User talk:Generalrelative/Archive 1

Italo-Ethiopian War
Hi. In my opinion, in the lead section of Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Ethiopian crimes should be mentioned first since they started in the first weeks of war (1935) and before the Italian ones and the killing of civilians (1937). Written in this way the page does not seem neutral. In any case, I am willing to discuss it, I don't want to start any edit war. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Libya
Hi. The section about Italian atrocities in Libya is about 1923-1932 events. The page Italian Libya is about the 1934-43 period, so I moved the section in the pages Italian Cyrenaica and Italian colonization of Libya, as they are the correct pages of that period.

Also, why did you revert my old edits in the page Italian colonization of Libya? You seem to have removed many images of the Italian colonization to make room for those of wars, Italian atrocities and pacification campaigns. That page is about the history of the colony, not only war crimes. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * See my reply on the relevant Talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Szalai (June 13)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by MurielMary was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Szalai and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jennifer Szalai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jennifer_Szalai Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MurielMary&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Jennifer_Szalai reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice edits to R&I!
Your recent edits to Race and intelligence are good, solid improvements to an article that was once a disgrace to Wikipedia. Thanks! NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks That means a lot coming from you! Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Negroid
I have read your recent additions on the article Negroid. While well-sourced, should not they be included on the section "Criticism based on modern genetics"? The material there already refutes the existance of human races. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a good question, Dimadick. The issue, though, is that the physical anthropology stuff takes into account more than just genetics, i.e. the spectrum of human anatomy and physiology. I'd be fully in favor of an expanded "modern genetics" subsection too by the way. There's certainly plenty more material that could be covered there. But consider also how this article might be improved by integrating all the current content of the "Criticism" section into the rest of the article, as is suggested in the essay WP:CRITICISM. In my view the most informative version of this article would contrast the outdated views with current scientific consensus on a point-by-point basis. But the bottom line is that this article on a historical (and still politically fraught) classification of human beings needs plenty of work, and I don't claim to have a fully developed plan in mind for how to bring it where it needs to be, so any further improvements you'd care to make would be most appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

HR&IC
There were no problems with these edits; I just forgot where the wl was added for "scientific racism."

Originally I created this article in April 2010 in one giant edit. In that first edit the term scientific racism appeared with a wl, which I had forgotten. The extra paragraphs you have added very recently in the early history section confused me. I hope that explains what happened with the first sentence.

I have located a new edition of Benjamin's book on google. The page numbers do not match up but at least the book exists. I do not intend adding much content to the article. I cannot make any comment on the R&I article, except that it will probably always be an unmitigated mess. The HR&IC, however, has been fairly stable. Perhaps that's not true not the section for the segment 2000-recent. Originally I did not wrote very much about that then, just a sentence or so. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Racialism
Such editors need warnings immediately. I've given them a 3RR warning. Having said that, I'm not sure what the problem is with their sources - or is it the interpretation? I haven't delved deep. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Doug Weller . The issue is with presenting a false balance in the lead. A robust discussion of the variation in views among scientists from different countries might belong in the main body of the article (indeed it might be an interesting discussion), so long as it is placed in the context of true scientific consensus. But reducing a robustly cited statement on scientific consensus to a "Western" opinion, and then placing it on equal footing with a supposed Eastern European and Chinese consensus favoring race realism, each cited by a single survey, smacks of tendentious editing to me. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Italo-Senussi War
See ; it says that the Italian war crimes are "suggested", not specific, and "as with all atrocity tales, there is probably an element of exaggeration". And why you removed the Senussi war crimes in Italian colonization of Libya? At least three sources mention them; they should be included like the Italian ones, and not removed for your with anti-Italian agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.169.102.14 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) If you have a content issue to discuss, take it to the article's talk page so that others can weigh in.
 * 2) There is quite a plague of pro-fascist apologia from Italian IPs here on Wikipedia. Working to keep articles clear of that is in no way anti-Italian.
 * Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

SPI archives
Hi. I've reverted your change here. Please don't edit the SPI archives. Feel free to open a new case, but the archives themselves are a historical record and shouldn't be edited directly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks! Apologies for the process error. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not a big deal. It happens.  Life goes on. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

SPLC
I wanted to discuss my edit of the SPLC page, as the citation about the FBI categorization of the proud Boys is called into question, if not rebutted two paragraphs down in the article cited stating that the FBI does not categorize groups as extremists. Harryjamespotter1980 (talk)
 * I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page. That's the place to discuss content. Generalrelative (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard Lynn
Hi. I noticed that you deleted part of the segment on HR&IC concerning Richard Lynn and the Pioneer Trust, removing some references related to William Tucker. The period 2000-present has always been unstable, but for the part of HR&IC covering the 20th century it has been fairly stable. This edit seems a bit radical. I wonder if you would consider reverting it or modifying the content appropriately? The images of Flynn and Lynn balance each other. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 19:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the argument, but obviously everyone in the argument should receive one of these - anyone can give them. A good thing to do if you are going to edit in an area covered by ArbCom is to add for the areas. Doug Weller talk 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks but there really is no argument here. Just some unfortunate, increasingly unhinged behavior: Generalrelative (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jennifer Szalai


Hello, Generalrelative. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Jennifer Szalai".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Eternal Shadow  Talk  19:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Pov Pushing edits by BlauGraf (material on both sides that has been "published") but the other  side is Neo-Nazis/apologists?
It looks like they are trying to downplay the crimes of the Nazis examples.

The War crimes of the Wehrmacht page before they edited the page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht&diff=994167459&oldid=994162428 According to a study by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, the majority of the Wehrmacht soldiers deployed to the Soviet Union participated in war crimes.[3]

After they edited the page War crimes of the Wehrmacht

According to a study by Alex J. Kay and David Stahel, it is alleged that some of the Wehrmacht soldiers deployed to the Soviet Union participated in war crimes.

102.142.23.241 (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching out. I've engaged on this user's talk page. And indeed you are correct: there is broad consensus among historians (and among editors here on Wikipedia) that the myth of a "clean Wehrmacht" is in fact a myth. Generalrelative (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No prob just trying to help!102.142.23.241 (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I will thank you not to refer to me as a neo nazi - I am not. In point of fact, however, I am the descendant of a Panzergrenadier Leutnant, and the "consensus" does not equate with the memories of those who were there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlauGraf (talk • contribs) 16:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No one cares from whom you are descended, nor does your WP:OR have a place on Wikipedia. Note too that signing comments is a thing we do here, and that the person who posts first under a heading is typically the person who created that heading. So you might go back and check who has explicitly called you a neo-Nazi. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Franks
Hello! Why do you think that Coon's conclusions about the Franks misleading to the reader? In my opinion, this is quite interesting information. How would you formalize this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 17:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Coon's ideas about race are broadly rejected by modern science. Presenting them as anything other than a historical artifact would be WP:PROFRINGE. Generalrelative (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please give me a link to the research on the ancient Franks, which would refute Coon's conclusions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeiprivet (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the premise, not its specific application to the Franks. For background on why the idea of essential racial types is rejected by scientists, see e.g. Race (human categorization), as well as the many discussions of this topic on that article's talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The School discipline article
Hi! I'm glad you did some light but significant editing on the material recently added concerning racial disparities. I don't know the literature on this subject, but I emailed a friend asking for suggestions. I'm sure most people working in the area disagree strongly with the claim that there's no discrimination against Black students, but we need a source that directly criticizes that study. In it there's at least one obvious methodological fallacy, in my judgment, namely the failure to take into account the stage when teachers or staff interpret and categorize behavior. The likely racial bias at that stage makes data about prior behavior unreliable. There are probably other problems with the study as well. It's basically a single primary source that challenges what probably is a consensus. It might be that we can't find a source because people in the field regard it as tantamount to a paper saying that Bigfoot exists, to use your analogy. (A similar issue arose in the case of Race and capital punishment in the United States, but in that case we could argue that the source was in a low-quality journal.) I think it's worth the effort to try to fix this, since the article does get a fair number of pageviews (averaging over 250/day), probably many of whom are American teachers and staff, who shouldn't be getting the message that they don't have to watch out for racial bias in their school's disciplining. Anyway, if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I commend you for your diligence and for your willingness to do the hard work of critically examining the sources. I wouldn't be the first to observe how frustrating it can be when seemingly every week a new civil (or not so civil) POV-pusher appears on the scene, all fired up to correct what they see as liberal bias across a variety of pages. In this case I was also skeptical of the sources but didn't have the time to invest in demonstrating that they're fringe. So instead I settled for toning down this user's ostentatious presentation of the studies, at least as a stopgap measure for the moment. I would of course support removal if we can show that they're fringe, but at present I don't have any leads (this is well outside of my field too). You're certainly right that the article in question does get a significant number of views, and that there are real consequences to perpetuating false beliefs about the extent and the effects of bias in schools. I'll be happy to keep an eye out for relevant material, and an eye on the page in case further or more blatant POV-pushing occurs there. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked into this topic a bit and found a large number of studies confirming the existence of racial disparities in school discipline, some of them quite robust (e.g. and ). Other high quality studies take the existence of such disparities as axiomatic (e.g.  and ). Finally, this article from the Brookings Institution gives an illuminating overview of the topic which supports the conclusion that discrimination is a major driver of racial disparities in school discipline:  I think that these and similar refs may be enough for a revamp of the paragraph in question, and perhaps to show that the recently added sources constitute fringe –– though I'd like a second opinion before proceeding with that argument. Generalrelative (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good work! Just looking at the first study you link to, I see how helpful it is. It explicitly says: Results were largely consistent with our theoretical model, indicating increased racial and gender disproportionality for subjectively defined behaviors, in classrooms, and for incidents classified as more severe. This pinpoints the methodological difference between a sensible study and a study with a clear RR bias. I haven't read the whole paper in the Journal of Criminal Justice, but I'm pretty sure that they accept as an axiom that teacher/staff categorization of behavior is accurate and unbiased, and they're just interested in the correlation between crime charged and punishment, not between actual behavior and crime charged. I'm now motivated to read both the J Criminal Justice study and the ones you've found.  Rather than arguing for removal of the former, we could describe enough of its methodology to make it clear that it's scientifically inferior to the studies it purports to refute. NightHeron (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I've written a summary of what I've learned so far about the JCJ source, and put in on my user talk-page. I didn't think I should clutter up your talk-page with the wall-of-text. NightHeron (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome, that summary looks great. In the future you should feel free to clutter away! With regard to the paragraph in question, I'm thinking now that it's really only DUE to cover the most mainstream viewpoints (i.e. not the recently added sources). If there were a full article on racial disparities in school discipline, these sources could certainly be discussed as counterpoint there. But when we're focusing on only one paragraph/subsection within a rather brief article, I would question whether deconstructing methodologies makes sense. Instead I'd suggest that we import much of what you and I have written to the article talk page so that others can be aware of the work already done if/when this issue arises again. Generalrelative (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree. We could delete the part about the JCJ study, and also (I think) make the paragraph into its own subsection, since it does not belong under the topic "importance of discipline". If you transport discussions from your talk-page to the article talk-page, I'll do likewise from mine. NightHeron (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I'll get started with that. Generalrelative (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi again! There seems to be an interesting history to the 2014 outlier article from J. Criminal Justice that we agreed to remove from School discipline as undue/fringe. I came across a 2020 article that directly criticizes the 2014 article for faulty methodology. Here is the abstract: At the end of 2018, Obama-era disciplinary guidance aimed at reducing the use of suspensions in schools (especially for minorities and students with disabilities) was revoked by the U.S. Department of Education. A key piece of research supporting the decision was based on the analyses of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 (ECLS-K), which showed that the racial suspension gap was not really about race but resulted from the differential behavior exhibited by Black and White students. We reanalyzed the public-use ECLS-K and provide syntax for our analyses to show that the findings were primarily due to sample selection bias. Several alternative model specifications were tested and continued to show the persistence of the race-based suspension gaps regardless of model or measure used. So perhaps the 2014 article was notable after all, as the main justification used by the Trump administration to support continuation of extreme racial disparities in school discipline -- almost a case study of the real-world impact that scientific racism has today. Do you think this should be included in the school discipline article (or should we let sleeping dogs lie)? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, NightHeron! It's interesting to see the way this study fit into the Trump/DeVos agenda in practice. I'd say I'm still of the opinion that this would be an appropriate thing to explore in an article on racial disparities in school discipline (which seems like an article we should have TBH), but that the general article on school discipline should stick to presenting just the existing mainstream understanding of the topic. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. BTW there's a related article School-to-prison pipeline, which shows the larger picture that this is part of. NightHeron (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah School-to-prison pipeline is an important article. Thanks for reminding me because it can use some updating. On second thought too, might be a place there to discuss the points you've raised about the real-world impact of scientific racism today? Generalrelative (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're planning to do some updating of School-to-prison pipeline, I won't add anything directly to the article until you do. I'll prepare a draft of a paragraph using the Wright et al (2014) article, the Huang (2020) article, and probably some of the articles in Huang's bibliography (which seems to be pretty extensive and up-to-date). The theme of the paragraph would be how a badly flawed fringe paper can influence policy in this area. I probably can't use the terms "scientific racism" or "racist pseudoscience" about it, since Huang doesn't use those terms, and I don't think they're used about criminal justice studies papers, although perhaps they should be. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be awesome. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

When you get a chance, take a look at the BLP for lead author John Paul Wright, which features a long quote from his article titled "Inconvenient Truths: Science, Race, and Crime" and leaves no doubt that he's squarely in the tradition of scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Lol "Biosocial criminology". There's an article in serious need of a weedwacker. But seriously, another good catch. That US News & World Report piece quoted in the Wright article might be useful too. Generalrelative (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll use two US News & World Report sources by Lauren Camera, but I was dismayed that she said about Wright: Wright's research is considered legitimate in academic circles. He uses popular, robust federal datasets for much of his work and has been published more than 200 times. I would have hoped that a serious journalist would know better than to legitimize such garbage. NightHeron (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I put a draft in, and of course I'd welcome your comments. NightHeron (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! Now I'm wondering if we should just go ahead and create a new article on "disparities in school discipline in the United States". All of that information seems encyclopedic to me, but probably too much detail for School-to-prison pipeline. Another possibility is that all of this really does belong in the school discipline article, and that my initial hot take was not necessarily the best. I'm open to all of these possibilities, and any others that you might suggest as well. Generalrelative (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If we put this in the School discipline article, we'll have to make some changes in that article, since right now racial disparities aren't even mentioned in the lead, and most of the article is concerned with other things. Also, the entire proposed section relates just to the US. The School-to-prison pipeline article is much more centered around racial disparities, and also it's clear from the lead that that topic relates just to the US. At some point it might be appropriate to create a separate article on racial disparities that pulls in content from both of those more general articles. But my impression is that for now the easiest thing to do would be simply to add a section to School-to-prison pipeline. NightHeron (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, let's go with that (i.e. adding what you've written to School-to-prison pipeline). Also, you should feel free to add it without waiting on me. I may not have the bandwidth to contribute much for the next few days. Generalrelative (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for opening the ANI on the BLM IP. I missed the last talk page post or I would have done it myself. Meters (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Thanks for your input and for your vigilance. Generalrelative (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing
Your concise reason (e.g. you continue to ignore basic English construction. Adjectives are not capitalized, unless they are a proper noun (ie English, Italian, French toast, etc.).  Non-proper nouns are not capitalized: (red car, black man, white man, tall building).  Stop attempting to incite an edit war through improper terminology.) BlauGraf (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop literally edit warring and there will be no problem. As you can see, I am not the only one who has reverted your changes here. As a matter of fact there is disagreement as to whether "Black" is the proper name of an ethnic group or rather a simple description when used in reference to people of African heritage. I for one find the argument that it is a description absurd, since few Black people have skin that could be literally described as black, and many have lighter skin than some White people –– whose skin is actually pink to brown in any case. But my opinion on the matter is not what's important here, because this issue has been discussed at length for years and no clear consensus has emerged (see ). When there are two equally valid stylistic choices, we go for consistency within the article, as I have already explained in my edit summary. And it is considered disruptive to unilaterally change the established style used in an article based on personal preference. I accept these things and therefore do not go around changing "black" to "Black" where "black" is the established style. You will need to accept the way things work here as well. So yes, let's see an end to the disruptive editing. I hope that it is now clear to you who has been the culprit. Generalrelative (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I must disagree. The Rules of English construction are quite clear. A proper noun is capitalized, and an improper noun is not. It is not a matter of stylism, it is the correct usage. Black is a color, not a race. The same goes for white. It should not be capitalized. Nor should red or yellow - whether used perjoratively or not. Consistency is demanded, I agree - but the reality is that not capitalizing it is proper. Are you going to advocate that white be capitalized? Of course not, because to do so is wrong. Now, I am not debating whether black or white are the proper terms to describe ethnic groups, only in the usage of capitalization. Black is not a proper noun. Now, conversely, if someone is described as African, then that should be capitalized, because Africa is a proper noun. -Blaugraf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3003:105:C00:E891:E03B:23E3:9957 (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Once again: this issue has been discussed at length for years and no clear consensus has emerged. Take it to WT:MOSCAPS if you want to debate this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion that no consensus as been reached confirms that the basic rules of English grammar apply. Your edits are abusive and violative of the language standards of the OED.  Please stop your disruptive editing. User:Blaugraf  — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:VAR: Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance. The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." In any case, there is a proper forum to discuss this issue and it is not here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday(1939)
The edit you made on "Bloody Sunday" includes biased wording and puts the crimes committed against ethnic germans under the radar. I think putting less biased wording on the section will make it a more neutral and fair description of what happened. If you would like to learn more about this there is a documentary on it here [ WP:SPAM link removed Generalrelative (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC) ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethepenguin (talk • contribs) 19:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with threat of escalating on R&I
As I'm sure you've noticed, the same user who's been trying one thing after another to undermine the RfC on R&I is now threatening to escalate to dispute resolution if the sentence about no scientific evidence for racialist hereditarianism isn't deleted. Is there any way we can avoid being dragged into a relitigation of the RfC? I've politely warned the user repeatedly that refusal to accept consensus is regarded as unconstructive. If the user insists on escalating beyond the talk-page, this could become even more of a time sink. The original RfC lasted 5 weeks with around 50 editors participating, and was followed by further contentious debate with the same editors at AN and ArbCom. Any ideas? NightHeron (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for keeping me posted concerning the specific forms taken by the racial hereditarianism advocates' refusal to accept consensus. I was glad to see the closing of the ridiculous complaint at WP:NOR/N. NightHeron (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is annoying that this topic is such a time sink, but I suppose that's why so few editors are actually in the trenches defending R&I from POV-pushing on the daily. I'm actually not super concerned about dispute resolution, which is what this user proposed, since that's handled quite tightly by a moderator. From what I've seen, the process leaves very little room for the type of shenanigans they've been able to get away with on the talk page. And I expect that any effort to start a new RfC on another forum will be rejected out of hand. I could of course be wrong about this, and in that case I will just have to wade back into the trenches –– because, and I think you will agree with me here, it is really consequential that Wikipedia gets this issue right when so much else on the internet is dominated by quackery. In any case, your last request to "drop the stick" was well stated. Maybe they'll listen. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You probably know about Ferahgo's RfC at WP:RSN trying to overturn last year's RfC, but I wasn't sure, since Ferahgo decided not to give notification to participants in the earlier discussions. Another editor put a notification at WP:FTN, which is how I learned about it (since I don't watchlist WP:RSN). NightHeron (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, how utterly unethical of her not to inform the community. Thanks for letting me know, NightHeron. I hadn't yet seen. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Sexism article
Hi,

Based on your work at domestic violence, you may want to keep an eye on sexism and note the talk page discussions there. Crossroads -talk- 03:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, . Looks like more of the same type of civil POV-pushing we saw at Intimate partner violence a while back. I'll add it to my watch list. Generalrelative (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

ANI
Hello! I removed your post just now from WP:ANI but I want you to know I saw it and I'm looking into it. Incidents of this sort are meant to be handled as discreetly as possible, and posting to the busiest noticeboard on the project is not really compatible with that. You can have a look at WP:EMERGENCY for more info. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate your vigilance, though. I had a look at your post and the offending edits, and I see that already blocked the editor's IP range. You're right that logged-out editors can sometimes move to other IPs when they're blocked, but (not to get too technical) it's usually not the case for ISPs that use IPv6 addressing (the longer alphanumeric IP addresses). Blocking their /64 CIDR range normally prevents that editor from editing unless they move to a completely different network. If you're interested in more information, there's a pretty good explainer at WP:/64. Deepfriedokra also removed and deleted the edit, so hopefully that settles things.
 * If you do come across other edits of this sort, and you can't find an active administrator to contact privately, then emailing Special:EmailUser/Emergency is better than posting to a noticeboard. The email is monitored 24/7 and incidents are handled very quickly. Thanks again for your help. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. My apologies for the process error. Thanks for the clear explanation, and for letting me know how I can deal proactively with this type of edit in the future. Generalrelative (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Irmela Mensah-Schramm has been accepted
 Irmela Mensah-Schramm, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Irmela_Mensah-Schramm help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! DanCherek (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fascism revert
Researching more, I agree we can't say Peron was simply "left-wing" when he was both left and right wing according to all relevant Wiki pages including that for his offshoot parties - which seem all leftist.

A note on Fascism. I note on p. 14 of Sternhell ref. on Valois in History section says (which could be included in the article):

"The very birth of the (Valois' fascist} Faisceau involves an ambiguity fundamental of which neither the Valois movement nor the movements of the thirty could never be freed. This ambiguity is inherent in the very nature of fascism in France: movement developing a ideology of a revolutionary, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist character..."

In the Fascist Economy section: "Fascism presented itself as an alternative to... free market capitalism."

Currently, Stanley G. Payne's anti-liberalism concept is wikilinked to generic liberalism. Wouldn't the anti-liberalism concept refer to anti-economic liberalism, not all liberalism, which encompasses socialism and social democracy which fascism often endorsed or was not against per this article and environmentalism which unclear fascism ever had a position on? I lack access to his book to find out and correct the wikilink, but perhaps you have insight? Skingski (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The short answer to your question is no. Most scholars, including Payne, see fascism as a reaction against political liberalism. Indeed, in practice fascists tended to side with business interests and focus their repressive violence –– before gaining state control at least –– against socialists. (After gaining state control they tended to focus their violence on colonial subjects and ethnic minorities, since by then socialist resistance was effectively neutralized.) Though fascist rhetoric was full of contradictions I am dubious that you will find reliable sources claiming that any fascists ever endorsed social democracy. That is, as far as I understand, about as far from an accurate claim as one can get. If you think that the article makes this claim (which you seem to imply), I would suggest you read it again.
 * The relationship between fascism and environmentalism is a trickier subject, but in this case beside the point since environmentalism is a separate topic from liberalism. The two only happen to be conflated in contemporary American politics. Generalrelative (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleted talk page comment
Hi, could you please clarify why you deleted my talk page comment? Everything I said was factual. Stonkaments (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, you received an WP:AGF warning from a well respected admin for the same comment so it shouldn't be a huge mystery, right? Your opinions on other editor's motivations are neither factual nor appropriate topics for article talk page conversation. And if you imagine that Doug Weller and I are alone in thinking your comment was inappropriate you are wrong there too; I was thanked by three highly experienced editors for that revert. I will add that continuing to insist that other editors have not explained to you how and why the sources in question support the article's text –– when we have done so again and again –– is, at this point, disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Assuming good faith doesn't apply in the face of clear evidence of bad faith.
 * 2) That entire thread is discussing editors' motivations. If the topic of editors' motivations is inappropriate, it should be removed entirely, rather than singling out a single critical comment for removal.
 * 3) I have yet to see a single convincing argument that the disputed claim accurately represents the cited sources. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. If you can link me to where you believe this argument was made most convincingly, that would be greatly appreciated. Stonkaments (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Um, your "evidence" here is a link to another comment you made which contains more baseless assertions. Also note that in that comment you are defending a sock of notorious white supremacist Mikemikev. Is that really the company you want to be keeping? In any case, per WP:AOBF you need to provide diffs which show bad faith in a way that would persuade a neutral observer in order to allege it without violating WP:AGF. If you imagine that you have done so then you are suffering from a delusion (as evinced by the fact that you persuaded exactly no one at NOR/N).
 * 2) Sure. I would have reverted the OP too if I had seen it before others had responded to it.
 * 3) Just as a test case I will point to one of many examples from recent discussions when you asked this question and received a direct answer:
 * Can you point to just one example (of either fact or opinion) from any of the cited sources that supports the assertion that there is no evidence of a genetic component? Stonkaments (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stonkaments, That is what Hunt is communicating, that there probably is some difference (as there would be between any two randomly selected groups), but it is within the observational error range of the methods we have. This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. MrOllie (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can't accept this then I'm afraid that Hob Gadling was correct when he stated that you do not understand how scientists talk and what they mean when they do. Whether that is because you are unwilling or simply unable is not for me to ascertain.
 * In either case, please note that this is the final straw of patience I have for you. Unless you manage to find something new to say, any future comments you make here will be reverted as disruptive. Generalrelative (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

IP adding hereditarian fringe to Brain size and personal attacks/accusations
Hello. Recently an IP has been removing long-standing WP:CONSENSUS material from the geographical variation section of the Brain size article and adding material regarding racial difference in brain size and intelligence with multiple J. Phillipe Rushton refs (combined with other refs that discuss geographic differences in brain size but not intelligence). It looks like a mix of WP:FRINGE and WP:Synth. I reverted their edits explaining that racial hereditarianism is fring here per the RFC (and posted a link to the RFC, but they reverted me stating that there were other co authors besides Rushton, that Rushton had ben published in many respectable jornals, and accused me of "pushing a leftard agenda". They seem to have ignored RFC and the poinf regarding fringe. I thought perhaps you might take a look since you have engaged recently on these subjects recently. Skllagyook (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, and for your diligence. I removed the rest of this exchange as clutter. Let me know if the problem persists. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Redundant URLs
Re, the PMC ID and the DOI already link the full text, that's why the link is considered redundant. See Help:Citation_Style_1. Nemo 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Aha, my mistake. Thanks for the info. Generalrelative (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

George Floyd and Dostoevsky
Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Aha, yes! Brilliant insight, brilliant quote. Sometimes, it appears, their bad conscience is so great that they begin posting portraits of Nietzsche on their user pages. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Who'll start a new R&I RfC?
I'm concerned about letting the POV-pushers start the new RfC. I'm sure you've seen what AndewNguyen wants to do. The problem is that those of us who are content with last year's RfC don't think a new one is necessary. However, it'll probably happen, whether necessary or not. To prevent mischief, it would be good for it to be a simple, straightforward question about fringe, and be held under EC-protection on the R&I talk-page. It would be bad form for me to be the OP, since I was the OP last year. If you or anyone you can suggest would do it, I'd be glad to help with the tedious task of notifications, including the many participants in last year's RfC. NightHeron (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's funny that we both suggested each other at the same time! I think you did an excellent job of formulating the question. Thanks for stepping up, as always. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

it wasn't subtle
more like passive aggressive. I shouldn't be editing there at all. ---Sluzzelin talk  20:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ha, got it. It's tricky to know what's what sometimes because editors come to these debates with such varying levels of background knowledge and reading comprehension. But I'll remember from now on that you're someone with a sophisticated understanding and will interpret what you say accordingly. Generalrelative (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I admit that I lean toward taking the perspective of the 'average' reader, but in this case it was just dishonest. Apologies. ---Sluzzelin talk  21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

confused
You claimed adding the detail that it was the left side of a face when merely "face down" is stated is "not an improvement".

This is clearly wrong: it's an improvement to add extra true information. I don't think you should remove that. WakandaQT (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to have this conversation with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences and User:MordvinEvgen
Hey, I saw you in the sex differences in intelligence page. Do you think you could have a look at the sex differences in cognition page? User:MordvinEvgen has been editing it and I don't trust his edits. He seems to be a sex difference denier, and editors have warned him about the way he edits. They keep removing his edits, but then he comes back with the same thing, partially or fully, or something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.128.238 (talk)
 * I don't see anything systematically wrong with those edits. Indeed, they seem to be creating some semblance of WP:BALANCE on an article which already relies too heavily on primary sources. And at least one of the studies this user cited is a meta-analysis, which is basically the gold standard per e.g. WP:MEDRS. Generalrelative (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You looked at his edits at the cognition page. So let me just say you can't add balance by adding primary data to match against the other. Wikipedia says that's artificial balance. Look at the edits others have challenged him on. He keeps trying to make men and women the same. If you look at the refractory period data, it's almost all about men. It's artificial to make men and women seem the same in terms of orgasm and some other sex differences. You restored a source he added to the refractory period article. It's based on a Finland study. This goes against the advice he got about sourcing on his talk page and at the orgasm talk page. This editor keeps adding bottom-of-the-barel sources to pages along with sketchy phrasing. And you're supporting this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.128.238 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this topic so it's not immediately clear to me what the preponderance of reliable sources say on each of these points. But certainly the meta-analysis appears to be a good addition. In any case, this looks like a content dispute which you should be discussing on the article's talk page. Attempting to WP:CANVASS individual editors is not going to help your cause. If you'd like to draw more experienced editors into the discussion the right way, consider posting a neutrally worded invitation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. A neutrally worded message could be something like: "Hi, I am wondering if the following sources which were recently added to Sex differences in cognition should be considered reliable...." It would then be proper to alert the user with whom you've had the disagreement on their talk page. Also: you need to sign your comments by typing four tildes ("~"). See WP:TALK for more on talk page etiquette. Generalrelative (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant no scheme by contacting you. You said canvassing is bad. A canvassing rule under "Appropriate notification" says it's okay to contact an expert. I thought you were an expert or someone with a lot of knowledge on sex differences of the mind. I was looking for someone with multiple positive edits to cognition or intelligence, or physiology, to review some changes by this editor. Chose you. Sorry to have bothered you. 37.47.128.238 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Why I removed the Weiten quote
Besides the reason given in my edit summary, another reason is that I've never heard of anyone wanting to know the IQ of an applicant for an undergraduate or PhD program or a faculty position. If IQ were a measure of ability to do excellent academic work, I'd expect it to be a standard item on an academic CV. But I've never seen it there.

Other than that quote, I think that all your edits really improve the FAQ. NightHeron (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Makes sense! Thanks for the explanation. Generalrelative (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional work on the FYI! I removed one of your quotes so thought I should extend to you the same courtesy: I removed it because, while it added emphasis to the "it could go both ways" point, it was only referring to its own findings in this quote, not to the issue as a whole. Reich's wording, on the other hand, while it could be clearer and more emphatic, is at least speaking for this corner of the genetics profession is a way that clarifies how/why he is not a racial hereditarian. If you disagree with my choice, I'd of course be happy to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I recall being very pleased when you found that quote that explicitly says that, if there were a (very small) average genetic racial difference in intelligence, it would be just as likely to favor Blacks as whites. I think it's a very relevant observation. The racial hereditarians don't just believe in racial differences for which there's no evidence; they unanimously believe that these racial differences must favor whites. In other words, the issue is not just pseudoscience, but racism as well. Because of Wikipedia policy about civility, we don't often use the "r" word, and that's correct. But what I like about that quote is that it doesn't beat around the bush. However, if you believe it's out of place, that's okay. I certainly won't insist. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I like that about the quote you provided too! It's just that this FYI is meant to persuade the skeptical (or at least persuade them not to disrupt a settled consensus), and if one clicks through to that study it is clear that the authors are referring only to their own findings, whereas Reich is referring to the overall topic. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a valid point. I'm convinced. NightHeron (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I knew that sooner or later...
we'd end up on opposite sides of a Wikipedia issue. From : Though the meaning of among and amongst is the same, the frequency of use is not. Among is much more popular than amongst. The Oxford English Corpus counts about 10,000 mentions of amongst in American writing. However, among appears over 300,000 times. The difference is less extreme in British English and other international English dialects, but among is always more common. (emphasis added) However, I promise not to edit-war against amongst. NightHeron (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha! Finally!! Truth be told I hate "amongst". Was just trying to apply the guideline as I understood it. Happy to be reverted in this instance! Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's your call. NightHeron (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Generalrelative (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Among
I don't know how correct this is, but I recall hearing that one can be "among" the audience, but during the intermission, the audience can talk "amongst" themselves. I think "amongst" is synonymous with one meaning of "between", whereas "among" is it's own word.

Which reminds me of something else I'd heard: "English is not a language. It's three Germanic and two Latin languages wrapped in a trenchcoat." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  15:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good quote about English. However all the sources I've looked at agree that "among" and "amongst" are semantically identical. Generalrelative (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Might very well be. What would I know? Half of my vocabulary is a Jeff Foxworthy skit and the other half is words I found in some academic book, and remember just to use them whenever possible to make myself look smart. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  15:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Socks editing School discipline
Did you notice that the two editors whose edits you just reverted each have only 1 contribution, and they made very similar edits 14 minutes apart. Perhaps if this continues the socks should be reported to WP:SPI. NightHeron (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right. Good catch. Let's see if it becomes an ongoing problem. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

August Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WP:ROPE
I have drafted an alternative version of this essay at User:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance and invite your input. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  22:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Cullen328! Looks good to me. As a relatively inexperienced editor (compared to many of y'all) I'm going to stay out of the MfD debate, but I appreciate being looped in. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand but I would be happy to hear any comments that you might have about my version. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, I've added a couple of thoughts over at User talk:Cullen328/sandbox/One last chance. Thanks again for including me in the discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, here's the thing
You said: "Restoring status quo. Changes of this nature will require establishing a new consensus on the article's Talk page." In that case, can you at least respond to my post on Talk:Conservative Democrat rather reverting my justified removal of certain entries? Thank you. Total random nerd (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've replied at Talk:Conservative Democrat. Generalrelative (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Liz Ogbu
Hello, Generalrelative. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Liz Ogbu, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted comments at Talk:Zoonosis
Hi Generalrelative,

I just saw your message on my talk page. I'm new to this, so thank you for bearing with me. Would you clarify the process for archiving comments which are no longer beneficial to the talk page? Is there a formal archival process or should these comments be deleted as I did? I propose that the previously deleted comments be archived. Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks again! RiesHunter (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi RiesHunter, thanks for your reply. Just so you're aware, the relevant part of WP:TALK is WP:ARCHIVENOTDELETE, and there you will find a link to the instructions: WP:ARCHIVE. Happy editing and welcome to the project, Generalrelative (talk) 03:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Generalrelative, I just archived the comments. Thanks for your guidance—I appreciate it! RiesHunter (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * RiesHunter, great! Thanks for doing that. Generalrelative (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice
At Talk:Nicholas Wade; the IP recently disrupting the article with tags has gone on to ANI, but as far as I can see they haven't notified anyone. So, here it is, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Generalrelative (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

probabilities
Once I visited a remote indigenous village in Chiapas, and there I met a guy I had never seen before who turned out to live in my street in my (very far away) city. There are millions of streets on earth, so by naive reasoning this was an extremely unlikely event. But I didn't tell him "the odds of you being here are so small that I don't believe you exist". Incidentally any-city any-meteor is closer to the correct model and the parameter that matters is the product of the number of meteors times the number of cities, which might be quite a large number. If you search for "coincidences" at Scholar you can find some of the large literature on the subject (of mixed quality). I don't believe this "Sodom" paper for other reasons, but the low probability argument is simply not valid. Cheers. Zerotalk 04:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that coincidences occur has no bearing on the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I can tell you’re not trying to be a jerk or anything but I’ve told you already that I’m not interested in debating basic principles like this. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits to Scientific racism
Any thoughts on how to handle the recent long (6KB total) and poorly written edits to Scientific racism by a well-intentioned new student editor? Suggest on their user talk-page that they slow down and propose edits via the article talk-page? Tell them that a Wikipedia edit is not the same thing as a book report in their class? That edits should be proofread? NightHeron (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Good question. Taking a quick look, this seems just on the line between revert good faith edits and take the time to revise. I'm honestly not sure which is more productive. It could be the latter if someone has time to give this the carefully copy-editing it needs. Phrases like more powerful and fit races (White) were able to conquer those who were not (Native Americans and Blacks) shouldn't be allowed to remain on high-traffic pages for long. In either case, a friendly message of the user's talk page might be a good idea, though the fact that we see that they're clearly acting in good faith should be stressed. Wish I had the bandwidth for this but unfortunately am a bit slammed at the moment. Generalrelative (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that Firefangledfeathers has undertaken the task of fixing things. Student editing has been a problem on many pages, especially ones related to social justice issues. The Wikipedia Foundation actively promotes student editing, which is understandable because Wikipedia badly needs large numbers of editors from the younger generation. However, US universities have a messed up incentive system, whereby instructors get brownie points for having their students edit Wikipedia, usually with zero regard for quality control or for whether the students are learning anything about how to edit (or, more generally, how to write). Some of the instructors are probably not competent editors themselves, and in any case they don't seem to be teaching the students how to be good editors. I think that the blame for the CIR problem with student editing rests not so much with the students as with their instructors. NightHeron (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I went in and complemented what Firefangledfeathers had done by editing the last paragraphs of the "After 1945" section. Between the two of us, we shortened the student's edits by about 2/3, and I hope fixed them. If you have a chance, you might see how it reads now and whether you think it needs more work. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Awesome work! Looks good to me. Thanks for taking the time to work through those edits so methodically. The encyclopedia is better for it. Generalrelative (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * On a related note,, I was looking at that user's contrib history and stumbled upon one of the most bonkers articles I've found to date: Cognitive elite. Unfortunately there are enough mentions of this "concept" in the popular press that it is unlikely the article would be approved for deletion, and I'm not super motivated to improve it. Just kind of stupefied that such a thing exists –– the perfect storm of IQ-related pseudo-intellectualism and middle-school level Nietzsche scholarship all wrapped into one WP article. At least it's not getting a lot of traffic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nice catch. Wouldn't there be a strong case for merging the salvageable part of Cognitive elite into The Bell Curve? Most of the lead is about the Herrnstein-Murray book. Parts of the article read like a WP:POVFORK of The Bell Curve article, although I can't say that it was deliberately written for that purpose. The parts about Nazism and Nietzsche are half-baked and poorly sourced (schoolworkhelper.net for Nietzsche??), and a case can be made for deleting most or all of that. The lead is slanted 100% toward fringe racial theories of intelligence, and the main body has one line (2 short sentences) referring to criticism.
 * One possibility, following WP:MERGE, would be to open a discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve on merging the Cognitive elite article. In that case we could attract participation by posting notices on related talk-pages, such as at R&I and Scientific racism, as well as at FTN (since Cognitive elite is heavily slanted toward a fringe POV). It would certainly be easier to argue for a merge than for a delete. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That could definitely work. It would certainly be in the best interest of the encyclopedia. Thanks for your advice, as always. Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I started a merger discussion at Talk:The Bell Curve. NightHeron (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! Great work getting 'er done. Generalrelative (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead image in White supremacy
Hi Generalrelative,

Here to discuss your recent edit: "Image did not belong in the lead. I am not sure it belongs anywhere in the article either, per MOS:IMAGE. What does it illustrate?"

It illustrates a clear distinction in the way white/"Aryan" people were depicted in Nazi Germany (a society widely acknowledged as white supremacist) versus Black people. The poster serves as an Exhibit-A of sorts when it comes to what white supremacy is.

The image may be considered offensive, but I imagine that any historical image attempting to convey the concept of "white supremacy" would be as well. There is no gore, no acute suffering, no atrocities. It seems that it adheres to MOS:SHOCK and MOS:OMIMG.

MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't apply as the article is about a belief regarding an ethnic group/race, not the group itself.

As for MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, the core strength of the image is that it's relatively old. The poster's age speaks to how long white supremacy has been around; that it's not a new phenomenon but one that the world has been dealing with for quite some time. In my mind this overrides concerns about the visual darkness of the image.

I still think it's fit for the lead. If that view isn't shared, I'd ask that we include it in the History:Germany section as it's a specific illustration of white supremacy in that country in the described time period.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetstache (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Sweetstache, I would be happy to have this discussion with you on the article's talk page so that others can weigh in. Feel free to start a new thread there. Generalrelative (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More forum-shopping by Ferahgo, this time on the ArbCom talk-page
You might already have noticed her latest efforts to circumvent consensus:. She was tbanned once, and in the discussion she admits that she can't bear to let go of her POV and drop the stick. I learned of this latest discussion with arbs when I saw that she went to Stonk's user talk-page to invite him to support her there. NightHeron (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, no I hadn't. At this point I just feel bad for her. Generalrelative (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022 with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Josephus
So is it also edit warring when you twice revert my edit? Ficaia (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thanks, ! And to you,, for both initiating and perfecting the revision! Generalrelative (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably still worth watching
Doug Weller talk 19:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug, will do. In the case of that edit I thought it best to offer an attempt at compromise: . Generalrelative (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

George Floyd Fentanyl edit
I reviewed the talk page regarding consensus as well as the sources cited (which I had not reviewed prior to reverting your deletion) and I agree that it should not be included in the page, I took the information given at face value and didn’t check what consensus (or lack thereof) had been reached. In conclusion I agree with the arguments that were brought forward in the talk page and I stand behind not including the paragraph. Shipyard43328 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What a thoughtful note, . I very much appreciate you taking the time to let me know about your thought process after that revert, and I will take it as a reminder of the importance of assuming good faith. Best regards, Generalrelative (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Economy of Nazi Germany
Thanks for the notification. I think things are being handled just fine, but I'll keep an eye on it. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson and J. Philippe Rushton
Based on an article in the current NYRB about their correspondence, I added a sentence to Rushton's BLP about it. I'm thinking that something should also be added to E. O. Wilson, but in Wilson's BLP it will appear negative, so that might be controversial. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, . I'll take a look when I have a bit more time. On the face of it, though, I don't see how the sentence could be DUE for one bio and not the other. Generalrelative (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll add it, and we'll see. NightHeron (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a fascinating article, and of course also very disappointing to read. Thanks for suggesting it. One more reminder that good scientists are flawed human beings like the rest of us. If you do get push-back from Wilson fans, I hope they will at least take the time to read the article. It would be hard to argue that research of that caliber doesn't merit a single sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it. So far there's no pushback. Mathsci has been working on the article, and in the process copy-edited what I'd put and added another source there, and that improved it a lot, I think. I'm hopeful that no one will object. NightHeron (talk)

Avoiding edit war
There’s no reason why the burden is on me to bring it up on the article’s talk page, giving the fact I justified it as loaded language. “ Restoring status quo language” is relative to who wrote it in the first place. Doesn’t mean it’s in any way more correct. What you posted on my talk page doesn’t pertain to my edit or the fact it’s loaded language. Not sure how far want to take this. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  02:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to discuss the matter on the article talk page where others can join the conversation. The notice I left on your talk page is a standard discretionary sanctions alert which does not imply wrongdoing. Anyone who shows interest in Toxic masculinity can expect to receive one, since it is a subject of gender-related controversy. Regarding "burden", typically we follow a process called WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). You made a bold edit and were reverted. If you disagree with the revert, the next step would be to open a talk page discussion. That's not a policy but it is a community norm. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand in retrospect, I tend to be hawkish and jump if I suspect something isn’t neutral. No hard feelings. Cheers. --- Steven Bjerke97  talk  02:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Word, no hard feelings. I appreciate the circumspection. Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Major Dump
Just checking in - I see you discovered that MD was a sock. Quelle suprise!! Well done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oui, j'étais choquée aussi! Alors. Best keep an eye out for this LTA: Sockpuppet investigations/RJII. Generalrelative (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Diop and UNESCO Sources
Hi Generalrelative,

How does the inclusion of other scholars violate the Fringe rules. I have provided the relevant sources as it states on page 31 on UNESCO History of Africa Volume 2:

"Professor Vercoutter remarked that, in his view, Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking"

Professor Lecant, for his part "recognised the same African character in the Egyptian temperament and way of thinking".

pg 38, "Professor Lecant began by stressing the African character of Egyptian civilisation"

Page 46, "Professor Lecant noted that important palaeo-African features in the cultural life of Egypt"

Page 47, "Professors Diop and Vercoutter agreed that the populations of the Egyptian reaches of the Nile Valley was homogenous as far as the southern extremity of the Delta".

"Professor Habachi unresevely supported the thoery of migrations from the Sahara on the basis of known studies. Professor Save-Soderbergh considered that the majority of Neolithic cultures in the Nile Valley belonged to a techno-complex of Saharan and Sudanese cultures"

The consensus on the talk section aside from Doug Weller did not provide any refutation based on sources. All of the quotations are listed from Chapter 1 and Annex to Chapter 1: Report of the symposium.16:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)WikiUser4020 (talk)
 * Hello, I'm glad to see that you've decided not to give up on editing Wikipedia after all. I've responded to you at Talk:Cheikh Anta Diop. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi General Relative, I will comply the guidelines to make a few more contributions. I have responded on the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Also, on the Diop page is it possible to exchange the constructive appraisal quotes from Keith Crawford to Henry Louis Gates (Encyclopedia) as the latter is an authoritative source ?.WikiUser4020 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi WikiUser4020, please understand that this is not a bilateral negotiation. You need to engage the community (without casting aspersions on your collaborators!) in order to make constructive progress here. I'm glad to see that you are using the article talk page and will be happy to discuss the matter with you there when I have time. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

DNA IP editor now at WP:AN3
. Doug Weller talk 15:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug. Good observation about the likely connection with Pullbasket. Generalrelative (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

My edits
The name of these was called Italian Ethiopia even the Italian name under says the same thing and the people called especially descendants Italian Ethiopians stop changing edits with no good reason Imperoitaliano (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to discuss these edits with you on the article talk pages, where others can weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy
Hi Generarelative, I strongly suggest you should restore the entire genetics section as it is no different to all the information included above about the anthropology. There is still content that are there that do not directly address the race controversy, but talk more about population which is what the DNA papers were highlighting also. It was honestly not a good idea to remove, and there is already a lot of unfair edits on the overall page of the same users pushing only one perspective. All my edit history has been fair, but this deleted section had nothing to do with synthesis of material whatsoever. Especially the statement by one of the researchers of the study was removed which is not right. Overall, it does contribute to the views on this controversy and is 100% relevant. Andymoshi (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Or we should add all those deleted parts in the DNA section towards the end, it is not good to have gotten rid of it in my honest opinion. Andymoshi (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't just discard all of that info now, these are very important inclusions, so many sources and remarks were just thrown out. I also say this because there were things in this section not included on other Egypt pages, so now basically no one can come across these anymore. I encourage you to add it to the DNA portion, some of my edits with sources that I added last month are basically null and void now, which is disheartening... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&diff=1076063453&oldid=1076002943 Andymoshi (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the article talk page, where a clear consensus was formed in favor of removing this section prior to my edit. Generalrelative (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Edits to social darwinism
Hi, I saw you reverted my changes to Social Darwinism. I made a post on the talk page some time ago talking about what I thought the major problems with the article are and some proposed resolutions. Could you be clearer what you think the problem with these edits are? I think demanding large amounts of consensus is a little unfair when I've had a section on the talk page up for over a month and a half now with little input.

More specifically, in what precise way do you think I've been revisionist?

BrigadierG (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just responded on the article talk page (note that I was the one who responded to you previously). Feel free to continue the conversation there. Generalrelative (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian and french empire support
The Russian empire had advisers and a commander present in Battle of Adwa so they would be in the fighting side France sent weapons making them on the support side all these information i added are sourced stop changing pages for your own Nationalistic views Puntinator (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have responded on the article talk page, where I see that Cinderella157 has also commented. Generalrelative (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Josephus
MOS:ERA is very clear that an article should use the dating style that was first used in the article, and that any suggested change should be discussed on the talk page. I don't understand what you find problematic here. The fact that the policy was violated back in 2015 is irrelevant. If you look at the article history, there have been several attempts since then to revert to the consensus style. Ficaia (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is in fact not what MOS:ERA says. The style that has been in place since 2015 is very obviously the established era style referred to in the guideline, and your edit warring over this is childish. In any case, the place to discuss the issue is the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * For any interested talk page watchers, this discussion has moved on to Wikipedia Talk: Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now an RfC: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style! Generalrelative (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit on white genocide conspiracy theory
Why is the edit on talk page is being continously removed? Katya72918 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you read the link to WP:SOAPBOX in my edit summaries? Generalrelative (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you elaborate more.Why is wikipedia encouraging blatant cheryypicking.I am asking for a source of a written sentence in that article. I can write "pandas are not dying by hunting", does that mean pandas are not dying or diminishing in numbers at all? Katya72918 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)


 * If your purpose here is to argue that the white genocide conspiracy theory is true, I suggest reading the article. If that doesn't do the trick, I'll refer you instead to WP:NONAZIS and instruct you to fuck off. Generalrelative (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, ! I appreciate it! Generalrelative (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Alternative left stuff
Thanks. Looks as though there may be a source, plus a COI.. See. Good faith editor I think who hasn't a clue about our policies, which is pretty standard. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. I won't pile on too hard. Generalrelative (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they've got the message. Doug Weller  talk 07:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

DSA article
Hello, I would like to know, kindly how come the DSA article is constantly being reverted with regards to political affiliation, cited as "far-left"? Looking through the sources, it seems like a link to an Israeli news organization is attached. As a nonpartisan source, I don't think we should refer to politically motivated articles when describing an organization. --RevsLost (talk) 7:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * See the article talk page where this has been discussed: Talk:Democratic Socialists of America. I was initially one of those who objected to this language but a number of reliable sources were provided. I'm not sure if you mean to imply that the Times of Israel is unreliable on the topic of socialism, and if so why you might think that, but it would be a topic for the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to raise the issue there. Generalrelative (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics
So, who was that user? Look at my contributions for the other blocks I placed. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Aha, well spotted! I just finished an SPI report: Sockpuppet investigations/ArsenalAtletico2017. Generalrelative (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX
You removed my comment in talk:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 as WP:SOAPBOX. It wasn't meant as soapbox, but to go along with discussion of zoonotic origin. That is, meant for discussion related to improving the article. I am sorry if it didn't sound like that. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 01:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reaching out. With this topic in particular we've seen a lot of disruption from users who wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for their own original speculation and/or poorly substantiated pet theories. Upon reflection, however, I think I was mistaken in calling your comment SOAPBOXing, so I've self-reverted. But in the future, I would strongly suggest making sure that all your contributions to talk page discussions are based explicitly upon reliable sources and/or Wikipedia policies –– rather than relying on what you believe is likely to be the case. This is all detailed in our talk page guidelines. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I could have made it more obvious. Though now it seems to have been removed for another reason. I have heard this discussed in genomics seminars for years, but haven't tried to find a reference for it. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I could have made it more obvious. Though now it seems to have been removed for another reason. I have heard this discussed in genomics seminars for years, but haven't tried to find a reference for it. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose I could have made it more obvious. Though now it seems to have been removed for another reason. I have heard this discussed in genomics seminars for years, but haven't tried to find a reference for it. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Mail
Hey, I sent you one. Graham 87 15:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

deleting a users comment
I assume it was an accident, please take more care. Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was. My apologies. Generalrelative (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

discrete parts
as written, the word 'parts' used twice in a longer sentence seemed confusing on the first read, but now 'discrete parts' almost seems redundant. thank you for clearing that up SkidMountTubularFrame (talk)


 * Glad I could help! Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Spearman's hypothesis
Hi! You're probably already watchlisting that article and are aware of this, but just in case: I reverted a massive rewriting of that article with sourcing to Intelligence and even Mankind Quarterly by a new user (or sock). Could be a problem on other articles and worth keeping an eye on. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just got back from a long vacation during which I've been looking at Wikipedia only very sporadically, but I'll check it out. Hope you've been doing well! Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! I've been working on my response to BooleanQuackery's conduct complaint against me at WP:AN/EW. NightHeron (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just saw that. Hopefully someone will run a CU as JBL suggested. But in any case, disruption like that won't last. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding H of IQ, my short edit just now is a way of signing off from a useless discussion. Dealing with the bludgeoning and likely socking and off-wiki canvassing makes the R&I topic a particularly difficult one to defend against fringy POV-pushers. NightHeron (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds wise. I see that the new sock continues to create work for those of us who will have to go around and revert their nonsense once they're inevitably blocked, and to taunt the community both with their username and on their talk page. So it goes. If you have any ideas as to their identity, let me know and I'll be happy to dig a bit. Generalrelative (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

White supremacy
Article has had the Gobineau content for years... I didn't add it. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking through the article history, this does not appear to be true. Yes it mentioned Gobineau, but not the expanded content you've sought to add. In any case, feel free to continue this discussion on the article talk page, where I have already commented. Generalrelative (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't realize some of the content was mine. I have restored only the old content. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have given my input on the article's talk. Best, Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Truth
Honest question for you - what is to be done on a Wikipedia article when there exists evidence of verifiable truth that is relevant to the context of an article, but a majority of users partaking in discussion on said article are for whatever reason opposed to its inclusion? In a case like this, it seems that a majority of users with a vested interest in concealing some truth could band together to reach "consensus" on an article to keep the truth off of it; thereby allowing the article to tread the line of "lying by omission", and stray farther from WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, truth (when it is relevant to the article it could be added to) should be prioritized over "achieving consensus," because of cases like this. Is this not how Wikipedia works? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On the face of it, this may seem like a fundamental challenge for a project like Wikipedia, which is indeed based on consensus. And of course most people believe –– often strongly –– that the things they believe are true. But the more time you spend here the more you will see that the person yelling "truth!" will very rarely have the stronger argument. This is especially evident when there is a large community of editors involved in a given discussion (or watching and only intervening if things seem to be getting out of hand). As it happens, the page you're currently worried about, Anti-fascism, currently has 292 watchers. A verifiable and neutral telling of the truth will out in the end. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:TRUTH. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks
Thanks for the thanks, but the editor is not stopping. See Anton Drexler as well as the economy article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that editor's history makes it pretty clear what they're after. On their talk page just now I've recommended they read WP:NOTDUMB, mostly just to see if we can save ourselves the trouble of writing up a 3RR complaint. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aaaand... indefinitely blocked. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Richard Lynn
Hi, the point is not whether there is a consensus that Richard Lynn is controversial. His controversiality is amply shown throughout the article, including the lede. Compare the article Donald Trump, where it doesn't say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." It's not encyclopaedic practice to flag someone's controversiality in the first line, which simply ought to state what they do/did for a living or for notoriety. 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is consensus language. See the article's talk page archive. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Talk:Richard_Lynn/Archive_5 is undecided, not a community consensus in favour of your position. I know I won't change your mind, but I'd be interested to know whether you think encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica *should* open their article on Donald Trump by writing "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician". Ni&#39;jluuseger (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not interested in debating this with you. The existing wording has a clear consensus behind it, whether you agree or not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is entirely beside the point. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Cyril Burt
Hello, a question, if you don't mind. Surely keeping such a reference is because this is another facet of Burt's life?. Therefor its existance (and in this this case who created it as well), is a story that needs to be told. And no I do not have an answer! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(→‎Fraud accusations: Unclear that a primary source by Gavan Tredoux, who is not an academic, is DUE for inclusion here, especially given that his finding purports to contradict academic consensus.)


 * I'm afraid that I don't understand the question. Would you mind rephrasing? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies, badly put. My point was that as an article in a enclyopedia this link alongside the dubiousness of said link needs to stay to be part of the picture of Burt for any researcher. I appriciate some of the inherent difficulties in this and do not have an answer for them, but all the same I think the link should stay. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries, thanks for clarifying. My response is pretty simple though: Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts but rather a curated tertiary source which presents verifiable information (usually based on secondary sources) according to its due weight. That particular primary source was, in my view, undue for inclusion for the reasons given in my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Did not realise it was a primary source for some reason (my bad)! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Republican Party
Gene, just wanted to thank you for hearing out my RFC recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. And I adore that you thought to call me Gene. I hadn't even realized my user name could be read like that. Have a spooky Halloween (if that's your thing). Generalrelative (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll leave the Abrams discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Understandable. American Politics can be a food fight. Hope you're having a good day. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the topic that I'm finding frustrating. But anyways, all is well. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Abrams
Hi. You can copy your comments to a valid thread. That RfC is zombie disruption, with bad choices that don't reflect prior discussion. please self-revert. we can't be tied up in the banned user's parting shot for the next month. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Between you & me, I think it would be best to 'ping' the editors who've already participated in the RFC. They may want to know, whether or not their input has been disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See my latest comment on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. The reason I archived it is that GoodDay's note in the hat bar is equivocal, as if there were not consensus to end the RfC and as if anyone could come along and restart it. I don't think anyone has said there would be a problem starting a valid RfC when and as it seems fruitful. I'm just concerned that each time it's reopened, additional editors take the time to comment and are surprised to see their comments hatted. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I hear that. Looks like GoodDay has resolved the issue. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Gene, I've reworded the closing note. Clarifying a 'new' RFC can be opened, rather then a reopening of the closed one. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. That sounds like a good solution to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability
You are being contacted because you participated in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_101#Should_the_ideas_of_Male_expendability_be_given_in_Wikipedia's_voice? this NPOV noticeboard discussion]. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Male_expendability#Request_for_comment:_State_ideas_about_biology_in_Wikipedia's_voice? Male expendability talk page]. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Peer reviewed papers
At RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug. Wishing you a happy and healthy new year. Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Big Lie edits
In regards to your reversion here, could you point to where the removed claim is mentioned in any of the seven sources? The claim is one made by the Wikipedian who originally wrote it, not by any of the actual sources it cites. Horizons 1 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by your question. The claim seems to feature quite prominently across a range of sources. Here, e.g., is The Guardian: The disclosure that extremist Republicans dedicated to election subversion have formed a network was first revealed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House who is spearheading a “precinct-by-precinct” movement to inject far-right activists into local elected office. Marchant disclosed the alliance on Bannon’s War Room podcast. The revelation can only heighten jitters about the fragile state of American democracy. An NPR analysis of 2022 secretary of state races across the country found that at least 15 candidates have adopted Trump’s big lie. . Feel free to open a discussion thread on the article talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh
This was delightful. I got to "Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread??" and couldn't stop laughing. Schazjmd  (talk)  01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * :P Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia is a mess
Both NKM And KU Are same height 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.141 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson
As I'm sure you've also noticed, there have been about 100 edits to E. O. Wilson by the same good-faith editor in less than a week. I have some concerns. The lead now has a lot of promotional language in wikivoice that it didn't have before (pioneering, trailblazer). I've been thinking of removing that, and also maybe adding to the lead something about support for Rushton, which is an important part of the body of the article. But I'm waiting for this editor to finish their series of rapid-fire edits. I also don't want to over-react. After all, many BLP leads, in order to establish notability, use somewhat promotional language. Your thoughts? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I haven't had a chance to look deeply. I considered reverting one or two of these edits but wasn't sure. Honestly I'm slammed right now IRL, so probably will limit myself to chiming in to support conclusions others may reach or offering my 2¢ in a limited capacity. In general, though, I do think some modest mention of the controversies Wilson provoked belongs in the lead of his bio. Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just noticed that a few hours ago Grayfell initiated what seems to be a productive discussion with that editor on the talk page. When the dust settles, I'll add a sentence or two about the Rushton business to the lead.NightHeron (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it looks like a productive discussion, and that the recently prolific editor is amenable to feedback. Nice to see. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Jensenism pops up at FTN and RSN
Greetings! As you might have already noticed, there are two newly-registered users (see and ) suddenly arguing at FTN and (in one case RSN) for positive treatment of Jensenist sources. It's pretty clear that both are not really newbies, and this looks suspicious. You've had experience identifying socks. What do you think? NightHeron (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, hope you've been keeping well. Yup, there's definitely some sort of puppetry afoot surrounding the Eyferth study article, given the amount of attention it's received all at once from a number of IPs and new accounts. Unfortunately, I don't have much time in the next few days to devote to WP, but I see that at least one of the accounts has already been blocked as an LTA . Generalrelative (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Issue One request
Hi @Generalrelative, I noticed that you recently made edits to the Protect Democracy page, and I was wondering if you could take a look at some recent edit requests I made on the Issue One Talk page, which is a similar organization. I have a COI as I work for Issue One, so I'm hoping an uninvolved editor like yourself could take a look at what I've put together. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll take a look at this when I have time. Thanks for doing the right thing and declaring your COI. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Generalrelative Wonderful, thank you so much! I've suggested edits for the History and Organization sections, and appreciate you taking a look at whatever you have time for. AR at Issue One (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi again, . I took a look and honestly this looks like a more substantial job than I can take on at the moment. Consider posting on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics? Generalrelative (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, @Generalrelative, thank you for the suggestion! I just made a post. If you happen to have some time, do you mind taking a look at just the request to edit the History section? It's just a request to rename the section to "Formation", and simplifying some of the details about predecessor organizations. Any change at all would be helpful, no matter how small. Thank you! AR at Issue One (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Describing Yockey as being attracted to Marxism previously is not a controversial claim
and the fact the page previously said "Left-Wing" (with a citation need) even less reasonable edit. You can doubt Autonomedia, all you want but if this is a controversial claim, you may as well delete the statement that he had previously been attracted by Left-Wing movements altogether because the person who wrote that probably based that claim on the same book considering that it is the most detailed on the subject of his life from sources which are not of the far-right. StrongALPHA (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * With apologies for the delay in responding to you, I would be happy to discuss on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Response
hello you have removed the pages that I have created then please can you explain to me why didn't you removed section like holocaust denial which itself is a pseudohistory Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Short answer: because I didn't have time to do a big overhaul. I see that this and similar discussions have been ongoing on the article talk page and would encourage you to post there to see if we can come to a lasting consensus on what belongs in this article. Wrt Holocaust denial, it appears from this discussion that there is consensus it should not be described as pseudoscience but rather pseudohistory, though pseudoscience has certainly played a role in some of the arguments marshaled by Holocaust deniers. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * deal i will put it in the talk page Ppppphgtygd (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Generalrelative (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To-do philosophy
I was surprised by at Talk:Steven Pinker opposing my addition of the to do list because it gives off the impression of *claiming authority* over and above the normal consensus-building process. Reading the WP:TODO guidelines, I got a very different impression. A to-do list is a list of improvements suggested for the article and a tentative consensus. The page recommends that we feel free to discuss to-do lists in the talk page of articles, to add new tasks, or to work on pending tasks. Are these recommendations outdated in some way? Is the general community opposed to the use of to-do lists? It seems to me like a handy way to plan and organize, but if the consensus has changed, then WP:TODO should be updated to reflect this. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 00:34, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I am not aware that consensus has changed. I was glancingly aware of what you were hearing from the community at ANI and wanted to let you know how these particular edits looked to an uninvolved observer. That is, not especially helpful. My advice is to tread carefully in contentious topic areas, even when claiming a tentative consensus. But of course, feel free to ignore me if you like. In any case I wish you well, Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Your advice to tread carefully seems to conflict with to be bold. I would need to read and think a bit more before adding this content into the article, so I thought that it could be helpful to list it somewhere that I (or someone else) could come back to later. I was trying to be bold by adding the content to the to do list. Would you be opposed if I re-added the to do list? &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I could've been clearer. By suggesting that you "be bold" I was referring to article space. My suggestion is that you work on improving the article itself, and then if you're reverted or challenged, engage in constructive discussion on the talk page until consensus is reached. I don't think the to-do list is helpful for the reasons I've stated before. Generalrelative (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think that to-do lists should be discouraged in general, then you should probably add that advice to WP:TODO and to do. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not. I think that the way you were attempting to use the to-do list in this context isn't helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will drop this issue, but given that I added the to do list after a good-faith effort to follow the WP:TODO recommendations, I would appreciate it if you would edit that page at some point to specify under what conditions the to-do list is inappropriate. &emsp;&mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 19:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Eyferth study closure
There is currently a discussion at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic The EyeFerth Study. Thank you. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:947A:51E4:EB45:1FB4 (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Baffling and repeated reverting
I've tried to explain this to you in the plainest language possible. I'm not the IP who was blocked. I also showed you how to check contributions. While I understand it's a strange coincidence, it's not impossible for two IPs to be from the same general geographic area. 2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Izno blocked you for a month. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you somehow remained unaware of this but now you know. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Again, fair enough. And I wasn't aware. I will refrain from editing henceforth.  Everything doesn't have to be so contentious, Generalrelative.  Even though we might be ideologically opposed, that does not mean we can't communicate with civility.  Sometimes a simple message will accomplish twice as much as a lengthy ANI complaint.  2600:1012:B0B2:A6DF:955:684D:6304:C509 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The problem is not that we are "ideologically opposed." The problem is that you don't understand the science relevant to the race and intelligence topic area, nor do you understand Wikipedia's relevant policies and guidelines. You chose to become a time sink and make an absolute ass of yourself based on your mistaken beliefs. That's why you were blocked. I'm not being mean and you are not being nice. At this point the most civil thing I can do for you is to explain what is going on here. This is a collaborative project, and you have shown yourself –– at least for the time being –– to be incapable of collaboration. Perhaps you are young and will mature into it. I don't know. But you need to reflect long and hard about what led to this block before you ever think of editing Wikipedia again. Including this talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

WP:ANI
Thought you might want to comment. Doug Weller talk 07:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks Doug, I took a quick look. I'm usually wary of commenting at ANI unless I have something substantive to add, and it looks like Vipz has laid out the essential case. For now I'll let the comments I left on AB's talk page speak for themselves. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

About recent addition
Hi. Regarding the article, I want to know if you have read the 2015 European migrant crisis part? ときさき  くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I got through it, though it could use a good copy edit. The term is definitely a slur used by ignorant people, but my view is that templates and sidebars become a lot less useful if they are overly inclusive of dross like this. And of course while WP:OTHERSTUFF is a poor argument, we should strive for consistency. You will see that other, much more prominent slurs, while they are considered notable enough to have WP pages, are not listed on the template. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 19:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tokisaki Kurumi: perhaps political pejoratives could have their own sidebar? –Vipz (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * past cases show that it might should be included by its "nearest" template. Covfefe gets Donald Trump, ¿Por qué no te callas? gets Hugo Chávez, Evil Empire speech gets Ronald Reagan. According to all these, IMO might be good if we have something for China like Conservatism US. ときさき   くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 21:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Random question
Hi! Thanks for this. I hadn't noticed its addition last month. I always chuckle about how even the absolutely mildest summary of enormous accolades earns you a cn if you mention it in the intro ... I also have a huge soft spot for this page both because (a) it's not every day that you find a redlink about someone who's had an entire freaking school named after her for half a century, and (b) I actually wrote it the day before my first date with my now-partner, and we talked about it on our first date :-) Anyhow, I'm writing here because I noticed that the page has suddenly rocketed up in pageviews, and I'm wondering if you're someone who came to this page for the first time recently, maybe for the same reason that other people have. These are several times the views you get from a DYK in my experience, and I don't see any evidence that it appeared anywhere on the main page, and they've been sort-of sustained for a few days, which is different from the one-day spurt you get from main page appearances. So did another famous person with a name like Michele Clark do something noteworthy recently? Or maybe Michele Clark was mentioned on a really popular podcast or something? I was just hoping that, if you arrived at that page from the same source, you might have some insight into how it got this spike. Thanks! - Astrophobe  (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Heya, yeah I found the cn tag there especially eyebrow-raising because, you know, trailblazing black woman. To answer your question: she appears in the latest episode of the (quite exceptional) HBO series White House Plumbers. I was watching it with my partner last night, and having never heard about the crash of United Airlines Flight 553, nor of Michele Clark, I immediately jumped on Wikipedia once the episode was over to learn more. Thanks very much for writing the article! Generalrelative (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My goodness, I'm so glad you had the key! Being featured on an HBO series would certainly do it. And thanks also for the subsequent improvements to the page. I learned about her when I was reading The Boys on the Bus, where the (iirc) one and only mention of her is the author introducing some random thing she said with "Michelle [sic] Clark, a young, extremely beautiful black reporter from CBS's Chicago Bureau had said [...]" and then in a footnote he says "On December 8, 1972, she was killed in a plane crash at Chicago's Midway Airport". I was like, dang, what a way to memorialize someone: I thought she was hot, then she died. I'm really glad this wasn't some automated thing or mixup like these sudden pageview surges often are, and I really hope she keeps getting more of the attention she deserves! Thanks again. - Astrophobe  (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I also anecdotally believe that there's a systematic problem with people challenging extremely matter-of-fact descriptions about women being prominent in their field in the intros of their Wikipedia biography. In writing hundreds of pages about important women on this website, I've seen many many times people adding citation needed tags or outright removing extremely understated summaries of reliable sources to the effect that the person is prominent. Often it's by editors who explicitly allege that it's evidence that the page is being used for self-promotion, because if a woman is described in her wiki bio's intro as "commonly identified as an expert in X,Y,Z", it must be because she is writing it about herself. Of course, a 3 second skim of my contribs/userpage should demonstrate that I'm not the page subject writing about myself unless I'm somehow 300 different women. But anyhow, I've rambled enough on your talk page! Thanks for the info and for hearing me out. - Astrophobe  (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad I could be of help! Yeah, the portrayal is brief but memorable. It definitely conveys the sense of a promising and groundbreaking career senselessly cut short in the space of like a minute. Better than the mention in The Boys on the Bus for sure. And yeah, what you’re describing is definitely one of the faces of systemic sexism –– in society broadly, and on Wikipedia as a microcosm. It’s symptomatic of the larger problem, but also a reminder of how important the work is. I say this as someone who’s made a paltry two women blue, which is nothing compared to what you’ve accomplished. Which is to say, you’re welcome to ramble on about whatever you like on my talk page! Much respect, Generalrelative (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Gerhard Meisenberg
Hi, i dont think saying "often described as white supremacist" is accurate in this case. this statement is only suppored by a single source in the article Mankind Quarterly. i think saying "has been described as" would be more accurate --FMSky (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to have this conversation with you on the article talk page, where others can weigh in. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Our conversation at "Stacey Abrams"
Hi there Generalrelative,

I responded to your reversion of my edit on the Stacey Abrams page, and addressed both of the replies you left me. In my response, I used words like "deceptive" to expand upon my point that the article gives undue weight to a fringe view. I don't think you, or any other editor on the page, have tried to engage in deception. I simply feel that the language, as is, has the unintended end-result of deceiving/confusing readers about the facts of the case, namely that nothing has been found to bring the legitimacy of her defeat into serious question.

Everything I see here on your page suggests that you're a very nice, and well-liked person who wants to make Wikipedia better, just like me. I'm sure there's a very reasonable way to reconcile our different views on how to apply RS and policy here. I just wanted to go out of my way to make that distinction abundantly clear, so that we don't misunderstand each other and start our collaborative conversation off on the wrong foot. Good day. Pecopteris (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind message, :) I appreciate you going out of your way to make that distinction clear, since it is indeed so easy for people to take online disagreements personally. That kind of thing will certainly help you out as you get back into editing after your 14-year break. I'm more than happy to work with you to improve the language on Stacy Abrams if we can find ways to agree on improvements. And even if we can't find a way forward there, I'm glad you're a volunteer here and hopefully we will find somewhere else to collaborate productively. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I just realized that I misspelled Ms. Abrams first name, so there's strike 1 for my credibility. Haha! Look forward to engaging with you more in the future. Take care. Pecopteris (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, it was in fact I who misspelled! Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol! That made me chuckle. I saw your replies. I'll have to chew on them and get back online tomorrow. Thanks for being a nice person. Pecopteris (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people
Hello. Letter C: Raúl Castro Ruz. I wrote a data source from US Government. I do not know if it is sufficient. YMVD (talk) 03:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking in but no I do not think that this is even close to a reliable source. These people were pretty clearly grasping desperately at any rumor or innuendo they could find. It did however give me great pleasure to read the sentence Perhaps his performance as one-half of the homosexual team was unsatisfactory!!? So thanks for that too.


 * Are you aware of any recent scholarship giving credence to this? If so it *may* belong in the Raúl Castro article, but the list is only for confirmed LGB individuals. I see that the topic has been raised before at Talk:Raúl Castro but no reliable sources have ever been provided. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

About World Constitutional Convention
Thane Read founded the World Constitution Coordinating Committee not the World Constitutional Convention. Committee arranged support and we don't even know that if he was there at World Constitutional Convention .... so that's may point. --BeLucky (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Got it, thanks. I've changed the text to read that Thane "organized" the convention. Generalrelative (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Contentious Topics-Biographies of Living Persons
Generalrelative- please visit my Talk page to continue the discussion of your previous 2 postings. Thanks! Truedad21 (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative- in regards to your reversion and comment on the Talk page of Richard A Cohen- "Establish consensus on talk before re-adding disputed content,"


 * 1) I did not add disputed content. I added new content based upon a previous dispute: that self-published books are not of encyclopedic value. Knowing through my own encounter (I read them) that 2 of subject's books are professionally published, I posted those, with ISBN #s, publishers, etc. What is the dispute?
 * 2) A second dispute has been whether i have a conflict of interest in editing this page. As Wiki rules require, I posted my interest, motivation and (lack of any) direct affiliation with the subject. What is the dispute?

Rather than ignoring my efforts to communicate/cooperate with you, and simply reverting any edits I make, please respond to me, and on the talk page where I am following Wiki rules, clarify what you are disputing and justify your revisions. Thank you. Truedad21 (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Truedad21, it's not a huge deal, but you have missed where I responded to you on the article talk page. I have neither ignored you nor failed to clarify what I am disputing. With regard to COI, it would be helpful if you addressed the unanswered question on your user talk page about the image you uploaded. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Culture/Chronic Lyme
It's not possible for me to believe that the editors with whom I spoke previously are scientific "experts". They did not respond like scientists or experts. Nor did they respond professionally. They responded like ideologues, which they surely are. On the other hand, I do appreciate your kindness and generosity and willingness to help me learn. Vt500ascott (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just begun a discussion of this matter on your talk page. Happy to continue the conversation there. Generalrelative (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Truedad21 and "own work"
Based on this comment, Truedad21 uploaded his "own work" (the photos of Richard A. Cohen), but now he is claiming they are not his own work? Citing this comment, both photos of Richard Cohen and the photo with his wife can probably be nominated for deletion due to lack of permissions. I had to get the photographer of the Bailey photo to email Wikimedia to it could be used, for example. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Figured out how to nominate them for deletion, done. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Yeah, I'm not an expert on the process. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Zenomonoz (and Generalrelative)- I was frank and open about my very first edit on Wikipedia, my lack of knowledge about the process, and WHERE and HOW I got the photo- from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me, and is nowhere credited to me, because I did not take it... I researched it like tens of thousands of photos uploaded to thousands of articles on Wikipedia. You both must know very well that the term "Own Work" is not a statement written by me, but a selection that either I made in error or that Wikipedia assigned to my submission. I know this only because I would never have falsely claimed that it was my own work.
 * In any case, if you were operating in good faith you would either challenge me to complete the proper permission process with wikipedia, or inform me that you are contesting their presence and nominating them for deletion, or to confirm permission from the owner of copyright- the only entity with a real legal right to contest their publication. What you are doing instead makes you appear, despite Generalrelative's polite language, like attack dogs simply decimating an article with which you disagree.
 * BTW, regarding Generalrelative's preposterous claim that professionally published books are not of encyclopedic value unless accompanied by "supportive reviews in mainstream publication," obviously selectively applied to this page and its subject and so indicative of censorship and bias toward what you deem as fringe: Cohen's books have been seriously and professionally reviewed (not to mention published in multiple countries by independent publishers). The following excerpt is from the distinguished Library Journal, written by a reviewer who openly states their disagreement with Cohen's views.
 * "In his self-help book...ex-gay therapist Cohen writes for gays and lesbians who want to transition to heterosexuality. His comprehensive, well-written, well-organized, and heavily referenced guide views homosexuality as a symptom of disrupted affiliation with the same-sex parent and incomplete feelings of maleness/femaleness, building on the psychological theories of Joseph Nicolosi and Elizabeth Moberly."
 * --Library Journal, Volume 126, No. 12, July 2001 Truedad21 (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your frustration, Truedad21. Rather than going around and around with you on the matter, I've brought it to the conflict of interest noticeboard so that more members of the community can weigh in. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Race (human categorization)
I noticed that you reverted my recent edit in the above article. Can you tell me EXACTLY where it refers to "homo sapiens sapiens" rather than homo sapiens in the two references used. Editrite! (talk) Editrite! (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Your edit changed to
 * This is a category error because Homo sapiens is a species, not a (proposed) subspecies like Homo sapiens sapiens. Given the edit summary (Removed duplication) I just assumed it was a mistake. In any case, if you'd like to discuss this further I suggest the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Faith
I just wanted to let you know that at some point I'm probably going to continue the discussion on the Domestic Violence article. I'm currently taking a break so that I come back with fresh eyes. I've already had a look back at the very early discussions and I'm VERY embarrassed by the things I said on there (I've got to learn somehow...), anyway. Now the reason I'm bringing this up is due a few weeks ago on the Dunedin Study article where you mentioned I must've been acting in bad faith in a diff (that was just me being an idiot and not reading what I wrote). I feel our previous discourse has mainly been due to misunderstanding each other, and I feel like part of that is due to assumption of bad faith, I understand that it is very easy to make the assumption in such contentious topics. Previous discussions, which now even to me appear bad faith, that I am incredibly embarrassed about, were me being clueless, keep in mind that I only started editing in May 2023. Thank you for dealing with me! It may seem like a nuisance to you, but you've actually taught me a lot of policy.

Just giving you some advice for dealing with me in case we ever bump again (sorry): often times if it appears that I'm not listening, I actually don't understand what's been said. In previous discussions I said the same thing over and over and that's really because I didn't understand. That's not to say that it was right for me to be a nuisance! It would be great if you could quote sentences from policy instead of lust saying WP:OR for example. Sorry, I don't mean to boss you around!

Sorry for adding word salad to your talk page! I just hope to clear stuff up so we can work together more collaboratively in the future, thank you. — Panamitsu (talk) 10:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this thoughtful and circumspect message, . I will assume good faith on your part going forward. That doesn't mean I will always have the time or bandwidth to explain things in a way that you find satisfying. And if you fall back into patterns that appear to others like WP:CPUSH / WP:BLUDGEON, it may result in sanctions even if your intentions are good. That's the risk one runs when editing in a designated contentious topic area. I therefore strongly advise you to avoid reviving debates that have come to a natural end. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. I'll do a better job at reading the policy if I don't understand something. For clarity, I'm referring to the most recent conversation on said article. The older ones have gone straight into the rubbish (and incinerated). I've seen your mention of WP:NOTDUMB, which I wholly accept the reasoning for. — Panamitsu (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's alright I will not be making any further comments. Goodbye, and thanks for the terchings of policy. — Panamitsu (talk) 09:28, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Richard Calthrope (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Generalrelative. They also notified me, but they have already been indeff'd for LTA. Hoping that your laugh is as good as mine. All the best, Robert. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Cue sad trombone music Generalrelative (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

"First" vs. subsequent CTopics notifications
Hi. This is not a big deal, but in this edit on 15 October you templated a user with a Template:Contentious topics/alert/first (r-i), which has the full, introductory text to CT, along with the custom bit about race & intelligence, whereas Galobtter had already added a CT-first (gg) in this edit of 8 April 2023, so the user didn't need the "first" version of the template a second time, just the briefer one at Contentious topics/alert. Afaik, it's not wrong to add the "first" template twice, but just wanted to make sure you knew, in case you hadn't seen the previous template, as User:Zanahary likes to blank their page frequently. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks like I forgot to check the history or just failed to scroll down far enough. I appreciate the note :) Generalrelative (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

SPI
I saw you make a comment about opening an SPI for Truedad21. If you are unaware, I have already done so if you wish to add further evidence. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, good SPI. Hopefully checkuser will sort it out, though I suspect we'll continue to have to keep an eye out for new socks. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am surprised the CU was negative: Sockpuppet investigations/Truedad21. Perhaps it would be easy to get Extended confirmed protection on the page given the clear COI edits. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, CU isn't a perfect tool, especially if someone has the energy to go around using computers at different locations. My feeling is that behavioral evidence is compelling enough for a WP:DUCK block, but we'll see what the admins think. Page protection would be an option if the disruptive edits become persistent. Generalrelative (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking input
Hi, hope you are well. I just started this article: Noa Kalos. Subject came to the Teahouse and we talked at User_talk:Everknott.

Per Rolling Stone: "Editor’s note: At the time of reporting, Kalos presented as male. This story was updated Nov. 8, 2023 to more accurately represent her current gender expression." Per available sources (that I know), I've not put any mention of that in the article, and from that follows no LGBT categories either, since cats should be obvious from article text. That is the WP-way as I understand it. There may be some usable ABOUTSELF source out there, but atm I haven't seen it.

So I'm wondering if you have any advice in this situation, for example should some LGBT WP-project be added to the talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I'm not sure that I have any actionable advice for you, other than to continue discussion at Teahouse. In the past I know that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style has been a productive place to discuss issues relating to gender transition, so you could try that, even though this is a category issue rather than one of article text. Wishing you the best of luck with this! Generalrelative (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Misogynist Terrorism
What are the problems with the edits made on this page? Please let me know here

Thank you Adenyoyo (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe that Firefangledfeathers has already explained it very clearly on the article talk page. See also my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Request
Block me forever because I do not know how to delete my Wikipedia account, if you can delete it yourself. Thanks in advance.YMVD (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)