User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/2020/November

Jimmy Dore
Your rationale behind reverting an edit referring to Jimmy Dore as a conspiracy theorist was "How we describe people is based on reliable source's not editors' editorializing." It's easy to brush off that label as a "smear," but honestly, how is he not a conspiracy theorist? I suggest you take a look at this website. LeBron4 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what we think but we must follow policies and guidelines, including but not limited to biographies of living persons, no synthesis, reliable sourcing and due weight. TFD (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
Could you please review those additions at Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation? I was reverted because "Remove POV WP:COATRACKing. Two of those sources do not mention the Foundation at all (WP:SYNTH), and one does so only in passing. Ghodsee is not WP:DUE here, and neither is talking about 'achievements under Communism' (to be neutral one would have to add details about the 'failures of Communism', but presenting POVs about Communism is not the purpose of this article). The 'death count' is mentioned, but so is the criticism of the count." My edit was no more synth than saying scholars have criticized the 100 million figure, saying numbers were inflated to reach the 100 million mark. The foundation is not mentioned either in given refs but it is relevant and provides context, as we should not give the impression this is a mainstream view in scholarship.

I also fail to see how Ghodsee is undue or how it was POV-pushing. I believe it was actually making the article more NPOV because the article itself "details about the 'failures of Communism'" and there is no mention of this being a popular but fringe view. Finally, even if the organisation is not mentioned in the two refs I added (it is), the narrative it promotes certainly is and it was my understanding that the "victims of Communism" narrative name came from the organisation itself, so I thought it was relevant and worth adding. Hence, my edits were not synth and were actually following and improving NPOV. Davide King (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not respond to your post. I think that many editors in articles about people with crazy views of the world worry too much about debunking their ideas. I think it is sufficient just to explain what their views are without commentary. If I want to read about the theory that the world is run by lizard people for example, I don't want the article to be mostly about why the theory is wrong. I know that already, I just want to read about the theory. TFD (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and no worry; I hope I am not bothering you but you are always insightful and have a good reading of our policy and guidelines, so I trust your judgment. As is often the case, I actually agree with you, but I do not think that was what my edit did, unless you too agree it was synthesis, undue or POV-pushing. I was not trying to show that the narrative or theory is wrong but that it fails WP:RS/AC, i.e. that the theory of Communist mass killings, which the organisation hold and propagates, is not supported by reliable sources or scholarship within academia. As you wrote here, this popular but fringe narrative fails WP:RS/AC but many users are not aware of that, so I thought it helpful adding a scholarly analysis there, and maybe more users will take as granted it has academic support, not to show that the theory or narrative is wrong (I agree with your point on this) but rather that it is fringe, albeit popular view among anti-communist organisation, right-wing politicians and the population, within academia and scholarship. At least that is what I was trying to do. Since the organisation is mentioned and the name of the narrative (Victims of Communism) comes from this organisation, then I think it is relevant; again, not to debunk the theory or narrative, but just to show that it fails WP:RS/AC as you and other users repeatedly showed about mass killings under Communist regimes. Davide King (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Anti-communism
You are right about anti-communism as you discussed it here. Anti-communism is essentially a right-wing movement, the same way anti-fascism is a left-wing movement, which does not mean there can be no right-wing anti-fascists and vice versa, but you get the point. Yet, Anti-communism is conflated with anti-Communism, i.e. opposition to Communist states, which also included the left. It gives the misleading impression that anti-communism can be left-wing or that there are left-wing anti-communist organisation. Moderate leftists in the West, such as Callaghan, were anti-Communists, not anti-communists. Yes, there should be a sentence or paragraph about anti-communist and anti-Communist distinction, i.e. the distinction between anti-communism and the anti-Stalinist left, but in general the main topic should be the right-wing movement going back to the 19th century and the article should follow an actual literature about anti-communism, which I am sure you will be able to individuate, rather than mixing the two or using synthesis. Incidentally, most of results at Google Scholar are about anti-communism in the United States. In general, I would like to hear your thoughts about the article and how to improve it. Davide King (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Opalzukor (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Seem plez  14:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)