholars, and the views of country experts are mostly ignored. For example, Valentino is being used as a source for figures, despite the fact that he never interested in exact figures, and his figures are far from accurate. As Harff noted, the figured collected by genocide scholars are not the best ones, because it is not their goal to collect exact figures.


 * I can explain that more simple. Kiernan knows Cambodia better than Rummel or Valentino. His views on events in Cambodia are more authoritative (btw, it this particular case, Rummel's figures are pretty accurate). Wheatcroft or Ellman are better experts in the USSR than Rummel or Valentino. Their figures and their explanation of local events is more detailed and more accurate.  However, Rummel's or Valentino's are good in general explanations of global trends. Their general theories are something that scientific community consider as a serious contribution into a general knowledge about genocide.  In other words, I propose to use country experts in what they are good and genocide scholars in what they are good. I don't understand how can I explain that in a more clear way.
 * If we say: "one expert says X happened in the USSR, another expert says Y happened in Cambodia, and Rummel explains that based on his general theory as follows: ZZZ" - that does not mean Rummel is being ignored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Re "Right now, you seem quite focused on "dis-reliableizing" Rummel" That is the only thing I can do in a situation of a slow edit war. If we agree about the new article's structure, there will be no need in that, because the Rumme's theory will be represented as an attempt to find some general pattern (actually that is exactly what it is), which is not supposed to be, and it is not expected to be accurate in details. If Rummel will be presented in that way, I see absolutely no need to include any criticism. I am doing that now just to compensate for a current disbalance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I removed this material incorrectly. It does belong to the page, and it needs to be significantly expanded along the line of "totalitarian concept" by many prominent historians. I will self-revert later. BTW, it is wrong to say "In the USSR, most mass killings occurred during Stalin's rule." A lot had happen before, and even before the USSR was officially created ("Red Terror", etc., so that could be treated on the page as a separate country, RSFSR or "Soviet Russia"). My very best wishes (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Deepika Padukone
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deepika Padukone. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jordan Peterson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jordan Peterson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Anti-communist mass killings‎
Cheers, thanks for reminding me of that horrible mess. Have retagged it with synth and coatrack and added the only source which posits a general causation, even though it is based on a single country study. Hopefully AFD will follow sometime soon. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Imran Awan
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Imran Awan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Gu
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eugene Gu. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rahul Easwar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rahul Easwar. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elon Musk
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elon Musk. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

defamatory claims
Calling anyone "Anti-Semitic"

I have been repeatedly alleged to have called an editor "Anti-Semitic". See [352] as my response. I have at no time and in no way called any editor here "anti-Semitic" in any way, and I suggest that the unfounded and horrific accusation is a violation of WP:NPA as well.    Collect (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Collect, assuming that you want something done about this, it would be helpful if it contained a link. I don't know what "See [352]" refers to. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
 * It was an old edit of mine. My point is, moreover, that I have never called any editor anti-Semitic, but I did note that claims that "Jews have dual loyalty" has been viewed as an anti-Semitic claim in the past.  I happen to despise such claims for good reason. I trust you would also. Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernest Shackleton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tyson Fury
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tyson Fury. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martha McSally
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martha McSally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nadine Dorries
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nadine Dorries. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Francis Beaufort
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Francis Beaufort. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bo Burnham
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bo Burnham. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Eugene Gu
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eugene Gu. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Crean (explorer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Oscar López Rivera. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shenphen Rinpoche. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of vegetarians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of vegetarians. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David M. Cote
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David M. Cote. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Proud Boys
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Proud Boys. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed
Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your ArbCom questions
Hi. I note you have been asking about "when the editor was actually out of the US", which seems so suggest you think all editors are in the US to start with. Perhaps something like "away from home" might be better? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite likely - I think that Wiki[pedia is a tad US-centric, though? Collect (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For sure, but I do think changing it to something like "away from home or unavailable for a legitimate reason" would make it a significantly better question. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Doria Ragland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Doria Ragland. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed, again
Hello again. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of German presidents? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I've withdrawn
There are enough good candidates and I'd like to see Joe Roe (who is away on working on an archaeology site right now, hence his late entry) get in. We need new blood and active editors on the Committee. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this note!  And warm regards, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I read about your wife having melanoma. Yours truly has had six of those things biopsied since 1993. God bless the melanoma warriors.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC) 


 * My wife has had a large part of her upper left arm removed for two massive but contained melanomas, and a large one on her back as well. She has lost a number of family members to cancer, so there is surely a genetic component. Thank you.  Collect (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * My melanoma hasn't spread. I had 4 separate MM biopsied in 1993-94 then one in 2015, and one in 2016. Mine- Two located on my back, 2 on my face, 1 on my upper left arm, one on my lower right leg. The last two were in situ which are rarely a concern but when the 2015 one was operated on I had a open wound in my right leg for about a month (My leg has other medical issues). Get a excellent dermatologist (And I travel 45 miles one way to see him. Long story... If you're in South Florida he would worth going to) who specializes in melanoma and go to the oncologist as recommended....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * She had a dermatologist who did not think a biopsy was needed - but she insisted on it - then the day we were heading off on a major trip the doc called to say that my wife was about to die (more or less) --  one extreme to another  (surgeon removed bunch of lymph nodes and about 200 cc of arm). I did not really like that first doc.  I know how tough it is on all involved.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to hear about this. I've escaped it (despite being a red head who lived in Dade County in his youth) but my father and brother had minor ones on the face. Doug Weller  talk 09:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. She has had over 16 relatives in the same position -- and there is red hair in that Scottish family.  Hers were unusual in being encapsulated well below the epidermis, and relatively huge for that type. Collect (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stanley Kubrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jair Bolsonaro
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jair Bolsonaro. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mohammad bin Salman. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jackie Walker (activist). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Elizabeth Warren. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Linda Sarsour. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon Banks
You made a statement in the history section of the above, perhaps you might thin a second time over. You are probably not aware but the the significance of the above "coming second" in 1987 is that it was the last time that the Conservatives came second in Manchester Central and it is highly likely they ever will do again. I ask you to either reword as per my explanation or cancel you action, please.92.29.194.218 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Alas - we use what reliable sources state as fact, not what any editor "knows to be an important fact." Collect (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Collect and thank you for all your contributions to the proyect. You have my very best wishes for this holiday season. May your heart and the hearts of those around you be filled with happiness during this special time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Michel Temer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Michel Temer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Vijay Mishra
Thanks for the adjustments at Vijay Mishra (politician). I know that he is among the most corrupt, venal etc of the gangster politicians that have dominated the caste politics of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for years now, but I struggle a bit with BLPs and where to draw the line. That's one reason why I am much happier writing about people who are long dead.

I have no desire to turn the article into a hatchet job but, at least in English language sources, it is his alleged and actual criminality that tends to be to the fore. I only realised that he did not have an article when I was tidying up Dinanath Bhaskar earlier today. This article is an excellent exposition of just how corrupt the system can be, although I think I'd struggle to use it for statements of fact. If you have the time and inclination to read it and can see anything worthwhile (his wealth, perhaps?) then please do feel free. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

In my experience, "righting great wrongs" is not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. Careful use of simple facts is worth a hundred adjectives. And all too often those politicians finding others to be evil have problems themselves in the political sphere. Collect (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah. That's why I am not righting great wrongs. Never have done in articles. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you
...for your kind words. I have a lot of respect for you and all your contributions. If you have any other advice to give me, please feel free. Words of wisdom? I'll take those too. Best Regards,   Barbara    ✐  ✉  01:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom proposal

 * No persons or persons other than those specifically authorized by the Arbitration Committee, as a whole, shall endeavor to take any contacts with employers of, or anyone in a position to affect the employment of, any Wikipedia editor. Any such contact shall require a full and open on-Wiki discussion reaching a consensus on such contact. Any person who contacts any employer or representative without approaching the Arbitration Committee or seeking a valid consensus for such contact, shall be immediately banned from Wikipedia, and such ban shall be logged with the WMF.

is my proposal at an ArbCom case which will be declined, though I feel this suggestion would prevent future such problems. Comments here welcomed. Collect (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot) deletion undone by user Melcous
I see that user Melcous has undone your deletion of the “Controversies” or “Lawsuits” section at 17:14, 30 March. I hope you can ”restore” the deletion and eliminate the entire section as the proper response to the BLP material added to the article as the "Lawsuits" section. Wang Zheng's WP article focuses on a great aviation achievement that is becoming more widely recognized and appreciated each year. WP should not permit itself to be used by one individual to perpetuate her personal grievances on the subject's page by maliciously forcing the inclusion of contentious, defamatory claims that will inevitable impact the subject's professional reputation and livelihood.

As you point out in the edit summary, Melcous has matched the content of one footnote to her rewritten text, but the whole “lawsuit” section still violates a slew of specific BLP rules. Before I address the BLP issues, let me point out that Melcous’ rewritten first paragraph of the section discussing Chen Wei and the one million yuan prize is completely irrelevant to the article. Why? At the second paragraph of the “Flying” section, the article reports that on November 1, 2016, at Airshow China 2016 in Zhuhai, after the bona fides of the flight were vetted and approved by representatives of AOPA China, AOPA China's President Zhang Feng and Chen Wei together presented Wang with a replica bank draft for 1,000,000 yuan Renminbi (about $150,000)[18] representing the 1,000,000 yuan cash prize to the first Chinese woman to complete an around the world flight. That was nearly two and one-half years ago. Saki Chen apparently doesn’t agree with AOPA China and Chen Wei that the title and prize should have gone to Julie but what of it? AOPA China determined that she lost. The Chen lawsuit being described in the article is not against AOPA China and Chen Wei to overturn their decision that Wang Zheng was first, so why should Chen’s scurrilous accusation that she “claimed” to have completed the flight first – no other source makes this claim – pollute Wang Zheng’s page? Contrary to Melcous’ conclusory protestation that Chen’s competing claim is noteworthy, it is not (except perhaps for exposing Chen as a monumental sore loser) nor is it relevant since it is easily empirically discredited. Anyone can easily find Saki Chen’s self –reported flight completion date 9/27/16 on the Internet, eight days after Wang Zheng. Looking at the larger picture, this “Lawsuits” section unnecessarily poses the likelihood of irreparable harm to Wang's professional career as an airline pilot in violation of many of WP’s BLP rules, which I have reviewed carefully. According to WP policy: BLP matter requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies. With all respect to Melcous, she has ignored the level of sensitivity WP demands when dealing with the biographies of living persons, i.e., she has not been sensitive to harming the subject at all.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Melcous continues to use the lowest-quality Mainland China sources proffered by EdiK2016 -- who appears to be a paid hack for Saki Chen and who has not yet responded to Melcous' request for clarification of her relationship to Saki Chen -- a blog with 35 views where paid-for content is rampant and another blog in Chinese. Does Melcous read Chinese? Isn't it obvious that the Chinese sources are self-published or unverifiable and therefore disquaified from providing sourcing for a BLP article? Avoid misuse of primary sources such as court records, or other public documents; and perhaps most importantly here concerning people who are relatively unknown, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Not only does Melcous directly discuss court records but follows EdiK2016's cherrypicking of the docket selecting a single procedural motion that went against Wang Zheng solely to make her look bad by showing that she "lost" while ignoring that Wang Zheng won many more motions than this. There are over sixty events in the docket in that case but Melcous selects only one to include? Why? Does she have any idea how to report on a lawsuit? Really, what's the point of including what she has there about the Ninety-Nines lawsuit? Does it add anything to the understanding of Wang Zheng's record-setting accomplishment?

''Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.'' To perpetuate Saki Chen's war against Wang Zheng -- to deliberately smear her and impugn her reputation -- is the sole reason EdiK2016 has showed up on WP.

Regarding people that are not public figures, material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. Melcous is mistaken that material is not defamatory if it appears in another publication. In most of the United States, a libel will not be sanitized by a prior publication. Melcous appears without any knowledge of the law of defamation in the U.S. despite the basic guidance given in the BLP rules that addresses this legal concern.

I don’t challenge Melcous’ good faith in any of this but suggest that her analysis ignores the majority of the applicable BLP considerations. I hope that all this will persuade you that your initial instinct to eliminate the "lawsuit" section of the Wang Zheng article was and is correct and that you see fit to act accordingly to protect the subject from harm in accordance with WP's policies and intent.CTF99 (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Melcous responded to my last post to the BLB Noticeboard by stating that the mere fact of a lawsuit justifies it being reported under the law of unintended consequences. She obstinately refuses to apply the BLP rules in the spirit that they were adopted.CTF99 (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * TY - I dealt with the sourcing issue - as the fact that a lawsuit was made and settled seems a "statement of fact" and I tried my best for neutral wording lest anyone attach more significance than was due. If a source states precisely what the settlement entailed, that might make the section clearly removable, but we do not yet have that information. Collect (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wang Zheng (pilot) again under attack
Collect, please have a look at the page now. It is under attack again. EdiK2016 is back edit warring, adding primary source extraneous material about lawsuit procedural motions citing the court docket in violation of BLP, and libelous unsourced comment from Chen Wei, again in violation of BLP. Let me be clear, the Chen Wei comment is a patent libel. EdiK2016 must be blocked and further access to the the page itself should be blocked -- with the challenged material/"Lawsuits" section temporarily removed until I can discuss with WP senior admin or executive level. Make no mistake, this is a personal war on the subject.CTF99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm going to jump in here and note that the page was already protected so that anonymous ips and new editors can't edit it. User:FlightTime is already taking care of EdiK2016's problematic edits. Please read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:KEEPCONCISE (although those are primarily referring to a different proccess). Bottom line,senior enough editors are on this, what you can do now is help find WP:RS to support the text and versions you want.Hydromania (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, I was curious because the English version didn't match the Google Translate version, so I thought the Google and not the OR version should be the one we use. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing
If you want to make your case, then make your case on the article's talk page, not at an unrelated noticeboard to skew the opinion of the people that will end up on the talk page, both per WP:CANVASSING and per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The issue is not whether or not these sources are reliable, it's the interpretation of these sources that's at play. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Use of WP:RSN is quite specifically not a violation of WP:CANVASS by a few miles, and I suggest you play games elsewhere now. Collect (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:George Pell
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Pell. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Martin Luther King Jr.. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scarlett Johansson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Huff post...
Wnt pinged me (and yourself) recently on an AN thread about a HuPo article, for the life of me I have read his comments three times now and I have no idea what the point was. I started a new job last month so my activity approaches zero. Do I need to take an interest or can I safely ignore it? I gather its something to do with paid editing? Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is about HuffPo saying that we heed paid editors - and give us as "examples" of editors the "paid editor" has contacted. Frankly, Wnt is on a strange tangent because I never pay attention as to who posts on my page, nor what position they would want me to take. Collect (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Richard B. Spencer. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page discussion
Thank you for your input. I gave a response after being away for a few days and hopefully answer your concerns in my response (not sure if Brian Wong publicly stating on his public Facebook page he is a public figure himself is sufficient evidence given the other info mentioned). If any more deficiencies or concerns, I will help to address it in a constructive manner as best that I can as this is my reputation as well since everything is getting scrutinized. I hope to deal in good faith and learn from the other members along the way. If there is nothing more to discuss or that of marginal benefits in further discussion, perhaps a vote could be started on an agreed upon resolution on the two main questions: If he is a public figure and if so, then how much info to include. 2001:569:7E43:7900:9D8E:7E55:DB61:3373 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Notability" makes him eligible for a BLP. "Public Figure" is a different term - and usually applies to celebrities and most political figures, etc. Collect (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. What I mean is that he self identified himself as a public figure. I believe if this combines with other info presented that he would be considered public figure. There is also a PR company which does his public image branding, getting him interviews and public appearances and a lot of the background work done is similar to celebrities. source: https://www.facebook.com/pg/brianwongkiip/about/?ref=page_internal Celebrities and political figures is not inclusive of all. Wikipedia also lists social media personality and business leader into that category. This was his interview back in 2011 that Brian Wong announced his intention to become a public figure. "At UBC, Wong majored in Marketing, with a minor in Political Science. He says his decision to pursue business studies was influenced by his father, an accountant who started his own firm. “He showed me what was possible in this mysterious, elusive business space,” Wong says, “and it became very intriguing to me.” And as for his Political Science studies? “I always wanted to be a public figure, so I wanted to have that formal educational experience. And for four years of those classes,” he laughingly adds, “I sat across the room from some PoliSci students who really didn't like Commerce people and thought business was the root of all evil, so that provided me with a very interesting additional perspective.”" Source: https://www.sauder.ubc.ca/News/2011/In_Living_Colour_-_Brian_Wong_takes_Silicon_Valley_by_storm2001:569:7E43:7900:65FF:5B1B:FBB1:FE4B (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Wong page discussion 2
I gave you a response to your reply above. Not sure if you are able to see and then read edited updates or need new entry every time I reply to you. Just saw it yesterday. Best if reply is on the discussion page? 2001:569:7E43:7900:78A7:507E:51E2:E3D2 (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Very sorry to person above. Not sure how I am able to start new entry and accidentally edited yours out. Tried to put it back. If possible, please roll back thhe person's entry.

Please comment on Talk:Danny Baker
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Danny Baker. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Drake (musician)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Drake (musician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing
Since you responded on the other Purina page, I thought I'd bug you to take a look here if you have a minute or two. No worries if you don't have the time/interest. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Princess Michael of Kent
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Princess Michael of Kent. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of French supercentenarians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of French supercentenarians. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Hae Min Lee
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Hae Min Lee. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calvin Cheng. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Lots of factcheckers at the New York Times?
Two now in Washington DC!  And one in New York!

The "political fact-checkers" are another story.

But actual routine fact-checking of published stories? Virtually nil. (actually nil until December 2017).

''Roughly a year ago, The New York Times made a big change in its newsroom organization. The paper eliminated the copy-editor position and folded its traditional duties — checking articles for spelling, grammar, clarity, and stylistic and logical consistency; basic fact-checking; writing headlines — into '''a new, all-purpose editing position to which its then roughly 100 copy editors were invited to apply. The upshot was that about half of them left the paper.' 

50 copy editors whose tasks were broad - for the entire The New York Times. No separate "fact checker" positions. No "proofreader" positions" at all.  June 2018.

Anyone care to declare that newspapers actually fact-check their stories now? The Chronicle of Higher Education is not a political rag. Collect (talk) 18:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Theodore Edgar McCarrick. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Marriage
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Marriage. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ivanka Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ivanka Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christchurch mosque shootings. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)