User talk:Shibbolethink/Archive 25

In lieu of ping
I should have pinged you when I replied to you on WP:ANI, sorry. I think you typed the wrong editor's name in your !vote. Schazjmd  (talk)  18:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!! I definitely missed the heads up thank you for also posting here. It is much appreciated as I often confuse those two editors with similar names (and also, coincidentally, similar views) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Wagner Group activities in Libya
On the Wagner Group talk page it was agreed that Wagner Group activities in Libya would be created, I was told I can start with it and I did, why the revert then? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Possible Errors / Antisemitism in my Signpost Review
Hi, thanks for your comment at ANI. I'm interested in your constructive feedback. Would you mind elaborating here? Groceryheist (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your openness to feedback and felt your review was worth reading, even if I disagreed with some parts. I think actually the antisemitic parts are from comments in response to the piece, not the piece itself, now that I go back and review in detail. That was my mistake and I'll strike that part from my ANI comment. The parts I disagreed with re: accuracy are:Grabowski and Klein may have made errors, yet these barely undermine their central argument.
 * Multiple errors in a piece like this describe systemic problems in how the facts were gathered, e.g. misquoting users, or describing ongoing or past debates as if one side "won" when in fact consensus did not turn out that way, using old edits or versions of these pages from the distant past, to describe a "systematic error" on the part of Wikipedia. We have made sources unreliable for much less than these issues. I think there can be issues with how certain users dealt with a topic, without it being a "systematic problem" as G&K describe. It certainly is a problem, but "systematic?" Is any group of editors on Wikipedia truly a "system?"
 * The second part of Grabowski and Klein’s thesis is that a small group of committed Wikipedians "with a Polish nationalist bent"
 * I think there's a failing in your review in not critically analyzing whether the implicated users actually have such a "bent." One can be distortionist without being a Polish nationalist. One can over-emphasize the role of Poles in helping Jews during the Holocaust, without being a Polish nationalist. I don't think repeating this claim from G&K was particularly additive to the review.
 * The title of his most-cited work, The Forgotten Holocaust, refers to the suffering of Poles under Nazi occupation. The Nazis indeed had a murderous colonial policy to "Germanize" Poland (see [supp 1]), but this is distinct from the Holocaust, which refers to the genocide of European Jews. Lukas' title thus insinuates a false equivalence between Polish and Jewish suffering. Arguably, Wikipedia should not reference this at all, at least not without blinding clarity about how it contradicts mainstream sources.
 * Wikipedia does do this, already. See this passage from our article on The Forgotten Holocaust: The usage of the term Holocaust to refer to non-Jewish victims of the Nazi policies has been noted to be controversial, including by Lukas himself. and The book focuses on the "slaughter of Poles by German Nazis", including the systematic extermination of polish Jews and other crimes committed against the non-Jewish, ethnic Polish population.
 * I would be curious to know if there is a better way to reflect that Lukas' use of the term differs from the mainstream.
 * Overall I found your review insightful, as I've said, but these particular tonal bents seemed to me to take it over the edge of being more biased than I would have done. Just my 2 cents, keep up the good work otherwise. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining more here. Nice to meet you.
 * Multiple errors in a piece like this describe systemic problems in how the facts were gathered, e.g. misquoting users, or describing ongoing or past debates as if one side "won" when in fact consensus did not turn out that way, using old edits or versions of these pages from the.
 * I actually think one flaw in my review is that it concedes too much to the notion that G&K made errors. The issue with the citations chart was the main clear-cut error, and it seems to have been an isolated issue related to Google scholar.  Early on in the project to do this review, I thought I had confirmed some misrepresentations that folks like Volunteer Marek had raised, but on further scrutiny they all seem like at most interpretive disagreements and not factual inaccuracies.  I'm actually struggling to find a single "gotchya" error in G&K. So I'm quite convinced there's no systematic issue with accuracy in the paper. I really wish I had been even more clear about this, but it was too late to make such changes.
 * I also think the distortion was systematic, not only because it affected a large range of pages in the topic area, but in how Wikipedia as a "system" (I might prefer to say "institution") failed to address the problem. E.g., ArbCom gave these editors an unevely-enforced slap on the wrist in 2019 and didn't take up the case in 2021.
 * I think there's a failing in your review in not critically analyzing whether the implicated users actually have such a "bent."
 * Totally valid critique. I tried to stay concise and not to unpack such claims.  I quoted G&K uncritically here.  I think the quote is defensible, in part because having a "bent" seems like a relatively mild accusation, but others will have to read the paper and check some footnotes to decide for themselves.
 * Wikipedia does do this, already. See this passage from our article on The Forgotten Holocaust.
 * This seems like a good explanation, but I might quibble the current phrasing about how Lukas recognizes the title is controversial (i.e., did Lukas explain why he chooses the title despite the controversy?). The broader issue is that this book has been cited in several articles in the topic area.  Per critical review by mainstream Historians, it contains a mixture of well-evidenced and poorly evidenced claims, but does a poor job at distinguishing these  (as the article currently notes, but could better emphasize).  This makes it a problematic source for Wikipedia.  Probably it should not be used as a citation for any possibly contentious claim, unless backed up by a more reliable source. Groceryheist (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems like a good explanation, but I might quibble the current phrasing about how Lukas recognizes the title is controversial (i.e., did Lukas explain why he chooses the title despite the controversy?). The broader issue is that this book has been cited in several articles in the topic area.  Per critical review by mainstream Historians, it contains a mixture of well-evidenced and poorly evidenced claims, but does a poor job at distinguishing these  (as the article currently notes, but could better emphasize).  This makes it a problematic source for Wikipedia.  Probably it should not be used as a citation for any possibly contentious claim, unless backed up by a more reliable source. Groceryheist (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Olivier
Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, but please could you make more of an effort to keep discussion in one place? There was no need to rehash the dispute on three project pages (and my talk page). A simple pointer to the discussion ongoing on the talk page and a request for more input would have sufficed, and would have made it much easier to defend yourself against accusations of forum shopping. Probably too late now, but food for thought for the future. Best, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was absolutely my original intent, to point the discussion towards a centralized location. Hence why I said "please comment at the talk page above" and "see talk page discussion here". I think the ensuing back-and-forth between myself and SC is what ballooned that section. But I'm guessing you also would rather I not include any sources or other details and simply say "comment there". I appreciate the advice and think you're probably right, I was acting out of some exasperation at having so many sources and referencing policy, versus simply "it is unencyclopedic." I think next time, I'll do as you recommend. Or at the very least, a much shorter thing overall. Thanks as always — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

quote in comment.
I don't think you did it on purpose, but you quoted me here in a way that really flip-flopped what I was saying. You trimmed my sentence to leave out the word "not". If you could fix that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. ApLundell (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * oh sorry, yes the quote function is partially automated for reply-tools. Will fix it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

editing against consensus
This is editing against consensus. You invited me to start a talk page discussion. I did so, and the outcome is clear. The fact that you continue to dissent does not mean that consensus has not been reached. Please self revert. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just read Talk:DRASTIC, I do not see a clear outcome or consensus. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  23:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Rod Steiger
You had to have known this was going to get reverted. Any article where there's infobox stonewalling will probably require a RfC until the stick is finally dropped (if ever). I'd recommend just walking away from it. It'll eventually end up as a RfC and inevitably be included. The whole thing is a colossal waste of community resources, but I guess there's a market for useless stonewalling. Nemov (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Eh, was worth a try. Will hold out for any larger RfC that gets a real closure. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ever since Beethoven, I hoped that would be the last one ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Good grief. That's an appalling comment from Tim. I really don't understand why some have chosen the infobox hill to die on. Nemov (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. For a feeling of what I met, read Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Main (valuable) editor left because an infobox was suggested for a book, and those who defended it were blamed with the loss. (At the time, I voted against an infobox, imagine!) Years later, Tim riley left, and his friend blamed me, and up to this date I have no idea why. So there's a lot of personal baggage in the sad game. I lost a friend over Bach, and another over Laurence Olivier. I am determined that it has to end this year, and all constructive ideas are welcome. It would be good if I wasn't the initiator because I'm branded as the infobox warrior. For what? Having restored the consensus weeks after an edit-war for Sparrow Mass (over Easter 2013)? Having added infoboxes to all books by Franz Kafka (July 2013)?? Having made a detailed list of reverted infoboxes, with all the juicy edit summaries (2013, in defense, but quite possible that some discovered it only later, and had it deleted as an attack page, and left Wikipedia)??? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and created an RfC for Rod Steiger simply because of my personal experience looking for information on that article. It wasn't easy to find. Maybe that brands me a warrior, but it just seems like a common sense improvement like many other edits I've made over the years. Nemov (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Korean Wave talk page
Oh my god that's so much more aesthetically pleasing thank you for that. : 3 F4U (they/it) 13:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topic alert (infoboxen)
You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2023 (UTC)