Content deleted Content added
My very best wishes (talk | contribs) |
→Thank you!: reply to Levivich Tag: CD |
||
(511 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery]] |
|||
{{NoACEMM}} |
|||
Feel free to push my button: {{help button}} |
|||
== Thank you! == |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
| algo = old(14d) |
|||
| archive = User talk:Levivich/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
| archiveheader = {{Archives|root=User talk:Levivich}} |
|||
| counter = 4 |
|||
| maxarchivesize = 500K |
|||
| minthreadsleft = 1 |
|||
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archives|root=User talk:Levivich}} |
|||
For your spirit and humanity in our discussion at AN :) <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 02:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==Per your last comment== |
|||
Not keen on what is unsubtly implied in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1141945791 this last comment]–FA received warnings for similar. Also, likely merge ''is'' an acceptable decline rationale; see rationale "mergeto" within the AFC tool. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:Thanks, {{u|Zanahary}}, right back atcha! [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
:"If Wikipedia’s editors are distancing themselves from the ADL, that could suggest media, academic and partnering advocacy organizations will think twice about how they approach ADL data in their own efforts to inform their audiences on antisemitism." - [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/19/media/wikipedia-adl/index.html CNN] |
|||
::Your comment {{tq|Also, please mind systemic bias when you're evaluating articles about women and people of color, especially Americans, especially historical. Their notability will not be as obvious as white American men}} is plainly evident: you feel my editing takes a sexist and racist bent. A peculiar assessment, especially when I addressed the need to work against systemic bias earlier in the discussion. If you had an alternative implication, you are welcome to give it. Also, again, mergeto is valid rationale. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:It's supposed to work in the opposite direction. Shit, this breaks the system. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, I don't think your editing takes a sexist or racist bent. Nor do I believe that people, when they ''don't'' mind systemic bias, or don't mind it enough, are being sexist or racist. Systemic bias is ''systemic'', we all contribute to it, it doesn't mean we're racist or sexist. "Mergeto" is a valid rationale, but it's not the rationale you chose when declining the drafts you declined. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I also find the media coverage of this stuff so unhelpful. I don't want Wikipedia to be a black box, but I don't want it to be a CNN comments section, either. And any issues with Wiki's black boxiness cannot be solved with CNN commentiness, since users who don't understand how to engage and argue on Wikipedia are totally disregarded. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>[[User:Zanahary|Zanahary]]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 20:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::You felt the need to say this, despite my ready acknowledgement of systemic bias in my OP and elsewhere in the thread. If you felt the need to reiterate it, why? |
|||
::::Ok, so we agree that {{tq|the fact that an article is a merge candidate ''does not mean it should be declined at AFC!''}} is wrong. Also, you're right–I didn't chose mergeto in my two declines because there were other rationales. I was discussing another article entirely–one that fully embodies the mergeto rationale. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Because despite ''saying'' we should mind systemic bias, you're not ''doing'' it. |
|||
:::::I'm not wrong. Just because an article is a merge <u>candidate</u> does not mean it should be declined for that reason. Read what [[WP:AFCR]] says about when to decline as mergeto. Anyway, since that's not the reason you chose, I'm not sure why we're talking about it. |
|||
:::::I just took a spin through your declines from today: |
|||
:::::*[[Draft:Kishor Helmar Sridhar]] is a notable, award-winning author. I don't know why you declined for notability and for lack of inline citations. You wrote, "please remember provide inline citations for every claim in a biography of a living person," but that's not what [[WP:MINREF]] or [[WP:BLP]] says; inline cites are only needed for ''contentious'' BLP claims, not for "every claim" in a BLP. (Meanwhile, AFCR says explicitly ''not'' to do this.) |
|||
:::::*[[Draft:Code of Everand]] - not supported by RS? What? And not notable? Double what? [http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557281] [https://research.aston.ac.uk/en/publications/a-game-based-learning-approach-to-road-safety-the-code-of-everand] [https://www.engadget.com/2009-11-19-code-of-everand-browser-mmo-teaches-kids-about-traffic-safety.html] [https://www.cnet.com/tech/gaming/uk-government-spends-2-7m-on-online-road-safety-game-for-kids/]. OK, not all of those were in the article, but there's enough in the article, and a quick Google Scholar search [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=%22Code+of+Everand%22], how many video games have 67 hits in GScholar? |
|||
:::::*[[Draft:Zirid campaign in Illyria]] - not supported by RS? There's three academic sources there. Yes, two are over 100 years old. Not a reason to decline. Actually, I'd have declined this as mergeto. |
|||
:::::After looking at these three, I now believe more than I did before that you are being too strict in your declines, and not helpful enough in your decline rationales. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}That's a lot of evidence of...nothing? Declining a draft that didn't cite claim he was a college graduate (accreditation is a contentious claim) and was primarily based his own website? Declined a draft that lacked sourcing to demonstrate its notability (something another editor immediately declined it for after me)? Declined a draft with sources variously primary, old, and limited? And not a thing to support your claim of systemic bias. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== ANI discussion == |
|||
Hi Levivich, I realize the irony that lasted only half an hour lol, but I added that clarification due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheTranarchist#ANI_(again) advice] from Licks-rocks that I was throwing fuel on the fire by asking for more evidence so I tried to narrow the scope of my comment so the conversation didn't blow up again. If you did raise previously raise concerns about specific GENSEX edits/articles that didn't overlap with BLP/BLPGROUP, please by all means prove me a fool there and link/quote them. Otherwise, please post a clarification that you hadn't raised them and your issues had thus far been with my conduct on BLP/BLPGROUP - GENSEX intersections. Either way, you can have the final word there, I just want this to be over with. [[User:TheTranarchist|TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:TheTranarchist|talk]]) 22:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I am trying to eat breakfast. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 22:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Formatting == |
|||
I tried [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AKielce_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=1142484871&diffmode=source hard] to align the indentation of {{tq|Your cherrypicking is obvious ...}} with the quote preceding it but failed. Maybe, you or one of your t/p watchers can come to aid? [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 17:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Actually I have no idea how to fix the bullet-indent-{{T|talkquote}}-next-paragraph bug; I've come across this before as well. For anyone else reading this who cares, if you start a comment with {{code|*:}} (or similar), and then you use {{t|tq2}}, and you want to put another comment after the tq2, {{code|*:}} leaves the trailing bullet (doesn't continue the list markup in HTML, it's rendered as a new list), and {{code|::}} won't line it up right (because colons and bullets have different indents), and paragraph breaks don't work after the tq2 for whatever reason, and a {{code|<br>}} after the tq2 (or nothing after the tq2) will make the next line appear as if it's in {{t|code}}. I have found no solutions to this. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I will open a thread at VPT and copy your cogent description with attribution :) [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Der Spiegel == |
|||
Could you mail me the article text? [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I would if I could but unfortunately I can't get past the paywall today. :-( Yesterday I followed a link on Twitter to the article and no paywall. Today, it's all paywalled and I can't figure out how to get around it... none of my usual methods (privacy mode, reader mode, proxy, come in from an outside link from Twitter) work. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 17:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for trying! There's always [[WP:RX]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think the journal article now meets [[WP:GNG]] {{lol}} |
|||
:::I'm hoping Der Spiegel puts out an English translation in a few days (Haaretz did the same thing; their initial article was in Hebrew), and that it's not paywalled, because [https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/geschichte-polens-historiker-erkennen-holocaust-verzerrung-auf-wikipedia-a-c9326637-f0a9-4c2c-af57-862b2e8f6c1e the article] was quite interesting to read. And not only because it's a German article about Holocaust distortion written by a guy named Fuhrer. |
|||
:::[[Institute of National Remembrance|IPN]] responded to the Der Spiegel article on Twitter today (assuming the Twitter account is real), denying that they are behind editing Wikipedia articles about the Holocaust [https://twitter.com/ipngovpl_eng/status/1631679008579485698], specifically denying that they're behind the [[KL Warschau]] hoax [https://twitter.com/ipngovpl_eng/status/1631679348666253314], and calling out one of the authors [https://twitter.com/ipngovpl_eng/status/1631681505570291714]. |
|||
:::At this rate, governments are going to start issuing statements soon. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[Wikipedia coverage of the Holocaust]] perhaps? [[:Category:Wikipedia coverage of specific events]] exists, not to mention [[Wikipedia coverage of American politics]]. I noted the name too, also made me think of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWlnZhPqRDc Armin von Roon], fictional general and author. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yeah, I think that's now a GNG-notable topic, based on the journal article, Haaretz 2019 and 2023, YNet, JTA, and Der Spiegel. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::And not quite on-topic, there are the "This project has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" articles at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 17:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:@[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] You can find it on archive.ph. DeepL will then get you a decent English translation. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small>[[User_Talk:Jayen466|<span style="color: #FFBF00;">JN</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 19:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, that worked! [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 19:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== 1815 unreferenced BLPs == |
|||
I was wondering if you had any advice for trying to deal with [[:Category:All unreferenced BLPs]]? I noticed that the category existed quite awhile ago by going through the rabbit hole that is [[Wikipedia:Backlog]]. Despite the category name, most of these wouldn't actually fit [[WP:BLPPROD]] because many of them have an external link (like [[Steve Colter]], which I found by using "random" in the category). I asked someone else for advice once and they suggested organizing through page views because the ones that are viewed more often are more likely to be notable... but the more I think about it, I'm not sure that's the best way to go about it. Do you have any advice for trying to work through this? Maybe I could try to organize a backlog drive or something? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd be cautious about that category. Checking a few from the beginning of the list: [[Pablo Acosta (footballer)]], [[Russ Adam]], [[J. B. Adams]], and [[Graham Addley]] are all referenced. Sometimes the references aren't formatted properly (they're ELs or general refs, not inline), and sometimes the references are poor (or non-RS), but they do have at least one reference somewhere on the page; they're not really unreferenced BLPs. I have no idea how many false positives like this are among the 1,815. I also wonder why, if you add up the numbers at [[:Category:Monthly clean-up category (Unreferenced BLPs) counter]], it comes nowhere close to 1,815 (or so it seems, haven't actually tried to do the math). I also wonder if 1,815 is a lot for this maintenance category -- it seems that way to me, but then I don't really have a clear memory of how many it had in the past. I'm curious if a lot of these tags are recent. |
|||
:Anyway, I feel like {{t|BLP unreferenced}} should only be added for articles that don't have ''any'' sources, not for articles that have sources poorly formatted or have general references but lack inline citations; that's for {{t|BLP no footnotes}}. So I wonder if I'm right about that, and if so, there's probably a technological way (script) to figure out which BLPs have any kind of external link, and then change those from {{t|BLP unreferenced}} to {{t|BLP no footnotes}} automagically (if there is consensus to do that). If that's done, then you'll have a smaller set of truly unsourced BLPs, for which a backlog drive could be organized. But I would see about cutting down the list with a script first, if that's possible/would have consensus. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} You're the person that immediately comes to mind when I think of scripts. Is this possible? Or do you have other ideas? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Writing a [[WP:QUERY]] to generate a list, then going through it with [[WP:AWB]], might be a good approach. If you're just fixing articles that have the wrong template, that might not need a fresh consensus discussion. If you're looking for articles to BLPPROD, keep in mind that there's some undocumented nuances and it depends on the admin. I once had a BLPPROD declined because it had an authority control template, which the admin considered to be an external link. A good next step might be to think about what kind of list you want to generate (is in category X and has 0 external links, etc.) and then request a [[WP:QUERY]] for it. Hope this helps. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks Novem! I think [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] might have a query recently written that generates a list based on category and external links? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[Quarry:query/72052]]. Apparently, every article in that category has an external link. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Thanks, you guys are awesome! The results give me pause, I question whether I understand what {{t|BLP unreferenced}} is for. Like, when would someone use {{t|Prod blp}} v. {{t|BLP unreferenced}} v. {{t|BLP sources}}? It seems to me we should have two such templates, not three? I'm missing something. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Seems to me that {{t|Prod blp}} is no refs/genrefs, no external links, {{t|BLP unreferenced}} is no refs/genrefs, yes external links, {{t|BLP sources}} is yes refs/genrefs. Doesn't seem like a great system. There is probably room for improvement, although not sure if it's worth the effort. I tried to make a small change to BLPPROD one time and was reverted. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 19:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I think you might be right that that's the current system, and I agree it's not a great system, because I don't see a difference between genrefs and ELs other than what we call the section heading, which seems not a good reason for having two categories. Of the four examples I posted above, [[Pablo Acosta (footballer)]] and [[Russ Adam]] have genrefs, [[J. B. Adams]] and [[Graham Addley]] have ELs but those ELs are actually genrefs; all four are in {{t|BLP unreferenced}} and in my view, none are "unreferenced". They should all be in {{t|BLP sources}}. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Even if there is a difference between BLP unreferenced and BLP source it seems most people don't understand the difference - I would support merging them. I note that there are also around 100 articles in BLP unreferenced that include citation templates. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 02:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::@[[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]] what do you think about all this? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 03:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* Talk page watcher here. I find it highly unlikely that there are any BLPs at all who were born in 1815. Are we talking about vampires here? I only read the header. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:BLP doesn't apply to vampires and the Biographies of undead people policy proposal was rejected. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 03:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::This link really should be blue: [[WP:Biographies of undead persons]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 03:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::This joke actually worked because the link was blue on the app (where I saw it for the first time, so that's something to add to the list of things to tell the WMF). Anyways, merging the templates seems fine to me. My concern was more about the category's broader ramifications in general. It's somewhat bizzare to me that [[WP:BLPROD]] seems to have stricter standards than [[WP:PROD]]. You'd think that with how important the [[WP:BLP]] policy is, a random external link that may or may not even be reliable wouldn't be enough. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 08:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::I was rereading policy pages to make sure I got that last part right, but I think I did. This is a quote from the introduction to [[WP:BLPPROD]]: "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." So, therotically, you could have an unreliable source that supports a statement and that's good enough for a BLP (at least in the "not to be prodded" sense). [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 08:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::I may be explaining something you already know, but BLPs can also be prodded normally. You can also BLPPROD and then PROD again if the first doesn't stick. The advantage to BLPPROD is that it can't be deprodded unless a reliable source that supports something is added. I think this means we're continuing to have extra protection for BLPs. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::::[[User:Firefangledfeathers|@Firefangledfeathers]] Well I missed that (on my third reread, I see the note explaining this). Thank you for letting me know. I feel a bit embarrassed now but at least that somewhat makes sense. However, that part I read about "reliable or otherwise" still doesn't fill me with confidence. So I'm still somewhat confused. Is there something else I'm missing? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 18:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::I think they wanted BLPPROD deletion to happen when it's a slam dunk. Poorly sourced BLPs can still be deleted via regular PROD or AfD, and NPPers will frequently draftify such articles if they're newly created. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::::PROD is "delete it if no one objects". BLPROD is "delete it if no one adds a link". [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::::[[File:Lion d'Afrique.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Aslan|"Do not cite the deep magic to me, Witch. I was there when it was written."]]]]There's a good reason for that, I'm one of the people who built BLPPROD. For some background, see [[WP:BLPRFC1]] and especially my close of [[WP:BLPRFC2]]. Long story short, the community was split on whether the tens of thousands of completely unreferenced BLPs (I want to say there were around 80k?) were not a problem and should be left alone, or if they were a huge problem and should be nuked on sight. One day {{noping|Kevin}} and a few other admins went rouge and started mass deleting them to force the community's hand. Dramaboards, blocks issued, desysoppings requested, Arbcom got involved and gave them amnesty, it was a whole mess. The compromise was that we could create a "sticky prod" process that couldn't be removed without a source being added, but it had to be strict like that to avoid being too subjective. |
|||
*::::Personally I'd be fine with a proposal loosening it up to apply to BLPs that had only unreliable sources (or even switching the completely unsourced one to CSD) if there's an appetite for it. I came down strongly on the side of nuking them all, and when the implementation process started dragging instead of meeting the timelines I kicked off a second round of mass deletions to force the issue again. If you're interested in an alternative proposal that had decent support at the time and included reliability, there was one at [[Wikipedia:Deletion of unreferenced BLPs]]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:Hahaha. 1,815 unreferenced BLPs. The comma is important! –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:limegreen">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 03:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::I too immediately thought of the final days of what us Americans call the "War of 1812". But to the more serious point, it would be probanly useful but not a panacea to identify the totally unreferenced BLPs as opposed to the poorly referenced BLPs. On the other hand some totally unreferenced BLPs might be easy to reference properly with a brief BEFORE style Google search, and many poorly referenced BLPs may remain poorly referenced until deletion or the extinction of humanity because the references are garbage and the person is simply not notable. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*I've created two lists that might be helpful; [[Quarry:query/72074|this list]] contains BLP's that do not contain an external link, do not contain a citation template, and do not contain a reflink template. Most of them will be unreferenced BLP's, but there will be some exceptions like [[J. M. Marcus Humphrey]] and [[Geoff Cooke (rugby union)]]. |
|||
:[[Quarry:query/72076|This list]] contains BLP's that do not contain an external link, do not contain a citation template, but do contain a reflink template. Most of them have references, but many are not. |
|||
:I've tagged a couple from each with the appropriate prods, but there is a probably a better way to address this problem than overloading the prod list. If a list with clickable links would be convenient, let me know and I'll make one. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::One option would be to go through both of those lists with a tool like AWB, adding BLP prod's to the ones that have no sources (or using a different deletion process, to avoid the overloading issue), and adding cite templates and reflink sections to the ones that do. After that, we can run the queries every month and easily identify most newly created BLP's that lack sources. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 13:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I took out {{t|refbegin}} from the first one, and got down to 633 [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/72109]. Can we exclude the pages that have {{code|1=== References ==}} or {{code|1===References==}} in them? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::Unfortunately not; we are unable to access the contents of the article. This is also why we can't directly look for <nowiki><ref></nowiki> tags. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Check out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22Category%3A+Living+people%22+-insource%3A%22%3Cref%3E%22+-insource%3A%22%7B%7Bcite%22+-insource%3A%22%5Bhttp%22+-insource%3A%22%5Bhttps%22+-insource%3A%22External+links%22+-insource%3A%22References%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=eszgzhm0ipu6v9zcx8t6s44xs this search]. These appear to me to be a list of actually unreferenced BLPs (some false positives). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Interesting, it does appear accurate; the problem now is how to deal with them? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Well the way I see it, if I BLPPROD 500, and you BLPPROD 500, and Clover BLPPRODs 500, by the end of the week, we'll all be TBANed, so we should probably try something else. I bet there are some categories of these that have easy sources... like athletes and stats databases, which we might be able to batch process, reducing the amount that needs manual review. Like a py script that checks names/other strings against soccerway or something like that to find potential sources. In theory it could add the sources as an external link but that might be dangerous. Although it might be a useful thing to develop. Like, any automated methods of processing these could also be used to monitor and guard against new unsourced BLP creations. Wouldn't it be nice if a bot notified you that a new unsourced BLP creation was made and also told you it seems to be a soccer player bio and here's a link to the soccerway page about someone with the same name/team/position. An unreferenced BLP detector that suggests sources. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{ec}} Do we really want to deprive the [[WP:CESSPIT]] of the drama that thread would cause? |
|||
::::::::I think the process has to be us manually process the results to remove the false positives. Once we have those, I can split it by category; sports and similar where we know of database sources we can add ourselves, and for the rest we dump lists in the appropriate wiki-projects. Any that remain unsourced a month after we dump them in the WikiProjects we tag with BLPPROD. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::[[User:BilledMammal|@BilledMammal]] I can help out with manually looking at the results if that's something you want to do. Two heads are better than one. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 20:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'll produce a list in a more convenient format than the search results for us to go through. It might not be for a few weeks though, as I'm about to be away from my computer for a while and will only edit intermittently, if at all, through my phone. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::By the way, I missed some of the earlier threaded discussion here. I wasn't thinking of doing any sort of mass PROD campaign... I'd rather keep my nice clean slate from participation in drama, thank you very much. I was thinking something like more managable chunks (like looking at potential sourcing for one or two articles a day) and hopefully with several people working through the backlog something good could come out of that. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 12:43, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That sounds plausible, although I have no experience with writing Wikibots - at a minimum, an unreferenced article detector would be very useful. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::ChatGPT is like a cheat code for python. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::To write the code, or for the natural language processing? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::To write the code. It makes writing code (at least in py, haven't tried anything else) very easy. You give instructions in natural language, and it writes the code. You get an error, copy/paste the error, it walks you through debugging. It's amazing for this purpose, at least for simple things like web scrapers, APIs, list manipulation, graphing, etc. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=incategory%3A%22Living+people%22+-insource%3A%22http%3A%2F%2F%22+-insource%3A%22https%3A%2F%2F%22+-insource%3A%22nfl%3D%22+-insource%3A%22cbs%3D%22+-insource%3A%22%3D+References+%3D%22+-insource%3A%22%3D+Sources+%3D%22+-insource%3A%22%3D+Notes+%3D%22+-insource%3A%22External+links%22+-insource%3A%22Further+reading%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Here is a better search string] with 528 results; I checked the first page (20 results) and found no false positives. Anybody else want to take a crack at looking for false positives? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 01:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I doubt that I could find a better search string but I'll try to manually look through some of these results later today. I'll keep you updated if anything's interesting. :) [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 12:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::So I started manually organizing every article within this search string. I plan to go through everything. Interested parties can see the pending results [[User:Clovermoss/sandbox|here]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::@[[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]]: Instead of manually, I was thinking of doing that by script. Like, we could organize them by what kind of infobox they have, or what category they're in, or whatever we think is helpful. If you can suggest some criteria, I can categorize that list pretty quickly. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 23:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::@[[User:Clovermoss|Clovermoss]]: Do you know about [https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ Petscan] and [https://pagepile.toolforge.org/ Pagepile]? You can put that search query into "other sources" on Petscan, and have it output a Pagepile, which is a list of the articles with a unique Pagepile ID #. You can then use that Pagepile as the ''input'' for Petscan, and use Petscan to search those articles in any number of ways (by category, by infobox, a combination), and you can then output those searches into new Pagepiles, which will let you make your categorized lists out of those 528 search results. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 23:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I did not know about those two things. 528 search results isn't that intimidating to sort through (especially when it's 20 at a time). Maybe I'll try to learn how this works later for future reference, though. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 12:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>Track them down? If they're no longer alive then it's not a BLP issue.</s> If they're unreferenced, they're probably not very important. Just [[WP:STUB]] the lot. [[User:François Robere|François Robere]] ([[User talk:François Robere|talk]]) 13:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*At one point in time we had this category down to zero via [[Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue]]. -- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 20:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:12 short years ago. {{lol}} It's a worthy project, one of the few truly urgent backlogs. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::Yes, definitely aging myself by mentioning it. The project page does have a number of category breakdowns already in place that could be useful if anyone is interested in tackling the backlog that way.-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 20:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:::[[WT:Unreferenced BLP Rescue]] seems like a good place to talk about a backlog drive. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:51, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Response to question at [[WP:AN]] == |
|||
About the userboxes. |
|||
I'm cleaning up some userboxes in [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Railways]]. I've created a series on locomotive type userboxes: |
|||
{{yytop}} |
|||
{{yy|User:UBX/Diesel locomotives}} |
|||
{{yy|User:UBX/Electric locomotives}} |
|||
{{yy|User:UBX/Steam locomotives}} |
|||
{{yyend}} |
|||
I've moved them to [[User:UBX]] for clarity. This is allowed under [[WP:UBM]]. - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 18:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't really understand how [[WP:UBM]] allows edits like [[Special:Diff/1143182781]], [[Special:Diff/1143229804]], [[Special:Diff/1143249028]], but I don't know much about userboxes. Those are pretty! [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::*[[Special:Diff/1143182781]] was a merger of duplicate userboxes, via a [[WP:BLAR]]. Leaving a redirect at the merged userbox ensures the merged userbox will match the userbox it was merged into. |
|||
::*[[Special:Diff/1143229804]] was a duplicate userbox that, instead of merging, I turned into a unique userbox. Therefore, I moved it to my own userspace. |
|||
::*[[Special:Diff/1143249028]] was a migration to [[User:UBX]], as part of the series on locomotive types. |
|||
::Thanks, - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 18:49, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::* [[Special:Diff/1143182781]] doesn't look like the merger of duplicates to me, because [[Special:Permalink/885215626]] has different colors and a different picture than [[:Template:User Railfan]], plus it's in another editor's userspace. |
|||
:::* [[Special:Diff/1143229804]] also doesn't look like the merger of duplicates. [[Special:Permalink/1135785127]] has different colors and picture than [[User:UBX/Steam locomotives]], and again it was in another editor's userspace, and you moved it to your userspace ([[User:Tbf69/userboxes/LNER Class A4 4468 Mallard]]), and then redirected the other editor's userbox to the UBX page [[Special:Diff/1143255562]]. It looks like you stole somebody else's userbox and then covered up your tracks :-D |
|||
:::* [[Special:Diff/1143249028]] was after you [[Special:Diff/1143223618|edited somebody else's userbox]], then you moved that page to the UBX page. |
|||
:::I understand making new userboxes, I don't understand messing with other editors' userboxes, but what do I know. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 19:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I created the gallery [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Railways]] earlier so I wanted to clean it up a bit. But generally I don't think that changing other people's userbox is necessary. Although there's no rules on mergers/cleanups. - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 20:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::What I don't understand is: just because you made new ones, why are you taking other people's old ones? There can only be one steam locomotive userbox on Wikipedia? Seems a little extreme to me. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I guess it's somewhat obsessive, but I'd like to make [[Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rail transport]] clean and avoid duplicates. I did get the "covered up your tracks" pun BTW 😂😂 - <span style="color:#0080FF">'''''Tbf69'''''</span> [[User:Tbf69|🛈]] [[User talk:Tbf69|🗩]] 22:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::BTW did you get my joke about "covered up your tracks"? Cuz it's a rail userbox? :-) Anyway, I see you have an inquiry about this on your talk page to attend to, I won't take up any more of your time. Thanks, [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Jew with a coin == |
|||
[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#Recent research|Elsewhere]], {{u|Zero0000}} and {{u|Volunteer Marek}} said they'd be interested in seeing diffs of people adding/removing content saying "[[Jew with a coin]]" is/isn't antisemitic. So as not to spam that page, here it is: |
|||
Adding content suggesting "[[Jew with a coin]]" is ''not'' antisemitic: |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898172405|"artistic, sensitive treatment ... a good luck charm bringing prospertiy ... lightly mock traits associated with Jewisness such as dress or facial features, behaviours"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898173301|"innocent and even complimentary towards Jewish people"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898317508|"lightly mock traits associated with Jewishness" again]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898423262|"opinions on the nature of the modern figurines vary, ranging from harmless folklore or nostalgia to offensive or antisemitic"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898424689|"'insensitive but ultimately harmless expression of nostalgia,' comparable to the cigar store Indian in the United States"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898427422|"this motif effectively means that 'Poland has a “new Patron saint of capitalism” — and he’s Jewish'"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898556962|"About 50% of the surveyed correctly identified the motif with financial success; others pointed more generally to it being a 'lucky symbol', or just to it being a folk decoration"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898557294|"promoting Polish-Jewish dialogue"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898713009|"rejected the claims of antisemtism of the figures and pointed out desire to obtain wealth and positive image of Jews as being professional and high income of Jewish Americans"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898713442|"harmless friendly practice connected to positive view of Jews"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898812464|"important qualifier": only "some" Jews see the figurines as antisemitic]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898813915|start History section with Jews "played a significant role in trade and finance", the coins are "financial motifs"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898815149|"most do not realize such items might be controversial"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898815725|antisemitism is only one of "a number of dimensions"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/899057405|"ambivalent reaction among Jewish tourists"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/899143326|"key fact": "most modern Poles see this motif as a talisman for financial good luck"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/902186434|"promoting Polish-Jewish dialogue" again]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/902186538|"on one hand ... on another"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/906348619|"embody some bits of historical memory of Jews ... but mixed with myth, sometimes nostalgia, and after the war, occasionally empathy"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912399108|"harmless, friendly practice connected to positive view of Jews" again]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912549479|"good luck charm used to protect family"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/919801145|"tries to learn about religious and traditional aspects of the Jewish figures he reconstructs"]] (which is nice because all too often, people construct antisemitic Jewish figures without ever bothering too learn about their religious and traditional aspects) |
|||
#In 2021: [[Special:Diff/1051919664|"a harmless superstition and a positive, sympathetic portrayal of Jewishness"]] and [[Special:Diff/1051920530|"not the most popular good luck charm in Poland", "sometimes been criticized and called controversial"]] |
|||
Removing content suggesting "[[Jew with a coin]]" ''is'' antisemitic: |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=15em}} |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897967734]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897967982]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897976433]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897997924]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898198550]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898199372]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898554318]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898555449]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898658512]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898658669]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898659250]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898812142]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898835074]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898835196]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898837545]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/906346365]] |
|||
# In 2021: [[Special:Diff/1012748424]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
Bonus: saying "[[Jew with a coin]]" isn't popular in Poland: |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=15em}} |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897967329]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/897967915]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898658865]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898715110]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898715331]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898812380]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898835043]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898835125|"grammar"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898835273]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898852060]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/898863586]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/899147143]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/899153908]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912397888]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912400664]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912401852]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912405035]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912435510|"While highly reckognizable, most Poles neither hold nor use the figurines"]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912954327]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/912954808]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/914598269]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/919799073]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/920497548]] |
|||
#:In 2021: |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1051913209]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1051913391]] |
|||
#[[Special:Diff/1051914168]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
I also found one instance of ''adding'' "antisemitic", maybe I missed others: [[Special:Diff/906981157]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Yeah, this is BS. #3 is mine. It says right there in plain language ''"The practice is widely considered to be offensive, rooted in negative stereotypes, or [[antisemitic]]."'' so I have no idea how you get ''" suggesting "Jew with a coin" is not antisemitic"'' out of that. Let me guess - here comes a whole bunch of Wikilawyering about something completely tangential or irrelevant. Oh and is the problem suppose to be with the part cited to Lehrer? The same Lehrer that Grabowski and Klein cite so approvingly? The same Erica Lehrer that works at the United States Holocaust Museum? Let's see, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160630144741/https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/erica-lehrer here] is the archived version of that source. Fourth paragraph. Perhaps you should write her and accuse her of antisemitism.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I only glanced briefly at the rest of the diffs since they're not mine edits. And there what you are pretending is "suggests that the Jew with the coin is not antisemitic" seems to be mostly "include information that people who buy these things don't think of them as antisemitic". Again, based on sources. This is some really problematic manipulation you got going on here Levivich.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Your section on ''"Removing content suggesting "[[Jew with a coin]]" ''is'' antisemitic:"'' also shows absolutely nothing of the kind. What you really did is just linked like every edit that anyone that you or Icewhiz don't like to that article and made a completely gross false misrepresentation of that edit. The objection appears to be that Polish editors edited the article at all. Right. Please keep up these false attacks on others. By all means, please keep doing what you're doing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I realize it's probably futile to ask, but please strike #3 above as it clearly doesn't show what you claim it shows and constitutes WP:ASEPRSIONS at the very least if not a straight up personal attack.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::What [[Erica Lehrer]] actually [https://web.archive.org/web/20160630144741/https://www.ushmm.org/confront-antisemitism/antisemitism-podcast/erica-lehrer said]: {{tq2|If the question is what do these figurines mean, it really depends both on whom you’re asking, and also on which genre of figurines you’re looking at. So, Polish figurines depicting Jews, they’ve been around for a long time, and their forms have kind of evolved and served different needs at different times—whether as tourist keepsakes or as tokens of this deeply nostalgic, or even sort of political, attempt to reconnect with the Jewish past. Second, as these good luck charms, that are meant to bring prosperity at home or in business. And then, lastly, as these playthings that sort of lightly mock Jewish dress, Jewish facial features, Jewish behaviors, et cetera. And of course, there’s this new genre of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin. So it’s like one Polish penny—it’s called a grosz—kind of stuck to the figurine. And they raise new questions about, you know, even if the image of the Jew for a long historical sweep has been connected to ideas of magic and plenty and wealth, one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery.}} |
|||
::* To unpack that: what these figures mean (a) depends on who you ask, and (b) on which genre of figures you're looking at. "Polish figurines depicting Jews" have been around a long time serving different needs at different times. She then describes four categories: (1) "tourist keepsakes or as tokens of this deeply nostalgic, or even sort of political, attempt to reconnect with the Jewish past", (2) "good luck charms, that are meant to bring prosperity at home or in business", (3) "playthings that sort of lightly mock Jewish dress, Jewish facial features, Jewish behaviors, et cetera". <p>Lehrer's ''fourth'' category is the new one, "this new genre of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin", which "raise new questions about, you know, even if the image of the Jew for a long historical sweep has been connected to ideas of magic and plenty and wealth, one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery." [[Jew with a coin]] is in the new ''fourth'' category, about which Lehrer says "one can’t understand this without recourse to a history of antisemitic imagery". |
|||
::Here's what the Wikipedia article "[[Jew with a coin]]" said [[Special:Permalink/898268509|before your edit]] and what [[Special:Diff/898317508|you changed it to in Edit #3 on the first list above]], with the differences highlighted: {{textdiff|According to Erica Lehrer who curated the Souvenir, Talisman, Toy exhibition, Jews who travel to Poland often see the figrues as "inflammatory and shocking, and mostly it gets read in the context of antisemitism". Lehrer says that while one can not understand the figurines with the coin without referring the history of antisemitic imagery, the figurines are rooted in a long history that is more complex than just antisemitism. According to Lehrer, the folk artists creating the figurines, especially the older ones, treat the figurines with artistic, sensitive treatment. One use of the charms is as tourist keepsakes and tokens of nostalgic or political attempt to connect with Jewish past, whereas a second use is as a good luck charm bringing prosperity. Lehrer states that the figurines are seen in Polish folk society as innocent and even complimentary towards Jewish people.|According to Erica Lehrer the folk artists creating the figurines, especially the older ones, treat the figurines with artistic, sensitive treatment.Lehrer classifies figurines as serving need as tourist keepsakes and tokens of nostalgic or political attempt to connect with Jewish past. Other use is as a good luck charm bringing prosperity. Some the figurines lightly mock traits associated with Jewisness such as dress or facial features, behaviours.Lehrer states that the figurines are seen in Polish folk society as innocent and even complimentary towards Jewish people.}} |
|||
::No, I will not be striking #3 from the first list. The "before" version wasn't very good to begin with, but you removed "antisemitism" and added "lightly mock traits associated with Jewishness" to that paragraph in that edit. I think you actually misrepresented the source in that edit, since "lightly mock traits associated with Jewishness" is what Lehrer said about the third category of Polish figurines depicting Jews, ''not'' what she said about the fourth category, the figures ''with a coin''. Polish figurines of Jews aren't new; the ''coin'' is new, according to Lehrer, and the coin makes it antisemitic. But you took that out and replaced it with "lightly mock traits". |
|||
::BTW, this is why it takes a 50-page peer-reviewed journal article with 300 footnotes to document this sort of thing. For every edit, you have to look at (1) the source, (2) the before, and (3) the after. There are 66 edits listed above. That's just ''one'' article. The JHR paper looked at 25 articles. There are 1,000 or more articles in the topic area. No one will ever go through all the edits. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 22:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Yup, predictably Wikilawyering and manipulation. The text ''"The practice is widely considered to be offensive, rooted in negative stereotypes, or antisemitic."'' is right there in my edit. What you are doing is trying to argue over the proper interpretation of the Lehrer source. Ok, fine. So no, she is not describing four "genres" of figurines. She is describing four "different needs" they served. And she enumerates them. The idea that these are four "genres" is your own invention which you are using to make false accusations. Likewise she is most definitely not saying that only the ones with the coin are antisemitic she is speaking of the figurines in general which is obvious from her next paragraph, although she also says they are "embedded in a complex set of relationships in the present day". You're also conveniently omitting the fact that my edit was a revert of a whole bunch of changes Icewhiz had made to the article - not just the Lehrer part - with a whole bunch of nasty POV in it. Basically misrepresenting the context. |
|||
:::So, what was that context? Oh, that's right. Icewhiz created that article specifically to troll Polish editors whom he was involved in a dispute with. He stuffed it full of "all Poles are antisemites" kind of nonsense and then tried to DYK it. Even came up with like five different "ALT" hooks all of which were variations on "all Poles are anti-semities" theme (they got rejected).[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jew_with_a_coin] WP:COATRACKED it with other stuff. What was your role in it? Oh yeah, when this came up at the ArbCom case, you were busy running interference for him [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Edit_warring:_Volunteer_Marek_reported_by_User:Icewhiz]. And now here you are, four years later, basically doing the same thing. |
|||
:::The reason the article has 300 footnotes is because Icewhiz, and perhaps some others, provided Grabowski and Klein with their AE reports, their "evidence" from the 2019 case, their subsequent reports. I mean, don't get me wrong, collecting 300 "diffs" against your Wiki-enemies is in fact kind of impressive. Chance that Grabowski and Klein found them all by their lonesome? Zero. Just like the chance that they found that one diff from 15 years ago, buried deep deep in archives and page history, with my name in it, a diff I myself completely forgot existed, the diff that they used to dox me while maintaining "plausible deniability" - yeah chance of that zero too.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 23:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::That you did not remove ''every'' instance of "antisemitic" on the page in that edit does not change the fact that you removed "Lehrer says that while one can not understand the figurines with the coin without referring the history of antisemitic imagery" and added "lightly mock traits associated with Jewisness such as dress or facial features, behaviours." in that edit. (And if it were just one edit, I wouldn't have said anything about this article at all.) |
|||
::::Re: {{tqq|So no, she is not describing four "genres" of figurines ... The idea that these are four "genres" is your own invention which you are using to make false accusations.}} Let me show you how Lehrer describes four genres: {{tqq|... what do these figurines mean, it really depends ... on which genre of figurines you’re looking at ... whether as [first genre] ... Second, as [second genre] ... And then, lastly, as [third genre] ... And of course, there's this new genre [a new genre! a ''fourth'' genre!] of figurines where many of these figures now also have a coin [that's what makes them "new", they "now also have a coin", that's what differentiates the fourth genre from the first three].}} |
|||
::::Re: {{tqq|Likewise she is most definitely not saying that only the ones with the coin are antisemitic she is speaking of the figurines in general which is obvious from her next paragraph, although she also says they are "embedded in a complex set of relationships in the present day".}} Indeed, and you removed that from the article in that edit. |
|||
::::The rest of your response is just Icewhiz, <small>Icewhiz</small>, <sub>Icewhiz</sub>, <sub><small><small>Icewhiz.</small></small></sub> [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 23:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{tq|That you did not remove every instance of "antisemitic" on the page...}} Yes, this is exactly the kind of wikilawyering I knew was coming. "Oh well you didn't do what I accused you of but you did something else that I'm going to pretend is similar enough". |
|||
:::::And reason it's Icewhiz Icewhiz Icewhiz is because this is an Icewhiz article, Icewhiz dispute, and Icewhiz claims.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Levivich, thank you for making this list. I didn't look at all them in detail, but I did check that every one of your 23 examples except possibly #23 by the indeffed MyMolobaccount left the statement in the lead that the images draw on an antisemitic stereoype, and sometimes a stronger statement. If something is said twice and someone reduces it to once, is that the same as removing it, or is it just everyday back and forth? |
|||
Some of your points are reasonable, but many of your examples don't have the meaning you assign to them. For example, #6: It is of course a standard unsavory trope to associate Jews and capitalism, but this quotation from an unnamed scholar in an article by a Jewish tourist states that Poland does associate Jews with capitalism. That's the opposite of saying it isn't antisemitic; it's more like an accusation against Poles. |
|||
Or #7, which I think you misunderstand. The statues with coins are meant to bring good financial luck, based on the myth of Jewish skill with money. This edit just says that half the people surveyed (presumably when asked something like "what are these things supposed to do?") answered that they are supposed to bring financial luck. Others guessed it had a different purpose. Nothing here suggests that the underlying myth is true. If I ran a survey about [https://www.turkeytravelcentre.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Turkish-evil-eye.jpg this] in Turkey, I'd be able to write "90% of those surveyed correctly identified the symbol with the evil eye", but you would be not be justified in asserting that I claimed the evil eye is a real phenomenon. |
|||
On #8, the source says "Dr. Lehrer sees them as a point of cultural dialogue". I'm not completely sure what that means, but I don't see why we shouldn't report it (provided, as always, that the source is reliable). |
|||
Many of these are statements are about public attitudes to the objects rather than about the objects themselves. It's perfectly possible that someone who isn't antisemitic could own an antisemitic object. Out of ignorance, if nothing else. If there is a reliable source reporting that, there is no reason to censor what the source says. When I was young, many children played with a [[golliwog]]. It wasn't because those little kids were racist; in my country at that time most kids and their parents had never met a black person. Only in later years when consciousness was raised did everyone come to understand that golliwogs were not acceptable toys. Writing "people didn't consider golliwogs racist" would be completely different from writing "golliwogs aren't racist". |
|||
Erica Lehrer's talk at USHMM should have been cited more completely, both the parts that were cited and the rest, as she is clearly an expert on the subject. |
|||
In general, I don't agree with your attitude towards article writing. I have never believed that our purpose is to preach to the masses. I think we should locate the best sources and report what they say whether we like it or not. And we should report multiple opinions from reliable sources even if we disapprove of some of them. |
|||
In my opinion you did not meet my challenge to justify G&K's assertion about "money-hungry Jews who control Poland" even without the outrageous "control Poland" part. Even if this article fits the bill (about which your argument is weak) it is only one article and it was created by you-know-who for the transparent purpose of provocation. |
|||
Regards. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 14:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't want to argue those three diffs you point to because the editor who made them isn't part of this discussion and I'm guessing he wouldn't want to join it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 22:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh that's right. For all the talk of people being supposedly "driven off" this topic, it turns out that the only people that have genuinely been "driven off" via extensive harassment and abuse are those that opposed Icewhiz. And of course this here G&K article and the case are just the continuation of the same strategy. You know, some people believe that you have to "get rid of the bad apples first, then bake the pie" or something like that. The guy we're talking about here explained his departure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&diff=prev&oldid=1062120952&diffmode=source here]. Should I quote the relevant part? <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nice try but you've got the wrong editor. Molobo didn't make edits 6-8 on the first list. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 22:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I can see three problems with such arguments. <u>First</u>, our page does say it is considered as something based on the antisemitic canard, right in the lead, according to such and such sources. <u>Secondly</u>, the current version of the page reflects WP:Consensus, whatever it might be. That was a matter of dispute ''several years ago'', but was settled as soon as the disruptive contributor was site-banned. We are beating "dead horse" here. <u>Finally</u>, there are two different situations. One is a disagreement between contributors who suggest different summary of several sources (making such summaries is very difficult when the sources disagree with each other, as in this case). The contributors [[WP:AGF|are acting in a good faith]]. That is what was happening here, I think. An entirely different situation is intentional misrepresentation of sources. This is a bad faith action, and it is usually visible, i.e. someone is making things up. That does happen with some contributors, but I did not see this happening with VM or P. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:01, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You read all 66 diffs? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 17:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Why not 400? It does look like you think that spamming "diffs", which don't show what you claim they show, you hope that the sheer volume will convince someone that "there's something wrong". It's like the "diff wave tactic" on Wikipedia - low quality diffs that keep getting shot down but you just keep throwing more up. To waste people's time and deflect, confuse and insinuate.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 18:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::No, only those by currently active contributors, such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=898424689]. But the thing is: this is something the cited ''source'' says, not the contributor. Was such opinion expressed by the author of the publication? If it was, this is just a content dispute, let's AGF. If not, this is a misrepresentation. This is not so simple when someone is trying to summarize ''several'' sources that may say something different, if not outright opposite (as happens with this subject). In such cases, an opinionated contributor (I do not mean anyone specific) may indeed create a biased summary, but again, I usually follow AGF in such cases. In fact this is even more complex: one can not judge by any individual diffs because someone is making a series of changes and explains them at article talk page. Simply "diff, diff, diff" approach can be very misleading. It is important that I know editing by specific mentioned contributors on a large number of very different pages, and I know that they try to follow all rules (one them has an issue that was recently addressed on WP:AE), act in a good faith and contribute positively to the content. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Same as I said to Zero, the editor who made that edit isn't part of this discussion and I'm guessing he wouldn't want to join it, so I'm going to respect that and not talk about his specific edits. |
|||
:::::::Instead, let's look at what [https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-lucky-jew-imagery-is-so-popular-in-poland/ that source] (written by the [[Jewish Telegraphic Agency]]) says that was ''not'' in our article: |
|||
:::::::#The second sentence of the source: "Offensive to some and just bizarre to others, the sale of stereotypical images of Jews as good luck charms started in Poland in the 1960s. It closely followed the last large wave of Jewish emigration from the country, where 3.3 million Jews lived before the Holocaust. Only 20,000 Jews live there now." |
|||
:::::::#The third sentence of the source: "Critics believe it is an expression of centuries of anti-Semitic bias in a country whose society and government are famously struggling with the tragic history of Poland’s once-great Jewish community." |
|||
:::::::#"But some are simply fascinated by the phenomenon and its significance beyond its obvious perpetuation of the notion that Jews and money are inseparable." ''obvious perpetuation'' in the source's own voice! |
|||
:::::::In the revision you linked, that source is cited 8 times, but not for those three points, not that I can tell. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 18:21, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Whatever. I am looking forward to decisions by Arbcom like "Users X,Y,Z contributed to battleground mentality in this subject area" [diff, diff, diff]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 19:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Right, Levivich thinks that the ArbCom will do stuff like "Finding of Fact 1: Editors X, Y, Z did not use the precise sentence from the source that five years later Levivich decided he wanted" <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 22:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Weird thing to say about someone who is on record saying that Arbcom shouldn't even open a case. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 22:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I never understood that, considering arbcom cases ''are'' battlegrounds. When editors battle too much, we settle it by having a final battle about who battles more. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 20:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Indeed. I just noticed there are arbitration pages already. Based on them, they expect participants to bring "evidence" on each other, even though there were no ''recent'' and significant conflicts between participants in this area (unless I am mistaken). Well, consider [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/09/world/europe/putin-russia-war-ukraine.html this] for comparison. Based on my experience here, I would say: do not bring any "evidence" on each other, exactly for the reason you said: doing so would be conducting a wikibattle that no one needs. Looking from my perspective, ''no one'' here deserves to be topic banned. And if someone else brings an "evidence", [[Sermon on the Mount|Let God be their judge]], meaning [[love your enemies]]. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::But there is an evidence that might be helpful in this case. That would be an evidence about G&K acting as proxies of banned user I in their publication. This can be shown by making a comparison of diffs in their paper and diffs previously used by I, along with comparison of specific statements made by them and I. In addition to be an evidence of off-wiki coordination to ban contributors with whom I had some issues, that would also show that they failed to acknowledge the co-authorship of I in their article. That kind of things can frequently be evaluated by analyzing texts. I remember an interesting book by [[Benedikt Sarnov]] where he reviewed an evidence of plagiarism by [[Mikhail Sholokhov]] in [[And Quiet Flows the Don]] collected by different researchers. After reading it, I had no doubt that the book was written by 3 people, and only one of them (and a minor one) was Sholokhov. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::The notion that if two people look at the same data and arrive at the same conclusions, that's evidence that the second person is proxying for or plagiarized the first, is absolutely idiotic. I remember the same tactic being used against the Haaretz piece in 2019, arguing that they just repeated Icewhiz's claims. Haaretz is proxying for Icewhiz, Journal of Holocaust Research is proxying for Icewhiz, Signpost is proxying for icewhiz... pretty soon they're gonna need their own mailing list. 😐 [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 15:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Not if these people knew each other, met and discussed the publication. That is what all co-authors do. And this is not about coming to the same conclusion. This is about using same diffs. I am not saying this is proven or a fact, but only something that should be checked. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::The diffs are in [[WP:APL]], [[WP:AE]], etc. Of course they're going to use the same evidence. If two historians cite the same primary documents from the same archives, accusing the second of proxying for the first is absolutely idiotic. Everyone is pointing to the same diffs because those are the diffs where the problems occurred. It's like complaining that multiple paleontologists are all studying the same set of dinosaur bones. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 15:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::That's a complex question. First of all, one needs to politely ask G&K what was the role of I (and other WP contributors they failed to mention, you know there are such) in preparing the publication. Did they provide them data in the form of diffs? Actually, providing data could be just fine from research perspective. And so on. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 15:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Mozart == |
|||
In the RfC, can you please say what kind(s) of infobox? See the discussion for [[Carl Nielsen]], and the discussion about minimal infoboxes on [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music|Classical music]]. Do we really have to make people run into each other three places? -- [[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Sorry, no, I think it's better to just have a very brief, very neutral "Should the article [[Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart]] have an infobox?" RFC question. Feel free of course to make a comment in the RFC suggesting a specific infobox or linking to any other discussions you think are relevant. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:: Understand. Did you see the other two discussions, before or now? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hadn't seen them before but I did see them now. For my part, I don't really care about ''all'' composers, I just care about the big ones like Mozart. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 21:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::: (edit conflict) to clarify: I don't need more questions about my ''agenda'', when I have tried tried tried to avoid the topic for about seven years, so better don't say a word - see also {{diff|Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart|690319588||2015}}. |
|||
:::: (after edit conflict) For my part, it's the opposite, see [[User talk:Gerda Arendt/2021#Infoboxes for top composers|2021]]. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Have you seen [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Mozart|Mozart]]? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 08:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Haha, no I had not, thanks for letting me know. If I had a nickel for every time someone here called me a Nazi, I'd have to declare myself a paid editor. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 14:55, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I am less concerned about someone calling you a Nazi but - further up in that thread - that a whole side of users to an RfC was compared to the Wehrmacht, a military organization, saying - my understanding - that the "invasion" of another article by an RfC is organised warfare. It discredits all who came, as not coming freely and independently. The myth that I'm behind all this seems not to die. I think that an RfC should be published ''neutrally'' to all projects involded, - no idea if by a bot or a person. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 15:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm actually ''most'' concerned by someone insisting the Wehrmacht weren't Nazis. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich#top|talk]]) 15:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 19 June 2024
Thank you!
For your spirit and humanity in our discussion at AN :) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zanahary, right back atcha! Levivich (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- "If Wikipedia’s editors are distancing themselves from the ADL, that could suggest media, academic and partnering advocacy organizations will think twice about how they approach ADL data in their own efforts to inform their audiences on antisemitism." - CNN
- It's supposed to work in the opposite direction. Shit, this breaks the system. Levivich (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I also find the media coverage of this stuff so unhelpful. I don't want Wikipedia to be a black box, but I don't want it to be a CNN comments section, either. And any issues with Wiki's black boxiness cannot be solved with CNN commentiness, since users who don't understand how to engage and argue on Wikipedia are totally disregarded. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)