Your removal is being discussed on the reference desk talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#World_War_III. Your point of view would be welcome. Buddy431 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well done on your valuable contribution on the above, a few years ago. Hope you are in good health. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to make them in a slightly counterintuitive way, like [[:es:paella]] to get es:paella. Or you can type [[:es:paella|paella]] to get paella. The extra colon at the front says to just make a regular wikilink in the text instead of trying to group with other language links in a separate panel. --Amble (talk) 02:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on File:La Grange Civil War monument.jpg! Could you add a sentence or two to the article referring to the monument and citing Missouri: A Guide to the Show Me State fully, including the page number? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, EricR. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, EricR. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, EricR. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Eugene pick actor1.jpg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.
Also:
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Eugene Pick mugshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Eugene pick actor1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Awarded for tirelessly sifting through articles written by fringe theory proponents and digging up obscure references. Your great work isn't going unnoticed! Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC) |
I saw your comment about running out of Jstor reads. I have Jstor access through my old university, so if you ever need an article please do feel free to ask. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Why are you tagging these sources unreliable and not vetted? Are you actually doing any reading or research on them? Do you have something about Bristol University publications? Govvy (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
you have checked the source,
the source does not support what is contained in the article, and,
despite the source not supporting the article, the source still contains useful information on the topic. All those apply. Are you reverting the tag simply because in general this would be a reliable source? I concur, but that is not why i applied the tag. The source describes at least two examples of Colston's charities, but it is simply WP:SYNTH and a misrepresentation of the source to state categorically that
Colston constituted his charities to deny their benefits to those who did not share his religious and political views. The reference to the proposed wording, where you also removed the fv tag, is of course completely unreliable in this context, and there is a talk page section for discussion. fiveby(zero) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
This edit[1] is a violation of the 1RR editing restriction and the consensus from this RfC[2]. Self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Fiveby. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ross E. Hutchins".
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 ((db-afc))
, ((db-draft))
, or ((db-g13))
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! Lapablo (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello.
My latest response to you on the Edward Colston talk page might be considered by some to be a little harsh; I prefer the description "robust debate". I replied assuming good faith on your part - I did consider bad faith motives, but decided that WP:AGF is not merely good advice but probably actually entirely correct most of the time if you see what I mean (and you really do not want to know what things I thought of as potential bad faith motives...)
My intention is to make Wikipedia better and I bear you no ill-will at all. I hope you are of a similar mind.
All the best. Michael F 1967 (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia: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!
Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi, could you please clarify regarding this discussion? On one hand, you write Deathlibrarian and Elinruby with their "Canada Won!" arguments are really fringe, using poor sources and often misrepresenting what good sources they do mention. [...] Good research should be the key here. Deathlibrarian mentions Lambert, Latimer, Stagg (didn't see Brian Arthur but there is a lot of discussion) and Hickey. This is a diverse set of opinions, there is a lot of disagreement and different perspectives. I think it's unfair to the authors to summarize as "Britain Wins!", as you say they don't agree as to why or what they mean by victory or defeat.
On the other, you also write WP:FRINGE guideline does have the language you refer to about departing significantly from the prevailing views. I don't like it and think the guideline should be more objective—stick to UfOs and such and avoid issues that are better handled by the core policies. [...] I just hate the idea of applying the fringe guideline here, even though these authors are sometimes in the minority. If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline.
So could you please clarify that?
I am writing you because Elinruby wrote to me you are saying that it is not fringe while my view is that you agree with my reading of fringe or that it is correct but you do disagree with that and believe it should be changed. However, until that is changed though, my reading is correct, no? This is supported by other users and Rjensen, an actual historian and Wikipedian here, so it is not just me. I am merely agreeing with them and believe the infobox should not imply that the result is disputed when the war is seen as a draw.--Davide King (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed this. You wrote If WP:FRINGE is applied for such as Don Hickey saying United States lost the war then there is something very wrong with the guideline.
But Donald Hickey actually say it was a draw! See Hickey 2012, p. 228: "Thus, after three years of campaigning, neither the United States nor Great Britain could claim any great advantage in the war, let alone victory. Militarily, the War of 1812 ended in a draw.
So they have completely misinterpreted him!--Davide King (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Fiveby. In April 2007 you initiated a set of guidelines about questions and answers related to medical advice. See Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice.
On 9 April 2020 a User took action to demote that document from a guideline to an essay. See the diff. The matter is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice#Marked as a guideline page. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Dolphin (t) 12:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
— Newslinger talk 15:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Fiveby. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Eugene Pick".
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 deleted. If you plan on working on it further 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.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
Thank you for reinstating Cancel culture. Heatxiddy (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC) |
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. —valereee (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)Fiveby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Accept reason:
The block is expired so it doesn't matter, but I don't understand at all under which policy blocking someone for "assuming bad faith" is acceptable. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. —valereee (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)I have no objection to any other admin making a decision to unblock, no need to consult me. —valereee (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just making you aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Syrian_Kurdistan exists, since you commented in prior discussions on the issues raised there. GPinkerton (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.
Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_351#Science-Based_Medicine, where you participated, obviously. Crying BLP when there's no consensus for your view that this is an SPS is also quite WP:POINTY. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nicholas Wade. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
––FormalDude talk 06:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
My thinking as to sources is probably more fine-grained than yours or Paul's, with more emphasis on what authors state and shying away from larger interpretations. I was just commenting that Fein used Harff's dataset and, taking a different perspective, did comment on Communism. As far as article structure, i am not sure what exactly the B content will look like. I'd suggest an extended lead section(s), introducing concepts and arguments that will appear later in the article, but most important refusing any content that pushes a conclusion. Nothing that needs quoted, nothing that requires attribution, simply introduction for the reader. A list by country that is broader than the current sections, not focused merely on numbers (A?). Last the broader arguments (B?), probably organized somewhat chronologically to emphasize historiography and the arguments of authors rather than editors. fiveby(zero) 16:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
No problem at all posting here, better to avoid the other conversations happening on the talk page. You cover a lot of ground tho so this will be a piecemeal response as time allows. First on the postscript, i thought i was following your lead when categorizing as totalitarian and revisionist? Possibly misread a comment. Regardless as in the Karlsson review you linked for Soviet history, and not a disparagement or comment on acceptance and certainly not denialist or Marxism revisionist. fiveby(zero) 20:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"did not write about mass killings under Communist regimes, he wrote about the Red terror, the Holodomor and the Great purge in the Soviet Union. He treated these as separate subjects and did not develop a theory of mass killings under Communist regimes. We should not put together a group of events and create an article when no one else has."As noted by Filefoo, The Black Book of Communism
"only presents a number of chapters on single country studies, it presents no cross-cultural comparison, there is no discussion of 'Mass killing[/Any other bad thing] in Communism'"; it is mainly Courtois and Malia who attempt to theorise a "generic Communism", see David-Fox 2004 for what it means.
Malia thus counters by coining the category of 'generic Communism,' defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. (Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris thus comes across as historically more important than the gulf between radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism.) For an argument so concerned with justifying The Black Book, however, Malia's latest essay is notable for the significant objections he passes by. Notably, he does not mention the literature addressing the statistical-demographic, methodological, or moral dilemmas of coming to an overall communist victim count,2 especially in terms of the key issue of how to include victims of disease and hunger.
[Only Courtois made the comparison between Communism and Nazism, while the other sections of the book] are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations. ... [The Black Book of Communism] is not about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon.
@Davide King: I'm glad you responded here, i think that entire talk page discussion lacks the focus required to make good decisions on content. I hope you don't mind me saying this, but sometimes your and Siebert's comments also lack focus, by covering so much ground in one post it's difficult do determine what you would like to see a response to and what is an observation made to convince or argue an earlier point. To some extent we'll always be talking past each other by losing older or introducing new threads.
My first thought for a comment on that Afd was to vote a facetious Merge to Communism and see where the content sorts itself out. I raise the Afd discussion because so many of the arguments keep circling back to points raised there. AfD's, RfC's, community discussions very often just entrench positions rather than allowing options. The exclusionary tact of the delete voters was so easily countered by WP:5P2. A more inclusive discussion, sorting out a recognizing important content and asking where should this content be located might have gained more ground. The suggestion that the content would remain in individual articles such as Black Book, etc., in my opinion exacerbated the problem rather than addressing NPOV —all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic— concerns. I liked some of MarioSuperstar77's thinking re Criticism of communism, but that ship has sailed.
I'm not implying that there's not some merit to the points you raised in your second post concerning Conquest, Victims of Communism, "generic Communism", but have to put them aside. An editor pushed AfD on the talk page, someone took them up on the suggestion and created a mess of a nomination, now the content is stuck at this location. Paul Siebert had some kind of plan for fixing the WP:STRUCTURE issues, and had convincing arguments for doing so. That petered out with an unexplained No response. The ABC RfC started up, some admin will come along and put their spin on things, and the article will be stuck with their interpretation. Anyway, i'm not disregarding your arguments, just not sure it's productive to invest effort when we're waiting for the RfC result.
On "cherry-picking" quotes i absolutely detest this quote-and-attribute style forced on articles by WP:RS and WP:RSN. In academic writing, mentioning in text rather than footnote calls attention, a quote highlights something which the author feels sums a position very well and they will expand and further explain. WP usage is the exact opposite, the source is not "reliable" enough, or it's any old opinion so quote and attribute is fine. It seems like articles are built by googling for the quote one likes and trying to cram as near the top as possible. Preferably high enough that it shows up in the google search snippet. But i will happily quote on talk pages, it's along the lines of "hey, go read this", or "here's what I think your missing", not as proposals for text inclusion. For the source analysis, i wasn't very fond of the google scholar method, and neither you or Paul were i think happy with my proceeding from reviews and quoting sources. Probably wasted effort right now regardless. I recall that FTN discussion on the 1812 infobox winner/loser/tie, so we will probably disagree on mainstream/majority/minority/fringe categorizations from source analysis also.
Anyway, the article needs content creators, not those like me having fun researching and arguing sources, editors who do real work writing well. Don't take any of my comments as getting in the way of that effort.
Happy New Year. fiveby(zero) 19:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Paul Siebert had some kind of plan for fixing the WP:STRUCTURE issues, and had convincing arguments for doing so. That petered out with an unexplained No response. The ABC RfC started up, some admin will come along and put their spin on things, and the article will be stuck with their interpretation.This takes us back to your point about the talk page lacking focus. I think that is a shame it did not happen, and I would like to see some link to it. Perhaps it was because they were involved in the DNR and pledged to not comment on the talk page, I really need to remember this better when it happened and the context. It is a shame. If only this article, which was created by a sockpuppet or banned user to troll was deleted in the first place, all of this would have been avoided. Any relevant and new information could have been moved, and nothing would have been lost.
"I remember the discussion and it could be used as a source for the article. In fact it is the only source ever presented that is directly about the subject of this article. BTW the article qualfies as a secondary source under WP:RS. ... Because it is a review of the literature and does not include any original research." —TFD
"Well, then we are again in an impasse: the only book that discusses mass killing under Communist regimes is Valentino's 'Final solution' (Chapter 4), and we cannot use a single chapter from one book as a justification of the existence of this article. Other sources are either fringe, or they already have their own WP articles (Rummel's sources on 'democide', the BB), or they represent a single society studies. As a result, the topic in general still has insufficient amount of sources to discuss the subject as whole." —Paul Siebert
"there are many sources that talk about the general phenomenon of anti-communist forces killing real or suspected communists across multiple countries"— I am not going to lose my sleep if that article is turned into a redirect for the Indonesian mass killing, but we actually have a full book, a handbook, about anti-communist persecutions and is not as controversial as Courtois and Rummel, which means a NPOV article may be written about it, and attempts to link the two articles is an example of false balance, and certainly one of them does not have the same controversy or policy violations as the other. If such articles for Communism are so notable and even necessary as some users make them out to be, why they do not have proper scholarly sources about the topic like those two other aforementioned topics? I know you said that you are not convinced by Siebert's and Google Scholar approach, but it should have been easy to prove us wrong.
standing in the way of any progress, you can in fact help us to actually make progress. The problem is that there are users who actually believe in the "victims of communism" narrative (Neumayer 2018), which I think is the only way to have such information you talked about and discuss the topic of Communism in general, and we have two totally different views and understanding about the topic. Here, the moderator explained everything that is wrong with how the other side has used source and engaged source analysis. I do not have any reason to believe that we can have productive source analysis with them; you, on the other hand, are totally different in a good way. I am curious to know more about this:
"But recall there is a separate review looking at Valentino and Mann in a different light. I kind of see Paul's look at sources as trying to demonstrate against something that i had already discarded."
"Proceeding top down from Mass killing, in my opinion, there would be no article under this title. But under Communism there would probably be some kind of article somewhere."I agree, and I believe that "Victims of communism" (Neumayer 2018) would be such an article, and summarize for us the views of authors proposing such a concept without citing it to themselves, and without treating it as scholarly consensus fact and separating the facts that many, many people indeed died and were victims of it with the general claim that communism was the main cause, that this is seen as anti-communist field, and is used in an attempt to criminalize communism as a whole and equate it with Nazism. I do not know either how to get this but hopefully the RfC will move us there, and you will help with source analysis and major rewrite of the article.
I think that this comment was interesting and I look forward to see Siebert's reply. I wonder, however, what you meant when you wrote this: What i see resulting is some monstrous hybridization of Communist Studies#Controversy and VoC with a different definition of 'Victim'."
That has now been removed here, I would like to understand better your thoughts. I thought that it was better to discuss such controversy there rather than have such a flawed full article about it. Davide King (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
"[i]t looks like surrendering the article to the very issues that were problematic in the construction of the C."The difference may be that while Courtois and Rummel are used as facts for C, or their own primary works are used, B would report secondary coverage of their opinions and views. Davide King (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
"[w]hat confuses some editors is that the same source may contain all three types of source at one time."123 In particular, see this:
"Original interpretations or opinions are primary sources. Secondary sources report those opinions. ... If you use a source for the opinion of its author, it is a primary source. While allowed, I would avoid this because it requires us to interpret the passage and determine its degree of acceptance. ... As I said, some source may contain all three types of sources at one time. If it expresses a novel theory about the information it analyzes, it becomes a primary source for that theory."And you are right, that is very common on Wikipedia and I have been guilty of this too, but I do think that if we want to strive to write a good article, we should be following what TFD wrote; if something is truly due and part of scholarship, it will be covered by secondary sources.
"In August 1966, over 100 teachers were murdered by their students in western Beijing."), and treat the events as death tolls to prove the narrative, which I believe is contrary to mainstream scholarship that contextualize them; on the other hand, if we place this in the context TFD explained below, everything will actually be clear, but I feel like I am digressing and I do agree with you that it is better if we do not propose any content. Davide King (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Secondary sources report those opinions. ... If you use a source for the opinion of its author, it is a primary source.A publishes. B comes along and says this A guy is a real jerk, and totally wrong, and publishes. There's no automatic reason to prefer B. It's opinions all the way down. fiveby(zero) 03:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
I just wanted to clarify the types of sources. A expresses an opinion and B critiques it" those are both primary sources for opinions. B however might begin by explaining A's opinion, so that would be a secondary source for A's opinion. Of course that requires a reliable soucce such as an academic paper rather than an editorial, because the publishers would expect that B's explanation of A's opinion would be accurate.
The C comes along and summarizes A and B's opinions and explains the degree of acceptance of the opinions both express. So that is a neutral secondary source.
For example, Charles A. Beard was perhaps America's top hisorian and a leader of the progressive school of history. However, after WWII, "liberal consensus" historians rejected his theories and they have never recovered. Subsequently the civic republican view has largely replaced the consensus view among historians. A source that explains all that is a secondary source that helps us explain the various theories and their relative weight.
The only parallel I can see here is that Courtois launched the "Victims of Communism" narrative in his introduction, which was adopted by mostly polemical writers and has been rejected in mainstream scholarship. It's largely ignored by genocide scholars, but has received extensive coverage by sociologists and political scientists of anti-Communism. Although they point out Courtois' miscalculation to reach 1oo million vicitms, their focus is on why he wants to prove this number and what effect his arguments have on current, post-Cold War politics. They are not genocide scholars.
It's a bit like the Lost Cause narrative of the U.S. Civil War, that it was not about slavery but about states' rights, etc. Civil War historians take little interest in the theory, but sociologists and political scientists writing about extremism do. Of course they themselves are not experts on the Civil War, but are able to tell that the Lost Cause narrative departs from mainstream scholarship. So they write about who advocates the theory, why they do so and what influence it has, rather than writing point by point rebuttals and providing detailed arguments about the various reasons for the war and the motivations of the historical figures involved.
TFD (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spirit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Psyche. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
The topic, not behavior. It's archived now, and I feel I should tell you that your final post on the matter was very thought-provoking, but I really haven't had time to sit down to think on it all at once. I did want to note that I did not intend in my link to SEP for you to read the entire article as a prerequisite to my comment -- those articles are way too dense to take in all in one sitting unless you're really well versed in the field (at least for me, and I'm not) -- it was merely a "further reading if you're interested" link. It would probably be a good idea for me in future to explicitly separate those two meanings in prose links when it's a dumptruck ref like SEP. So if it wasn't hyperbole (as I expect) and you literally read the whole thing, thinking I expected you to do so for my comment, I apologize and hope you at least somewhat enjoyed it? For my part, I quit those articles the moment I hit the the first "qua", sine qua non patior. SamuelRiv (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
I bow in the presence of your 10th degree, grandmaster Google-Fu. Thank you for your help with research as to the origins of Renoir's lost painting. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 ((NoACEMM))
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with your idea, but not for the reason you might suspect. (1) This section is solely meant to be a list of communities, not a place with content about them, and redirecting list entries to a list is not a good idea. (2) If it's real, it ought to have an article eventually, and creating it as a redirect discourages creation of the article. Also, (3) I was inactive for a long time and lost my administrative rights as a result, so I can't offer any opinion about the deleted item. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I want to apologize for my unclear phrasing at the reference desk earlier. I was in no way thinking that you were saying anything racist. I was saying that the news writers who use phrases like "Soros-backed" to discredit the DA in question are. It's clear that I said it incorrectly, and I should have been more clear. I apologize for that. Oh, and I've never thought of myself as "good people". I've mostly thought of myself as a complete asshole that is certainly not worthy of being thought of as a "good person" in any way. I recognize that good people exist, indeed most people are quite good at heart. I'm just not one of them. --Jayron32 18:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Fiveby. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tom Quick, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding recent edit of "COVID-19 lab leak theory", I am asking you to reconsider your objection. FWIW, on Wikipedia:External links, I don't see any specific prohibition on opinion pieces, but I do notice that "knowledgeable sources" which are not "reliable sources" may be included. The linked article provides some perspective on the possibility of there having been a lab leak without this necessarily constituting a conspiracy theory Fabrickator (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 ((NoACEMM))
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Fiveby. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cow Creek Seminole, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)