User talk:Incogreader

Not behind the other handles/information about North Korea
I want to make clear that I am not behind UQal/HaoYaopo (this same user apparently had two or three accounts, although the owner says they were not used abusively). I do not know who that user is, but they claim to know me. I did tell a few people I know about my ban and encouraged them to sign up for Wikipedia. I am skeptical about the supposed "technical" connection, although I do frequently use public computers. The sockpuppet investigation says that person's two accounts are "indistinguishable," but when it comes to mine, it says that it is "likely" me. Presumably this means they are distinguishable (what exactly "likely" means is unclear). As for the behavioral evidence, "UQal" agreed with me about certain points on North Korea (many of which are common knowledge, like casualties in the Korean War, border incidents/armed instrusions, and the US/UN war to conquer North Korea). Most of that should not be controversial. The same user did also suggest that the South may have started the war, which is a less common view in the west but far from unheard of (and still widely believed in some parts of the world, like China and North Korea). On Wikipedia, which regularly takes an anti-DPRK, pro-South POV (the regular use of right-wing South Korean sources tells part of this story), and where even a proper accounting of Korean War casualties is denounced as suspect and deleted, perhaps it is not surprising that this user would be accused of being a "sockpuppet" (and me banned as well). Personally I suspect that one or more of the users on the thread that voted to ban me were "sockpuppets" themselves, if you check that thread you'll see that some of them use similar language, or post with close timestamps. If I wanted to use sockpuppets, a more logical time would have been then.

If you are so inclined, do further reading on the subject and make up your own mind. Much of this is not on Wikipedia however, and when it does appear it is sometimes deleted.

For critical mainstream Western scholarship on the start of the Korean War, see Bruce Cumings' Origins of the Korean War volume 2 (haven't read volume 1, which deals with the period from 1945-1947). For an explanation of the Haeju attack thesis, see Karunkar Gupta's "How Did the Korean War Begin?" available with an account on jstor.org ("UQal" appears to have a posted a citation to this which was deleted). The retired South Korean diplomat Channing Liem has also written a good work on the war, "The Korean War: An Unanswered Question."

For a scholarly work by North Korean historians, which generally reflects the North Korean view, see The US Imperialists Started the Korean War.

For scholarship that addresses the question of North Korean "atrocities" see Bruce Cumings' "The Korean War: A History" p. 185-190. Cumings is critical of North Korea, much too critical in my view. Read also the preceding part about South Korean atrocities and note that South Korea killed 100,000 before the war had even officially started and then 100,000-200,000 in 1950 alone. American "estimates" (as Cumings notes probably including many atrocities of disputed authorship) of North Korean executions are 6.6-15% of this figure. UN reports suggest it was much lower than even 6.6-10% of the South Korean total (counting those killed by the South between 1945-50 only). Furthermore, note that the specific cases of executions described by Cumings largely involve police and "youth" groups (fascist terrorist groups; both were responsible for terrible atrocities themselves). Neither the US or UN is impartial, but from this it is clear that North Korea's record is far better than the South (moreover, many atrocities attributed to North Korea were done falsely so or are disputed)

For editing on Wikipedia that reflects the pro-US, pro-South line, see some of the following https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=908534307&oldid=908467382 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=908467382&oldid=908104758 (which were deleted twice, after being readded with proper discussion). None of the content deleted was untrue. Note also that the UN Commission of Inquiry compared the DPRK government to the Nazis, an obscene comparison that trivializes Hitler's crimes, and is perhaps partly why 80-90 countries out of about 200 voted against, abstained, or did not vote for the report. I encourage users to dispute changes like these and delete pro-South content unsupported by sources, although it is possible you could be accused of sockpuppetry for doing so. Even some of the "reliable" sources are not actually reliable, although there is little to do in that case (unless other "reliable" sources contradict them).

July 2019
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit history changed
I am writing because at least one of the edits in my edit history has been blatantly changed. "My very best wishes" posted a message that I had done this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korean_famine&diff=902268450&oldid=893570952). In fact, as is clear from the edit comment "source cited does not actually confirm 45% stunted North Korean children," I had removed another sentence about 45% of North Korean children being stunted from malnutrition which was improperly cited. The listed edit says that I removed "Most people only eat meat on public holidays, namely Kim Il-sung's and Kim Jong-il's birthdays.[1]," which is false. If you check the version of the article of my edit (at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korean_famine&oldid=902268450) and compare with the previous (at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korean_famine&oldid=893570952), it is clear I removed the line "Roughly 45% of North Korean children under the age of five are stunted from malnutrition and the population of kotjebi persists.", which is different from what actually shows up (and which was improperly cited). It is under the section "Post-famine developments". One of my edits was also deleted without comment in "History of Tibet (1950-present), without showing up in the "View history" log. I believe these two cases are related.

Block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing, including but not limited to edits such as this. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 03:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm having difficulties parsing your line of argument, especially unclear is the parenthesis. Regardless, you have been editing tendentiously, overall. Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the mainstream and scholarly consensus, even if the basis for that may suffer from historical distortions. Wikipedia editors, as well, are supposed to operate on consensus within Wikipedia. It appears as if you've been failing on both of those fronts. El_C 17:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Want to dispute block but need more information
As I said in the title, I would like more clarification. First, about consensus. You said that I was "failing" in relation to this, but there were no examples of this given on the Incidents discussion board. In fact I regularly started Talk page discussions dedicated to improving articles and building a consensus.

As for tendentious editing, I have looked through the guidelines and would like more clarification about this as well. You have given one example, and the examples under "Incidents" did not adequately address this. Furthermore, in the example given, I had started a discussion on the Talk page to discuss a new formulation (which no one responded to and I never got back to the topic), since the factual basis for Rummel's claims was based on outdated information and propaganda from the South Korean regime, which have since been disproved by mainstream Western research and the South Korean Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Furthermore, outside of the reference to South Korean propaganda ("RED"), he lists three massacres (which again contemporary scholarship been proves were actually carried out by the South - and even if it were true, three does not constitute numerous). Most of the reported executions by NK were of Korean National Police and terrorist youth groups, not the general population (see Cumings, The Korean War, p. 185-90) Although I do have an interest in North Korea and most of my edits are about this topic, this is not a violation of WP terms as far as I can tell. The majority of my edits are based on mainstream Western sources; I may have cited North Korean sources on one or more occasions, but I do not see a problem with this. South Korean sources are regularly cited (along with Tibetan exile groups). What makes this OK but not references to North Korean or Chinese sources? WP articles are supposed to represent minority views.


 * Sorry, I am not inclined to get into the content of your edits too deeply at this time, beyond stating, generally, that Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent minority views to a point — a point which I found that your edits, overall, exceeded. By that I mean that you ended up overrepresenting a North Korean sympathetic view to the point that multiple editors found your editing tendentious and disruptive. Accordingly, I am not inclined to unblock at this time. But you are more than free to launch another unblock request. El_C 19:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not behind the other handles/information about North Korea
I want to make clear that I am not behind UQal/HaoYaopo (this same user apparently had two or three accounts, although the owner claims they were not used abusively). I am skeptical about any supposed "technical" connection, although I do frequently use public computers in a large city. Even the behavioural "evidence" to me appears equivocal too, which appears to be that "UQal" agreed with me about certain points on North Korea (many of which are common knowledge, like casualties in the Korean War, border incidents/armed instrusions, and the US/UN war to conquer North Korea). The same user did also suggest that the South may have started the war, which is a less common view in the west but far from unheard of (and still widely believed in some parts of the world, like China and North Korea). On Wikipedia, which regularly takes an anti-North Korean, pro-South POV (the regular use of right-wing South Korean sources tells part of this story), and where even a proper accounting of Korean War casualties is denounced as suspect and deleted, perhaps it is not surprising that this user would be accused of being a "sockpuppet" (and me banned as well). Personally I suspect that one or more of the users that voted to ban me were sockpuppets themselves, if you check the thread you'll see that some of them use similar language, or post with close timestamps. If I wanted to use sockpuppets, a more logical time would have been to dispute my ban.

If you are so inclined, do further reading on the subject and make up your own mind. You won't find much of this on Wikipedia however.

For critical mainstream Western scholarship on the start of the Korean War, see Bruce Cumings' Origins of the Korean War volume 2 (haven't read volume 1, which deals with the period from 1945-1947). For an explanation of the Haeju attack thesis, see Karunkar Gupta's "How Did the Korean War Begin?" available with an account on jstor.org ("UQal" appears to have a posted a citation to this which was deleted). The retired South Korean diplomat Channing Liem has also written a good work on the war, "The Korean War: An Unanswered Question."

For a scholarly work by North Korean historians, which generally reflects the North Korean view, see The US Imperialists Started the Korean War.

For scholarship that addresses the question of North Korean "atrocities" see Bruce Cumings' "The Korean War: A History" p. 185-190. Cumings is critical of North Korea, much too critical in my view. Read also the preceding part about South Korean atrocities and note that South Korea killed 100,000 before the war had even officially started and then 100,000-200,000 in the first few weeks after it began alone. American "estimates" (as Cumings notes probably including many of disputed authorship) of North Korean executions are 6.6-15% of this figure. The UN suggests it was much lower than even 6.6% of the South Korean total. Furthermore, note that the specific cases of executions described by Cumings largely involve police and "youth" groups (fascist terrorist groups; both were responsible for terrible atrocities themselves). Neither the US or UN is impartial, but from this it is clear that North Korea's record is far better than the South (moreover, many atrocities attributed to North Korea were done falsely so or are disputed)

For editing on Wikipedia that reflects the pro-US, pro-South line, see some of the following https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=908534307&oldid=908467382 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_Korea&diff=908467382&oldid=908104758 (which were deleted twice, after being readded with proper discussion). None of the content deleted was untrue. Note also that the UN Commission of Inquiry compared the DPRK government to the Nazis, an obscene comparison that trivializes Hitler's crimes, and is perhaps partly why 80-90 countries out of about 200 voted against, abstained, or did not vote for the report. I encourage users to dispute changes like these and delete pro-South content unsupported by sources, although you may be accused of sockpuppetry for doing so. Even some of the "reliable" sources are not actually reliable.