This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello C.J. Griffin:
Thank you for your contributions to veganism – or vegetarianism – related articles. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a WikiProject to improve veganism and vegetarianism articles on Wikipedia and coverage of these topics. If you would like to participate or join, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! Rasnaboy ( talk) 13:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC) |
---|
Your opinion is sought here: Talk:Speciesism § Removing cow-dog picture. Rasnaboy ( talk) 17:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I note that you have worked on the Naomi Klein article in the past and I feel it would be helpful if you would take a look at a problem with giving her a "far left" label. I have opened a discussion on the TP. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
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 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. I also disagree that "Saying that some of the book's authors criticized it is confusing". It is not confusing but what actually happened, i.e. that some of the authors themselves criticised the book, not only for the estimates but in general for it whole narrative of Communism as the worst thing ever, even worse than Nazism. Maybe you could help in improving wording, perhaps removing the 'praising' of Communism even though that is relevant because she is saying the narrative itself completely ignores that, but I fail to see how it is synthesis or POV-pushing for the above reasons.
Since the organisation is mentioned and the name of the narrative (Victims of Communism) comes from this organisation, then I think it is very much relevant and due, not to debunk the theory or narrative, but just to show that it fails WP:RS/AC, i.e. that the theory of Communist mass killings, which the organisation hold and propagates, may be popular among anti-communist organisations, right-wing politicians and the population, but it is not supported by reliable sources or scholarship within academia, where it is fringe. I think the fact the latest thing is never mentioned is one of many reasons why so many users support that Mass killings under communist regimes is a mainstream view within academia and scholarship. Davide King ( talk) 14:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
According to anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a conservative anti-communist organization which seeks to equate communism with murder, such as by erecting billboards in Times Square which declare "100 years, 100 million killed" and "Communism kills". [1] Ghodsee posits that the Foundation, along with counterpart conservative organizations in Eastern Europe, seeks to institutionalize the "Victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder). [1] [2] The 100 million estimate favored by the Foundation is dubious, Ghodsee notes, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois. [1] She also says that this effort by anti-communist conservative organizations has intensified, in particular the recent push at the beginning of the global financial crisis for commemoration of the latter in Europe, and can be seen as the response by economic and political elites to fears of a leftist resurgence in the face of devastated economies and extreme inequalities in both the East and West as the result of the excesses of neoliberal capitalism. Ghodsee argues that that any discussion of the achievements under Communism, including literacy, education, women's rights, and social security is usually silenced, and any discourse on the subject of communism is focused almost exclusively on Stalin's crimes and the double genocide theory. [2] According to Laure Neumayer, this is used as an anti-communist narrative "based on a series of categories and figures" to "denounce Communist state violence (qualified as 'Communist crimes', 'red genocide' or 'classicide') and to honour persecuted individuals (presented alternatively as 'victims of Communism' and 'heroes of anti totalitarian resistance')." [3]
According to anthropologist Kristen Ghodsee, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is a conservative anti-communist organization which seeks to equate communism with murder, such as by erecting billboards in Times Square which declare "100 years, 100 million killed" and "Communism kills". [1] Ghodsee posits that the Foundation, along with counterpart conservative organizations in Eastern Europe, seeks to institutionalize the "Victims of Communism" narrative as a double genocide theory, or the moral equivalence between the Nazi Holocaust (race murder) and the victims of communism (class murder). [1] [2] The 100 million estimate favored by the Foundation is dubious, Ghodsee notes, as their source for this is the controversial introduction to the The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois. [1] She also argues that any discourse on the subject of communism from such entities and some governments in Eastern Europe is focused almost exclusively on Stalin's crimes and double genocide theory, while any discussion of the achievements under Communism, including literacy, education, women's rights, and social security, is usually ignored. [2]
As a reminder, Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, banned users, or widespread erroneous edits by a user. While I have nothing to say about the subject matter, this edit was a clear violation of that. No need to bite the newcomers, the least you could do is use an edit summary. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 21:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I think you should self-revert. The lowest figure is not an estimate, it is an official figure of executed victims. Therefore, the statement is factually incorrect (it says "estimates range ..."). Actually by adding ridiculously low figures we create an opportunity for adding various inflated numbers, and undermine a credibility of the figures in general. By providing a narrow range, I emphasized the fact that the number of Great Purge victims has been relatively accurately established, which leaves less freedom for speculations ("we will never know for sure ..."). Do you really believe we need to undermine a credibility of the lowest and highest number?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi C.J. Griffin, I noticed that you've done a lot of work at Encomienda and Genocide of indigenous peoples in relation to sock editing on both pages and the question of Spanish Colonial genocide. I've done a lot to clean up Genocide of indigenous peoples and Spanish colonization of the Americas recently in relation to and in spite of a persistent sock editor whom I believe you originally dealt with on Encomienda and Genocide of Indigenous peoples. At this point, I'd like to clean up Encomienda and move on to other pages that I think are important. Do you think, given your previous editing history at these pages and with these sock accounts, you could spare a few minutes to take a look at current debate on Talk:Encomienda and offer an opinion about editing the page, esp. in relation to misleading and dishonest paraphrases? If not, I understand--I am just ready to be done, at least for a period, with persistent sock editing that denies colonial violence on well-trafficked pages.-- Hobomok ( talk) 19:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi CJ,
Thank you for your update to the environmental degradation article. I've recently begun some clean up on it as it's listed as a top importance article for wikiproject environment with a C rating. I was trying to start an overall "causes" section towards the top of the page and then list individual problems (water, soil, etc) beneath; however, I think where you added information also works. Since you're definitely more experienced than me, I just wanted to ask your opinion on a "causes" section or if you think it would be best to spread the causes beneath each problem. My reasoning, which I put on the talk page, is that the lede of the article used to have the I=PAT formula as agreed upon fact, when there is actually a lot of discussion over the formula, especially when Paul Ehlrich is the creator. Anyway, I would love to hear your thoughts if you have the time. Thank you,
Apathyash ( talk) 23:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
any chance you want to help out on increasing coverage and info on this ? Carbon sink upscaling additional info on carbon sink upscaling (missing info) -- Genetics4good ( talk) 16:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Please go discuss with me in the talk section of the article about communist mass killings. Danielbr11 ( talk) 15:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Here i have posted about the situation on List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll:_Revision_history_discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbr11 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you going to continue to blatantly ignore my 1 main scholarly peer reviewed source https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1350&context=honors I’m going to continue escalating this so the admins see your blatant ignorance Danielbr11 ( talk) 05:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am notifying you of my New post here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll_2 Danielbr11 ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Notifying you of this arbitration {{subst:arbcom notice|Editing List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll}} Danielbr11 ( talk) 02:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
In the Talk section of CoC, I have asked a question in regards to having "counter criticism" to the criticism in the article? I had moved it there from the main article due as part of a general clean up of the criticism section. What are your thoughts on the "Counter criticism" being included? I am not a big fan of it myself because If there is a counter to the crit. then why not a counter to the counter, and so forth and so on. TauGuys ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
You don't know nothing about deforestation in Brazil. Go to the country to see the reality. Go walk there. Get out of your chair and live. Star Fiver ( talk) 15:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate you taking the time to let me know that the sources were looked upon as having undue weight. That is completely fair and I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.
However, I made it clear in my edit summary that the sources were listed as no consensus. I also added that if someone were to change it, as a show of good faith, they should have acknowledged that the sources were no consensus and no something along the lines as unreliable. Listing it as terrible sourcing is inappropriate. I will be putting the edits back up until you apologize and acknowledge that they were no consensus sources. That was rude. Updatewithfacts ( talk) 00:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if your revert was intended to also revert my revision. It looks like your edit summary referred to this discussion, so I'm not sure. SWinxy ( talk) 23:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into
Human overpopulation. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —
Diannaa (
talk)
15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I vaguely remember running into your edits over a decade ago and recall you were quite the anti-communist. I randomly stumbled upon your profile again today and noted that you seem to be a libertarian socialist now. If you don't mind me asking what led to your changes in political views?-- 124.168.16.23 ( talk) 19:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I want to ask you why you insist in deleting the words 'Dictator', 'Dictatorship' and other acronyms from the article of Enver Hoxha (the known dictator of Albania). You always change it to other generic words as leader or revolutionary. You could look at him as such only in a communist perspective. Meaning that he has been the leader of the communist party and of albania at some point in history, but he was not elected by the people (without counting voting during his dictatorship), he imprisoned or/and killed wrongfully many people that disagree this the communist party.
So my question is: why you insist in deleting the word dictator from his page. Wikipedia although not reliable is a source that the majority of people rely upon. Therefore it should be as true as possible.
Best,
Soni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.52.189 ( talk) 08:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the long standing consensus, i must say that you have been changing these terms on wikipedia continuously(Dictator, Dictatorship, ecc) therefore many people have tried to correct the article, giving a more precise description of a totalitarian leader. Therefore the consensus is the opposite of your opinion, but you have a lot of free time apparently. I must say that by the way that you responded it might be difficult for you to change your mind on your convictions, even if wrong ones.
Writing that Enver Hoxha was not a dictator but just a leader like many before and after him, is the less neutral you could be. Now i know you just delete one word and put an other but you intend to separate Enver Hoxha from the fact that he was a dictator.
P.S.
I obviously presume that your intentions are neutral. Even though, by looking at your page and history, you clearly have communist ideology tendency. This is somehow ironic being that you are from the United States of America. I believe that someone that is communist from a country like yours is because hey don't understand the meaning of living under a totalitarian regime. Under a non totalitarian regime life is not easy, but i assure you that the word 'dictator' has intrinsic meaning that you probably don't appreciate.
I am obviously from Albania. My grand-grandparents died and where imprisoned without having done nothing wrong. So i understand the meaning of life under such regime. Its something that no wikipedia page could ever explain.
Still, i wish you all the best.
Soni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.71.52.189 ( talk) 19:27, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Why did you remove my edit for Democratic Socialists of America? They're communists, wide range of evidence shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4900:F750:883E:A4D4:9DBA:F589 ( talk) 17:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Nothing satisfies that particular editor ("Chess"). He's stated that he's on a campaign to rid Wikipedia of "Tankie fan clubs." I.e. Entries on communist groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visigoth500 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
02:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)Hello! Wanted to talk about a statement on the " Ethics of eating meat" page, which stated, "One study found that approximately 60% of contemporary professional ethicists consider it 'morally bad' to eat meat from mammals." That study is pretty limited. It was a survey of just 1000 people in the US (not an international survey) and only 58% responded. That's a pretty small sample size. As such, I think it's a bit of an overstatement to use it to imply that 60% of contemporary professional ethicists consider it 'morally bad' to eat meat. Additionally, the ethicists didn't even state that it is "morally bad" to eat meat. On a scale of 1 to 9 that asked whether it was “very morally bad” or “very morally good” to eat meat, 60% were slightly more towards the "bad" side. That doesn't mean that 60% think eating meat is, in fact, morally bad. If you read it and think differently, I'd be happy to discuss how the findings can be included in a way that is more clear and accurate. Best! :) Dax Kirk ( talk) 04:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
The Monbiot article was added two commits before your addition to Don't Look Up and is about two lines below on the page. Just letting you know. Am off to fix up the duplicated material. With best wishes RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 23:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Though I'm not a member of the so-called Birthday Committee, I take the pleasure of wishing you on this memorable day. Pleasure working with you, pal. Glad to know you. :) Rasnaboy ( talk) 03:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Cambial — foliar❧ has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Greetings from London! I think we crossed paths on Jakarta Method a while back. I just noticed you did most of the heavy lifting (from which as you saw I just pilfered your sources) on the Indonesia genocide page itself. Nice job; it's sterling work. Cheers.
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{ WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 16:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)My apologies, but how is my edit on the holocene extinction adding another nickname "the sixth extinction" not count? I ask out of curiosity. Firekong1 ( talk) 18:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Alright, thank you. I just hope you understand that I have no intention of vandalism, and that it was only a misunderstanding on my part. Firekong1 ( talk) 19:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Got any advice on how to avoid such a mistake for future references? Firekong1 ( talk) 17:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Much obliged, sir! Firekong1 ( talk) 17:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Russia Today and Vladimir Putin thank you for your service. — goethean 22:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
That is, the links listed under Advocacy organisations. Makes no sense to remove them. If there are no Wikipedia pages to link to, there is no other choice than using external links. I will put them back unless you have really compelling reasons to remove them. Peteruetz ( talk) 19:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciate your restoring the 1970s-1980s passages in "United States" that I dropped. This was done inadvertently, and I didn't see my error. Mason.Jones ( talk) 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate your input on this topic to resolve some long disputed issues about modern Taino movements. /info/en/?search=Talk:Taíno#Request_for_Comment_on_Modern_Taino_Identity Poketama ( talk) 01:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
My keyboard seized up (cat and keyboard in one device! whee!) and I didn't notice. The Crab Who Played With The Sea ( talk) 16:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi C.J. Griffin! I saw that you made some contributions a while ago on the Homelessness in the United States article. I have recently made some edits and would really appreciate it if you could give me some feedback on things to improve on. EEmenike ( talk) 02:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
while the source says "rebellion", it would be appropriate to define castillo acts as a treason to the constitution. rebellion has a similar definition however usually begins from a much lower position, while he was a head of state under oath, hence why treason — Preceding unsigned comment added by VosleCap ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 December 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)
00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You restored obsolete info and cites of low-quality primary sources. You deleted current info and cites of high-quality secondary sources. !? sbelknap ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
You were pretty fast fixing my typo- you got to it just as I was correcting. 00:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC) J JMesserly ( talk) 00:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |