User talk:CometCaleb

Your repeated removal of sourced content on China
Hello. Do not remove properly sourced content from the lead without discussing it on the talk page of the article, and getting support for the removal from other editors, first! - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick look at your contributions shows that your main purpose for editing here seems to be to remove material that can be seen as negative for China. That's not how it works here, see WP:NPOV. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 13:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tom,

I've only made two significant contributions regarding China. The first was the reversal of a series of (sourced) edits on the "List of countries with overseas military bases" page that made China's overseas presence look more significant than it actually is. I understand that your view of the world may be slightly warped after spending years on r/worldnews, but I think even the most staunch anti-China folk would agree that this particular contribution doesn't constitute "removing material that can be seen as negative for China".

My second took place today on the main China page, where I attempted to remove extensive human rights abuse references from the lead. This isn't because I condone political or religious suppression, but because past and present human rights abuses domestically and abroad aren't mentioned in the lead of any of the Wikipedia pages of major western powers (the US with their private prison (slave) labour system, Canada with their continued native sterilisation program etc.) - and rightly so - the lead is meant to be a quick summary of the article. If users want a detailed read on topics such as human rights, they can scroll down the the relevant section. Consistency and neutrality matter more than emotions and personal opinions.

Funny how I didn't need to give an extensive explanation on a talk page when I made a neutral contribution that made China look less powerful (e.g. the one mentioned two paragraphs above), but the moment I made a neutral contribution that wasn't explicitly anti-China in nature, it suddenly constitutes pushing pro-China propaganda. I guarantee that if I attempted to extensively reference US human rights abuses in the lead section of its main page, they'd be reverted within minutes.

Wikipedia isn't a Reddit echo chamber; welcome to the real world, my friend.

Regards,

Caleb
 * Your edit on the "list of ..." has already been mainly reverted, so there's no need for me to comment on it, and the world isn't just black or white, the vast majority of editors here are grey, i.e. stick to the rules about a neutral point of view (the view that there as we speak are systematic human rights violations in China is held by people of all political inclinations outside China, not just kids on Reddit, as opposed to slavery in the US that ended in 1865, or other human rights abuses that are also historical...). The lead of China has been discussed in length, and agreed upon by multiple editors, so removing a large chunk of text from there, without prior discussion and support from other editors, isn't acceptable. And removing it again efter being reverted, as you did, is even less acceptable. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't referencing 19th century slavery, I was talking about the prison labour system still in place in the US today, which many agree amounts to modern day slavery. Canada's native sterilisation program isn't just historical either - it continues even today (Vice recently wrote a brilliant article about it). - CometCaleb 15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Prison labour, or more correctly penal labour, has nothing to do with slavery, it's part of the sentence and exists in many countries, including in China, which according to various sources has the largest penal labour system in the world, and forced sterilisation in Canada is widely criticized also within Canada, unlike in China, where no criticism of human rights abuses is allowed (and what about the forced sterilisation related to the one-child policy in China?). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is: All three mentioned countries currently commit various human rights abuses domestically, some of which are very similar in nature (penal labour, forced sterilisations, etc.), yet only China's Wikipedia page mentions these abuses in the lead section. The sheer lack of consistency is what I take issue with. The fact that Canadians and Americans can criticise their domestic abuses, while the Chinese can't, is irrelevant, because public criticism or not, these abuses are happening right now. - CometCaleb 16:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you deliberately chose not to mention it, or simply didn't see what you reverted, but that paragraph also mentions "suppression of religious and ethnic minorities", with sources about Tibetans and Uighurs. A better article to compare China to would be Turkey, where the Armenian genocide and suppression of Kurds is prominently mentioned in the lead. And, just to make it clear to you, you're not discussing with a "Reddit kid", so there's no way for you to wriggle your way out of this. You removed properly sourced and very relevant content from the lead of our article about China, for a POV reason, and not just once but twice, so consider yourself properly warned... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems the only person who's trying to wriggle out of anything is you considering how you just tried to derail the conversation by bringing up Turkey. Yes, Turkey's domestic abuses are mentioned in the lead. So what? My issue is on nation pages where abuses aren't mentioned in the lead, such as the US and Canada, as it is highly inconsistent to extensively reference human rights abuses for one country, but not the other. Yes, China persecutes religious minorities, while the US and Canada don't. So? That doesn't negate their other abuses. It's also clear that properly sourced and very relevant content means little if it doesn't fit your world view. Going back to a point I made previously, if I extensively mentioned US domestic and foreign human rights abuses on the lead section of its Wikipedia page and properly sourced them, they'd be removed regardless. A bit ironic considering your constant references to NPOV. Your tough guy persona is good and all, but these sorts of personas tend to be much more intimidating when paired with intellectual prowess. Just a friendly bit of advice for you. :) - CometCaleb 18:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, comments like that only make yourself look silly. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)