Crossroads (talk | contribs) Cmt |
Crossroads (talk | contribs) also |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
Was going to reply there but the discussion was closed on me by someone. You are right that that text was POV. If a certain editor keeps at their POV pushing and others enable it, I recommend starting an RfC. You should also make judicious use of noticeboards when necessary, including the [[WP:FTN|fringe theory noticeboard]]. At the same time, be cautious regarding [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] on article talk pages, since I've seen editors who enforce NPOV get taken out because their frustration got the better of them. But as for proposed text, you can call that whatever you want. Maybe [[WP:NOTPROPAGANDA]] would be a useful link to give for such proposals. The editor's proposal was also an inappropriate [[WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE]], together with being a cherry-picking of sources. Other encyclopedias handle [[WP:In-text attribution]] of POV differently than we do; as you know, that doesn't mean we in our style can repeat ML propaganda as fact. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 18:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
Was going to reply there but the discussion was closed on me by someone. You are right that that text was POV. If a certain editor keeps at their POV pushing and others enable it, I recommend starting an RfC. You should also make judicious use of noticeboards when necessary, including the [[WP:FTN|fringe theory noticeboard]]. At the same time, be cautious regarding [[WP:AVOIDYOU]] on article talk pages, since I've seen editors who enforce NPOV get taken out because their frustration got the better of them. But as for proposed text, you can call that whatever you want. Maybe [[WP:NOTPROPAGANDA]] would be a useful link to give for such proposals. The editor's proposal was also an inappropriate [[WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE]], together with being a cherry-picking of sources. Other encyclopedias handle [[WP:In-text attribution]] of POV differently than we do; as you know, that doesn't mean we in our style can repeat ML propaganda as fact. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 18:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
P.S.: If you can gather 10-15 choice diffs that show the editor to be a POV pusher for fringe/totalitarian political viewpoints, via OR and misuse of sources, or things they've said, then take them to ANI and ping me. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:02, 24 December 2020
Thank You - and Help With Troll
Vallee01, thanks for your interest in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Benjamin_Gordon_(businessman). I am the subject of the article. I have been a Wikipedia reader for over a decade, a registered user for 4 years, and have begun writing more. I would appreciate your advice and help.
There is a troll who appears to have some sort of vendetta against me, although I have no idea why. He formed a single-purpose account called "Krutapidla2," for the sole purpose of posting defamatory content on my site. Since I am not a Wikipedia editor, and do this in my spare time, I decided to seek help, and posted a request on a site, in order to take down the defamatory content. "Krutapidla2" then reposted the defamatory content, deleted other positive content, and went on a rampage. He also marked the page for deletion, and added a notation that my page may have been edited for undisclosed payments. This is, of course, the height of irony. The only reason a paid editor offered to help me was to take down the defamatory content in the first place!
"Krutapidla2" has continued his destructive behavior. The editor undid his changes. Then "Krutapidla2" put them back up. I undid his changes. Then he put them back up. And he had the temerity to accuse me of being a paid editor (which I clearly am not, as reflected among many things by my poor knowledge of Wikipedia systems)! Pot, meet kettle.
I am not a Wikipedia expert, but isn't this kind of destructive conduct exactly what the Wikipedia code of conduct is intended to prevent?
What do you suggest? Can you close down this slanderous "Krutapidla2"? Can you prevent him from continuing to attack me and defame my page? And can you remove the "undisclosed payments" mark and the "considered for deletion" mark? None of this would have happened if not for the troll's slanderous postings.
I would be happy to provide whatever facts and context you would like. Please let me know. Thank you. Bengee123 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
- Bengee123 That's not up to me, it's up to Wikipedia editors to find reliable sources for the person in question, if there aren't reliable sources for a subject we can't write about a subject. I simply stated that all the sources looked correct. Vallee01 (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Let us discuss here, or at our talk page, so as to leave other users more space
Please, stop making comments like you did here, which have more to do with Talk:Marxism–Leninism, falsely accusing me on wanting to downplay atrocities, which completely misses our points (do you think Buidhe, The Four Deuces, Paul Siebert et al. are Stalinists with a mission to downplay the atrocities rather than trying to find consensus on the topic?) and did not answer my questions. So please answer this. What is the main topic:
- Is it about the atrocities only?
- Is it about the atrocities and narrative of communism to blame (mainstream)?
- Is it about the link between communism and genocide/mass killing as an academic fact (mainstream or minority)?
- Is it about the concept, narrative, or theory (popular among the public but minority among experts and scholars)?
Note that the article is about communism, not Marxism–Leninism; and it is essentially stating and accusing communists of promoting genocide and mass killing just because that is what Marxist–Leninists (only one type of communism) did. You claim to be a communist but the article is about communism, not Marxism–Leninism; and it is saying communism, not Marxism–Leninism, always results in genocide and mass killing. My proposal is simply to treat this as a theory, rather than as fact, because anti-authoritarian and libertarian communists clearly did not engage in genocide or mass killing. Is it more clear now? So please, if you have problems with me, let us discuss it at our own talk page and let us leave space for other users to comment on the section I opened. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Davide King Nowhere is there any personal attacks, this is a wall of text plain and simple. I think a reason why new editors aren't getting involved in the current discussion IS because the massive amount of walls of texts that are being posted, and nowhere did I state or accuse you are trying to underplay atrocities. "You think that it is a synthesis of material to state Marxist Leninist committed atrocities, or that there is a pattern of these atrocities, but also believe things like pointing Marxist-Leninist states patterns of industrialization isn't." is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions. What you just did was a synthesis. Vallee01 (talk) 06:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- How is this, i.e. "you have also edited extensively criticisms of the communist party rule, edits that I think downplay actual criticisms", not a personal attack and accusation? Now you have literally accused me of it, stating "is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions. What you just did was a synthesis." You have not the wildest idea of what synthesis even is. We are arguing the article is synthesis because scholars do not say there is any link between communism and genocide/mass killing. You have yet to show a single source that states what you say at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- That statement is not the best, I don't think it is a personal attack but it is assuming bad faith, something which we shouldn't do. Excuse me, I just removed it. Vallee01 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- As I wrote here, it is not clear whether we actually agree or this is misunderstanding because this ("We shouldn't go into detail if people think communism is somehow connected we have other articles for that, all we should do is state atrocities go into detail on how that happened. We shouldn't try to put the blame on communism it's completely un neutral.") is exactly what the article does and the main topic is supposed to be. This is what I oppose, that the article blames the atrocities on communism or that there is a connection or link between communism (making no distinction between authoritarian and libertarian communism) and these atrocities. What we are simply asking is that, if we are going to blame it on communism or make a link between the two, it should be presented as a theory, not as fact. The fact is the atrocities happened (fact); the theory is that communism must be blamed for them (theory). To make it even more clear, the only fact are the atrocities themselves; that communism is to blame for them is a theory, not a fact accepted by scholars. I hope I made it more clear, do you understand what I am saying now? We actually agree, we just had a misunderstanding because perhaps you thought I was referring to the atrocities as theory, when what I really meant to say was that communism is to blame is the theory. I hope I made it more clear now, because we actually agree on that quote. Davide King (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- That statement is not the best, I don't think it is a personal attack but it is assuming bad faith, something which we shouldn't do. Excuse me, I just removed it. Vallee01 (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- How is this, i.e. "you have also edited extensively criticisms of the communist party rule, edits that I think downplay actual criticisms", not a personal attack and accusation? Now you have literally accused me of it, stating "is not me stating you are underplaying anything its me stating your literal your positions. What you just did was a synthesis." You have not the wildest idea of what synthesis even is. We are arguing the article is synthesis because scholars do not say there is any link between communism and genocide/mass killing. You have yet to show a single source that states what you say at Talk:Marxism–Leninism. Davide King (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Davide King if that is your position I support changing it to be a simple list however other edits don't appear to enforce this. Why is this necessary?
- "Communist genocide, or Victims of Communism, is the narrative that famine and mass killings in Communist states can be attributed to a single cause and that Communism represents the greatest threat to humanity. The narrative has its origins in Western European scholarship, in particular the Black Book of Communism (1997), and has become accepted scholarship in Eastern Europe and among anti-Communists in general. Typically, the number of victims, who are referred to as victims of Communism, is estimated to be over 100 million, which is considered to be in the high range by most genocide experts. The narrative has been criticized by some scholars as an oversimplification and politically motivated, and for equating the events with the Holocaust. Various museums and monuments have been constructed in remembrance of the victims of communism, with support of the European Union and various governments in Eastern Europe, the United States and Canada."
- This isn't something which simply states claimed communist states committed atrocities, it goes into detail that the very term "Communist genocide" is some conspiracy theory. I do think certain sections just don't need to be here, "Proposed causes" is completely unnecessary and should go somewhere else and removed from the article. Vallee01 (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- That lead is because the main topic would be the theory that communism is to blame for the atrocities. We already discusses all the events and atrocities individually, so we would need an agreement among scholars that link them together. As noted here, "we cannot create articles that group unconnected events." If the only connection is they were Communists, then Mass killings under capitalist regimes, Mass killings under colonial regimes, Mass killings under conservative regimes, Mass killings under fascist regimes, Mass killings under nationalist regimes and so on ought to be created too. The reason why we do not have these articles, and which is why Mass killings under communist regimes should be about the theory that mass killings were the result of communism, is that it would be original research and synthesis to do that. Perhaps we may make this article about the theory that communism was to blame while you can try to create List of mass killings under Communist regimes, where we would simply list the events, what happened, etc. as you propose, like List of genocides by death toll, without blaming communism on it or any of that. Do you think that would be a good compromise? We would both get what we propose, the events under Communist regimes (you) and communism to blame for it being a theory rather than a fact (me). Davide King (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your main points here. However, I am not sure there is a clear link between genocide/mass killing and ideology; indeed, most scholars find other reasons than blaming ideology. Not all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists; and while I think they are essentially authoritarians, there is a clear difference between say, Stalin and Mao, and Gorbachev and Deng, or even Khrushchev. In short, the atrocities were the results of authoritarianism and the absence of democratic pluralism; it is this which accomunate all genocide and mass killing. I mean, genocide and mass killing happen independent of Marxism–Leninism and have happened under other ideologies, so the link is not Marxism–Leninism but, as noted by Valentino, that it occurs when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people and there is a "revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society." Valentino does not blame Marxism–Leninism for it but when power is in the hands of one person or a small number of people.
I think, and you are free to correct me, you do not necessarely see the link is between genocide/mass killing and Marxism–Leninism (after all, genocides and mass killings have happened under non-Marxist–Leninist regimes and long before them) but you do think the atrocities were indeed the results of Marxist–Leninist ideology. While this is true to an extent, it is not universal because most Communist regimes did not engage in mass killings, hence it is false or misleading. While Gorbachev, Deng and other Communist leaders were still authoritarian and repressive, they did not commit genocide or mass killing. The reason why atrocities happened under anarchist experiments was because they were revolutionary regimes and they cannot be discussed without also mentioning White Terror; it was not ideology. The reason why the five-year plans and collectivisation resulted in atrocities was not because five-year plans and collectivisation are inherently authoritarian or genocidical; it is that they were forced on the population; and when something is forced, people are going to back down and an authoritarian government is going to see them as counter-revolutionary or saboteurs. However, five-year plans have been adopted by capitalist countries, there is decentralised planning and collectivisation has been also advocated by anarchists and other socialists; so it is not that five-year plans and collectivisation are inherently genocidical, it is that authoritarianism and the use of force make it more likely that is the unfortunate result.
In short, atrocities, genocides and mass killings happen more because of the events resulting from authoritarianism, non-democratic policies and absence of pluralism than any particular ideology; the only exception may be Nazism, which is the only ideology clearly advocating genocide, although even then there is the functionalism–intentionalism debate. In conclusion, atrocities happen independent of ideology; they have happened under anarchism, the most anti-authoritarian philosophy, and I do not think they were the result of ideology. They were the result of revolutionary events, which result in counter-revolution, which result in authoritarian measures even if in self-defense, which result in atrocities. After all, this is exactly why several anarchists have opposed revolutionary tactics. One cannot discuss the Bolshevik Red Terror without also discussing the White Terror, just like one cannot discuss the Great Terror without discussing the Ancient Regime. As written by Mark Twain:
There were two "Reigns of Terror," if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the "horrors" of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
It is always too easily and simplicistic to blame it all and only on ideology. One can blame Stalinism for Stalinist policies but not all Marxist–Leninists are Stalinists and they have rejected such policies and they only happened again under Stalinised regimes. Anarcho-communism is my ideal society but forcing it is not just the way to do it, it is counter-productive. A more pertinent question is whether it is possible to have a revolutionary but democratic revolution, or whether any attempt at revolution is going to be betrayed and resulting in authoritarianism; is it even possible to have a revolution where 50–60, or ideally anything from 70–90, support it? That only seems to happen to overthrow unpopular regimes and not in support of specific radical changes. As long as anarchism, communism and socialism are so misunderstood and consciously propagated against, I have not faith anything is going to change. The reason why we have only articles such as these on communism, and not on capitalism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism et al., is because of systematic bias; because only for communism it is assumed the ideology was at fault, even though communism is much broader than Marxism–Leninism. Why not simply make a List of atrocities? Why limit to Communist regimes as if they were the only ones who commit atrocities? So what do you think of making it a list while rewriting the article to make it about the theory that communism is to blame for the events. After all, you want it to be about a list of the atrocities while I want it to be about the popular theory that communism is to blame (hence, "Victims of Communism"); and we both agree the current article is problematic because it blames communism for the events and it states this as fact rather than as a theory. Davide King (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Benjamin Gordon
Thank you for posting a comment on this page deletion here. You offered to help cleanup the page, but unfortunately the page got locked up permanently and only admins can edit now. Could you please visit the deletion page and read my latest comment on the bottom. There are sources from Yahoo, NY Times, Bloomberg, CNBC and Fortune, so perhaps you can reconsider changing the vote to a KEEP and post your improvement suggestions on the talk page for admins.Martinvince (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Great egret, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High Island.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Squat pic
Hiya thanks for adding this pic to Squatting and Squatting in Spain. It's labelled Madrid not Barcelona and further, how do you know it's a squat? All the blurb says is "Manifestación laica y cívica en las calles de Madrid contra la financiación pública y el apoyo institucional a la visita del Papa" which I machine translate as "Secular and civic demonstration in the streets of Madrid against public funding and institutional support for the Pope's visit." Mujinga (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mujinga I found the image on Flickr which stated it was a squat I uploaded it to Wikimedia but it already was uploaded, I don't know if the Flickr uploader was the same as the Wikimedia one. Vallee01 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Standard notice
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. I am placing this notice on the pages of individuals currently editing the page Russian Revolution, but it applies to all areas of Eastern Europe. If you have questions, please contact me.
// Timothy :: talk 23:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Template:Z33
- Comment: The POV pushing, the abuse of sources and due weight, and the edit warring/de/te all need to stop immediately on all articles related to Marxism/Communism/Anarchism. Editors need to respect consensus building and onus. The onus for change is on the those wishing to make changes by developing consensus on the talk page. Edit warring is not limited to a single article and it is not the same as 3rr. If the current state of affairs in this category of articles does not settle down, it will end poorly for those involved. // Timothy :: talk 00:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
December 2020
Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Folk punk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Robvanvee 06:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --BunnyyHop (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for your efforts
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC) |
Disambiguation link notification for December 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queer anarchism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Autogestion.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Marxism-Leninism
Was going to reply there but the discussion was closed on me by someone. You are right that that text was POV. If a certain editor keeps at their POV pushing and others enable it, I recommend starting an RfC. You should also make judicious use of noticeboards when necessary, including the fringe theory noticeboard. At the same time, be cautious regarding WP:AVOIDYOU on article talk pages, since I've seen editors who enforce NPOV get taken out because their frustration got the better of them. But as for proposed text, you can call that whatever you want. Maybe WP:NOTPROPAGANDA would be a useful link to give for such proposals. The editor's proposal was also an inappropriate WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE, together with being a cherry-picking of sources. Other encyclopedias handle WP:In-text attribution of POV differently than we do; as you know, that doesn't mean we in our style can repeat ML propaganda as fact. Crossroads -talk- 18:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: If you can gather 10-15 choice diffs that show the editor to be a POV pusher for fringe/totalitarian political viewpoints, via OR and misuse of sources, or things they've said, then take them to ANI and ping me. Crossroads -talk- 19:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)