This is an archive of past discussions with User:Paul Siebert. 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.
Hi user Paul Siebert, I'm a professor of history in Southern California, and I am writing a conference paper on Wikipedia edit wars relating to Polish-Jewish relations, the arbitration of which you were involved in in June 2019. I was particularly struck by a comment you made on this pagehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Preliminary_statements (sorry, there is probably a more correct way to link to that), and I would really appreciate to hear more of your thoughts on this. I was wondering if I could email you a couple of questions. I am uncomfortable writing my email address here for obvious reasons. Is there any way to email you through Wikipedia? I looked this option up and saw that it is supposed to appear in the Tools menu on the left, but I don't see it. Once again I apologize, my knowledge of Wikipedia tools is fairly rudimentary. Thanks in advance and all the best.Chapmansh (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I temporarily enabled email communication, so you may email me. Usually, my email is disabled to avoid a possibility of off-Wiki communication. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Mkucr edit
I changed one of your recent edits (this one). The sentences prior to your edit had been:
"Several different terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants[1][a][b][c][d] and according to Professor Anton Weiss-Wendt there is no consensus in the field of comparative genocide studies on a definition of "genocide".[e] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"
you then made them to be:
"According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, any attempts to develop a universally accepted terminology describing mass killings of non-combatants was a complete failure[1][a] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"
and I just now edited them to be:
"According to Anton Weiss-Wendt, the field of comparative genocide studies has very "little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe."[1][a] Several different terms are used to describe the intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants.[2][b][c][d][e] The following terminology has been used by individual authors to describe mass killings of unarmed civilians by communist governments, individually or as a whole:"
I explained why in the edit summary, but I want to elaborate here because I think this has come up in previous discussions between us:
1) the excerpt from the Anton Weiss-Wendt source says, in part, "If we are talking numbers, comparative genocide studies are indeed a success. Upon closer examination, however, genocide scholarship is ridden with contradictions. There is barely any other field of study that enjoys so little consensus on defining principles such as definition of genocide, typology, application of a comparative method, and timeframe. Considering that scholars have always put stress on prevention of genocide, comparative genocide studies have been a failure." The "failure" mentioned by Anton Weiss-Wendt refers to the "prevention of genocide" consideration, not the lack of consensus on defining principles from the previous sentence. It could be argued that the lack of consensus is also a failure, but that is not how the source phrases it. Quoting him directly seems like the safest way to go.
2) I restored the other sentence with the five citations because they are important to understanding the details on this lack of consensus. Your prior edit had removed the sentence citing the sources/excerpts but had left the excerpts themselves in place, which caused red error messages to appear near the bottom of the page. However, rather than adding it back as the first sentence, I added it back as the second sentence. Hopefully that is more acceptable to you. I think it also helps transition to the third sentence. AmateurEditor (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I can’t tell if this edit summary is genuinely naïve or intentionally demeaning. It would seem remarkable that you have been so invested in the subject yet unaware of this spelling. Anyway, FYI, Kyivan is derived from Kyiv, adjective “of or relating to Kyiv,” and common noun “native or inhabitant of Kyiv.” It’s been used in English for at least 45 years. It is used in writing about Kyiv in modern and historical contexts. In recent years its usage in wp:reliable sources has a significant share when compared to the alternate spelling Kievan.
Google Scholar finds there are at least 2,550 scholarly works using this English word. It also suggests, at the bottom of the page, sixteen co-occurences as related searches, including Kyivan rus, Kyivan metropolitanate, Kyivan Ukraine, Kyivan Russia, etcetera.
Google Books search for English-language sources finds 405 results.
Wikipedia has 584 articles and redirects that use this term.
We should consistently use Kiev/Kievan or Kyiv/Kyivan within articles. Mixing spellings could be confusing for the reader. Kyivan appears ten times in Kyiv.
I have reverted your edit. If you want to contest the use of the word and remove other uses of it that are present in the article, please start a discussion on talk:Kyiv. —MichaelZ.16:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for setting up my archive I appreciate it. I was looking at this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van and saw that you worked on it a lot Shouldn't the lead say it was experimental basis for the NKVD van it gives the wrong impression the way it is now. I can not make the edit right do to the page protection maybe you can when you get the chance?Accountsadw (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I would be very cautious with the Soviet gas van story, because all available information is about a single incident, which was described in one tabloid in early 1990s, and then reproduced in various secondary sources. That creates a false impression of abundance of sources, which is not the case. The second independent source is some memoir that describes the same incident, but the description is very strange and controversial (it is a primary source, so we should use it with great cautions). There is one more memoir, which reproduces some hearsay, but it is too unreliable. That is why I doubt we should discuss Soviet gas vans in the lead at all. (My own impression is that Berg ordered to direct an exhaust pipe into the car to make the victims semi-conscious to facilitate their subsequent execution. IMO, that might be even more brutal than Nazi gas vans. However, we will never know that for sure, because the main document is the NKVD records of Berg's interrogation (he himself was arrested and executed). That 1937 NKVD papers contained a lot of bullshit, so I see no reason to selectively trust to that document.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
This is interesting can we do something about the lead then since it's given a false impression (During the Great Purge, Soviet NKVD used gas vans for killing prisoners.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_van like you said this is based of a tabloid from the 90s.Accountsadw (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC) It looks like it needs to be removed then from the lead as it is a false impression like you just showed with the context you gave to me hope you can help fix this thanks.Accountsadw (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
My edit
The reason I put it back was I was trying to keep the page neutral with the estimates. Because somebody else could put a study saying that the Russians killed more civilians, than the Germans did on the Eastern Front (I have seen Fringe studies like that) and it would go into one big edit war. Especially since the source name was The myth of the Good War it looks like a good book, but I think for a subject like World War II casualties we need to keep the sources vanilla what do you think?Buff of History (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, your edit adds the information that is not mutually exclusive with the existing data. Soviets killed more German military, and Western Allies killed more German civilians. The source that you replaced tells about German military. If you want, you can add information about German civilians separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"This article has a fundamental problem" section
Paul, I have not been keeping up with the numerous posts on that page and have not read that long section but I do want to respond to any of your points. Please let me know if there has been any substantive change from your initial post in the "This article has a fundamental problem" section and if so, what exactly you would like me to respond to. Otherwise, I will just respond to your initial post. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding. I WP:AGF. You are not a troll. Obviously, you feel strongly. But your intensity and extensive messaging is not going to change the outcome. When an unstoppable force meets an immoveable object... Some controversies cannot be resolved by consensus. 7&6=thirteen (☎)16:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Thanks. The only immovable object is "let's agree to disagree". When I disagree with someone, I point at factual errors or logical flaws in my opponent's arguments. If I see no errors and have no counter-arguments, I am not pushing my viewpoint, because that would be intellectually dishonest; I just quit. And the greatest sine against Wikipedia is "you haven't convinced me, I have no other arguments, but I still disagree." We are here to create a good content, not to please each other. That is a difference between Wikipedia and various Facebooks.
I am not sure you have to apologise for calling me a troll (I really not pay attention at such things if I see a user is not a troll), but if you feel such a need, the best way would be to come back to the MKuCR talk page and tell which my arguments contain factual errors or logical flaws. And, if you see no such errors, just honestly say that.
I would be less tough if all people tried to be logical and intellectually honest. Thus, I am trying to get a clear response to my simple question: "X, Y, Z are violation of our policy, because A, B, and C, and I have a proposal how to fix it. What do you think about that?" And I got not a single response where this my statement was refuted by pointing at my logical mistakes. You must agree that that is frustrating.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
"Analysis of main topic and sources" section
Could you please review my analysis of main topic and sources? You can do it either here, or at my talk page, so as to avoid making that talk page larger than it already is, which I agree with. My analysis of sources shows that they do not actually see a link between communism and genocide/mass killing; and in a few cases, they were cherrypicked.
I conclude that your analysis and charges are correct:
Your charge of NPOV, original research, synthesis and weight's violations, among others, is correct because sources do not support their topic, or that there is a link, but they can be used to support ours. This is not just my reading but the reading of scholars themselves. Both Semelin and Straus reviewing Courtois, Mann and Margolin, and Valentino, respectively, write they do not say there is a link between communism and genocide/mass killing; the former support equivalency between class and racial genocide, or of Communism and Nazism, whereas the latter supports Communist mass killing as a subtype of dispossessive mass killing, which is not the same thing or topic.
Semelin explicitly says "Mann thus establishes a sort of parallel between racial enemies and class enemies, thereby contributing to the debates on comparisons between Nazism and communism [not this topic]. This theory has also been developed by some French historians such as Stéphane Courtois and Jean-Louis Margolin in The Black Book of Communism: they view class genocide [not Communist genocide] as the equivalent to racial genocide. Mann however refuses to use the term 'genocide' to describe the crimes committed under communism. He prefers the terms 'fratricide' and 'classicide', a word he coined to refer to intentional mass killings of entire social classes [not to any excess death under Communist regimes]." The main topic is equivalency between Communism and Nazism, not mass killings under Communist regimes. They can be used for our proposal; they cannot be used to claim the currently-structured articles is supported by scholars.
Your charge the currently-structured article violates our policies and guidelines because
it discusses the events, which already have individual articles, and violates our guidelines of discussing only one main topic per article
the events themselves are not individually described as genocide or mass killing[nb 1]
no clear link is established; the sources used to support this topic are about "Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda, as well as cases of lesser violence in early modern Europe and in contemporary India and Indonesia", "the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina" and "the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, and the slaughter of the Tutsi in Rwanda." Communist regimes or genocide/mass killing(s) under Communist regimes is not their main topic.
it gives undue weight to the few authors who support the concept, even though Courtois et al. do not just discuss the events but make the narrative these were "victims of communism", and/or that there is a link between communism and mass killing. While the first point is a good summary of what they propose (hence why we would use them for our proposal to explain what the proponents say or think), the latter point is not so clear; as I wrote there, it is not clear whether they really see a link (some such as Rosefielde and Valentino clearly do not), or whether they are mainly discussing how evil Communism (Courtois) and (non-democratic) governments (Rummel) were.
is correct
Genocide scholars and historians of Communism, the ones we need as the aggregator sources, do not actually agree on the events or that communism is to blame or the link. As a result, we should not treat the topic as a fact but as a concept, narrative, or theory. If they actually agreed, there would be no point discussing this.
Several scholars questioned "[w]hether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss."
Historian Michael David-Fox criticized the figures as well as the idea to combine loosely connected events under a single category of Communist death toll, blaming Courtois for their manipulation and deliberate inflation which are presented to advocate the idea that Communism was a greater evil than Nazism. In particular, David-Fox criticized the idea to connect the deaths with some "generic Communism" concept, defined down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals. Historians Jens Mecklenburg and Wolfgang Wippermann argued that a connection between the events in Pol Pot's Cambodia and Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union are far from evident and that Pol Pot's study of Marxism in Paris is insufficient for connecting radical Soviet industrialism and the Khmer Rouge's murderous anti-urbanism under the same category.
Scholars such as Ellman even say "the very category 'victims of Stalinism' is a matter of political judgement", so how can we act like "victims of Communism", or "mass killings under Communist regimes and Communism is to blame", is any different or a widely-accepted academic fact as the current article does and implies? When scholars disagree, we treat the thing as a theory, not as a fact. We do not act like there is a widely-accepted terminology or consensus of a link between communism and genocide/mass killing. A neutral article respecting our policies and guidelines would simply not do that. Period.
Now what is to be done? I see no way out, as our analysis of main topics and sources is dismissed as our reading (even though I am basing this on a reading from Straus and Semelin), but apparently their unsupported reading of sources supporting the currently-structured article is fine? Their reading of Courtois et al. and Valentino as seeing a link between communism and genocide/mass killing apparentlt holds more weight than the reading of Semelin and Straus, who write they do not see a link, the former are discussing an equivalency of Communism and Nazism while the latter is discussing not mass killings under Communist regimes but Communist mass killing as a subcategory of dispossessive mass killing. Honestly, all of this is beyond me and I agree with The Four Deuces "there are always editors who cannot be persuaded by policy or guidelines." This is the case.
Is there a way where one or more admins can review the sources and tell whose reading (i.e. do they support the link or not? If so, is the link a fact or a theory?) is 'correct'? Because I really do not see a way out and the article is so blatantly in violations of our policies and guidelines, which these users adamantly support getting violated, when our proposal is a very fair compromise that would keep the article but rewriting it in an accurate and neutral way to respect our policies and guidelines. This needs to be solved because the more the currently-structured article exists, the more it is legitimised through citogenesis. You can see this already happens when users take the topic and sources, and the Prague Declaration as reflecting scholarly consensus rather than being an anti-communist political decision, for granted. I do not care whether I am 'correct' or not, but something needs to be done to establish whose analysis and reading of sources on the topic is 'correct.' It is going nowhere, but I wish you luck and hope you will change their minds. I am not confident or hopeful about it. You did change my mind though, so I hope this encourages you to keep it up your good work and not give up.
^The only exception may be the Cambodian genocide but that still ignores several scholars see that more as a result of fascist xenophobia, or Nazism, than communism; and that it was Communist Vietnam that stopped it in the first place, in generally ignoring the background and context; it is simply assumed that it was the result of "communism."
I think Czar is right, and we should pay more attention to Mass killing. I am going to focus on it and on my dispute with AE. After these two tasks will be completed, I can return to MKuCR.
Paul Siebert, thanks for your comments, summarising is not my strength but I try. I also agree that Czar is right, so I hope you can also improve Crimes against humanity and Mass killing. If there is no real discussion or mention of Communist regimes in either article, I do not see how they can be standalone articles. I believe that once we actually mention and/or discuss them there, there will not be much to tell in these synthesised articles and they will be turned into redirects, or rewritten like you propose. Davide King (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
sorry for the delay, tomorrow I will make my 10th entry, but likely I would run out the four day barrier a bit, hence I decided to inform you directly not to have doubts. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC))
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
We all should obey some Wikipedia rules, which require us to follow what majority of reliable sources say on that subject. To do that, it is not sufficient just to drop a link to some Wikipedia page (Wikipedia is not a source for us), instead, you should do a neutral search for information on that subject.
In addition, such claims as "all Russians hated Poles" is inappropriate (and factually incorrect). Similarly, we cannot say "all Germans hated Jews". Such statements are factually incorrect, and I doubt they are allowed at Wikipedia pages.
I noticed that you did not wait for KIENGIR's 11th entry before posting a 12th, so I responded with a 12th as well, but we should not get too far ahead of him. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we discussed this question in the past. I have since found a source with romanization for Old, Middle, and Modern Ukrainian (Shevelov 1979:21), and updated the “international” romanization table at romanization of Ukrainian. Cheers. —MichaelZ.00:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Are you aware of the fact that book reviews published in peer-reviewed journals are usually themselves not subject to any peer review? They are only read by one person, the journal book review editor (if the journal has such a position, general editor otherwise) who makes the call whether to accept the review or not. While it may be a form a peer review, it is not blind, and it involves only one person rather than the usual 3+ reviews a normal article is subject too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here03:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the peer-reviewing process (both as an author and as a reviewer). If your question was a response to my ARCA post, please, keep in mind that the reviews are used not as RS to write something in the article space, but as a criterion for reliability of some concrete book.
You should also keep in mind that a random person can hardly write (and publish) are review: usually editors invite experts for that. Therefore, I do not understand your concern. A review written by some invited expert is obviously much more trustworthy than an article in any mainstream newspaper of a popular book.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, A. Book reviews are often used for various claims about the general subject, not just the book itself. If this is not a good practice, this should be mentioned somewhere. B. As an author of some book reviews, I can attest to the fact that many reliable outlets are open to book reviews being sent without an invitation. This varies from outlet to outlet. For example, you cite the review in Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs. Nothing I see on their instructions for authors suggests that book reviews are 'by invitation only'. The journal seems very obscure (please do tell me why it is reliable outside of being associated with T&F? It almost certainly is not notable in light of WP:NJOURNAL). C. On a final note, you wrote at the mentioned request that "the review contains serious criticism of factual accuracy of The Volunteer". I disagree. <Flemming is critical of the book's title which he writes "endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth". Ok, so he is critical of the claim that Pilecki's volunteered (and for what it is worth, I concur that this word is not the best here, Pilecki likely "was volunteered" rather than "volunteered"). Other than that, he nitpicks at few minor issues and concludes that "Despite the problems outlined above, the book has several merits. It is written in accessible prose and includes numerous pictures and informative maps. It has many references (though some are imprecise and unclear), and provides some additional insight into courier operations and Pilecki’s peacetime life". This is hardly a "serious criticism". And where does Flemming criticize the book's "factual accuracy"? You'd be much better reading the review by Cyra, who's an expert on Pilecki's life, does find a few minor errors in the book, but concludes that "It is very difficult to find any factual errors in the masterfully written biography." Given that Cyra wrote many articles and books on Pilecki, I think he is a much better authority to rely on than Flemming. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here07:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Cyra is also noted in academic literature as promoting the myth here. One couldn't think of a more inaccurate representation of Fleming, who writes:
Beginning: "In The Volunteer, journalist Jack Fairweather presents some, but not all, of the features of the Pilecki myth to English-speaking readers."
"Fairweather’s problematic title signals the main weakness of the book, as does its first sentence, which endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth: “Witold Pilecki volunteered to be imprisoned in Auschwitz.” This assertion cannot be sustained."
"The second feature of the Pilecki myth that drives Fairweather’s narrative is that Pilecki was especially preoccupied with reporting on the fate of Jews in Auschwitz. In reality, Pilecki’s “mission” in the camp was to sustain morale, provide extra food and clothing to members of his organization, prepare to take over the camp..."
"The third feature of the myth relating to Pilecki—that his story was exclusively suppressed by the Communist authorities—is placed under some pressure in Fairweather’s account..."
Conclusion: " It is unfortunate that in addition to having an inaccurate, sensationalist title, the book is framed as a “new chapter in the history of the mass murder of the Jews and an account of why someone might risk everything to help his fellow man.” This has resulted in a hagiographic narrative in an Anglo–American idiom."
@Piotrus: the quote show that you've been caught with a stark untruth, which you are now repeating. Flemming is critical of several points other than the title, Flemming says "Fairweather’s problematic title signals the main weakness of the book, as does its first sentence..." - the title is just a signal that the book "endorses the dominant narrative of the Pilecki myth". It also "The second feature of the Pilecki myth that drives Fairweather’s narrative is that Pilecki was especially preoccupied with reporting on the fate of Jews in Auschwitz...", "oversimplifying in order to advance the narrative in a manner sufficiently compelling for a mass-market book", and a "hagiographic narrative in an Anglo–American idiom". Far from just the title. Shame on you.--Bob not snob (talk) 09:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Piotrus, the fact that reviewes are not subjected to peer-reviewing is totally unsatisfactory. First, the reviewers are invited by journal's editorial board, which implies some degree of selection (reviewers are experts in the field). Second, the review serves not as a source of facts for some article, but as an argument for or against usage of the book as a source.
I agree that the journal is not impressive (and I already wrote about that at ARCA). And that is why I proposed not a single criterion, but a set of four criteria. And the decision should be made based on all four criteria. If The Volunteer were found using google scholar (criterion 1 is met), and was cited several times without obvious criticism (criterion ii is met), the above review on it would not prevent its usage in Polish-Jewish topics. However, the book does not meet ALL criteria: not found in the Scholar and Jstor, not cited, ans the reviews, which was published in a relatively obscure journal, is not too positive.
However, this book is relatively new, and other books of the same author are well accepted. I think it makes sense to wait several years: maybe, it may become widely cited, and new reviews on it will be published.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul Siebert, I am writing to you because I have read your opinion on my AE request about the user "My very best wishes".[1] I worked for about 6 years on the Italian Wikipedia, I mainly deal with Eastern European topics. On the English Wikipedia I made few edits, because, unfortunately, I don't speak English very well, and I can only write short sentences, otherwise I would force other editors to correct my grammar, consequently I also know little about the community (I'm starting to know some admins and some users these days) and all the internal democratic mechanisms (such as requests AE or RFCs).
I am writing to you because I really need a third party opinion, because what is happening to me on the issues indicated in the AE request has never happened to me before. On the Italian Wikipedia it would have been impossible to remove dozen controversial contents in the same article, full of reliable sources, for "Undue weight". It could have happened on one piece of content, or maybe two, but all those removals by a single user would have quickly attracted an administrator to block the operation. Such behavior would be readily recognized as suspicious.
Perhaps in the Italian Wikipedia we give too much importance to controversial issues compared to the English one?
For example, the user writes: "his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant". Is such an answer acceptable? Is that what it says in the BLP rules? In the BLP rules[2] I also read: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone."
Yet, for the first time in 6 years, despite having multiple reliable sources, which support a certain thing, while reporting its content without adding a single word to the RS, I am continually blocked. I have the impression of being made fun of, practically I am unable to enter new content with accusations to which, seriously, I do not know what to answer. What is the answer to all "Undue weight" even for pretty serious facts? I can only answer that for me they are not considered "Undue weight", but at this point how is it resolved? Does this user want to push me to do an RFC for each line of text I want to include on Wikipedia? I find myself in the absurd situation in which I cannot even report what I find written in the RS, because it is removed for "wrong narrative".
Excuse me if I ask you this question but, also seeing that you have more than 20k edits, maybe you have the experience in such disputies to be able to give me advice. Sometimes seriously, I feel like I've entered a parallel dimension here on the English Wikipedia, and I do not understand if it is simply me who am breaking some rules (perhaps due to problems of fully understanding English)--Mhorg (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you are doing anything wrong. You should keep in mind that English Wikipedia is huge, and different topics are being edited by different people. Accordingly, topic-specific behavioural standards may differ significantly. I myself faced similar problems: when I started editing some Christianity related topic, that immediately led to a conflict, despite the fact that I did exactly what I am doing in other history related topics, where my contributions are seen quite positively by majority of users. Therefore, it would be more correct to conclude that the problem is with the users who opposed you. One of them has already been topic banned, and the appeal was unsuccessful. With regard to another one, that is a complicated case, and Ii am going to address to the ArbCom to resolve the situation with his problematic behaviour.
I see some problems with you edits, although they by no means violate our policy. We must be extremely careful when we write about Navalny, because our non-professionalism may have a negative impact on his reputation and make him more vulnerable (taking into account his current situation, that may be, literally, lethal). Therefore, a correct approach would be either to write highly professionally or not to write at all. In connection to that, any references to his nationalism and xenophobic statements should be placed into a proper context. Thus, it would be necessary to make it clear that Navalny's political views are changing with time, and to discriminate his statements made by him in the past from his current views. Therefore, a question of due weight and a question of a proper context should be discussed on a talk page, and only after some consensus is achieved can we add something to the article space. That is my opinion, and I cannot rule out a possibility that some information reverted by MVBW is really marginally relevant. Just think about that.
By having said that I do not mean that the inability to reach consensus in those discussion was your fault.
I am trying to avoid editing the articles that describe recent events, so I am not sure I myself will ever edit Navalny related articles. I am just sharing my thoughts with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
What would be the difference between ArbCom and an AE request, if I may ask you? Speaking of Navalny, I understand your point of view, but the controversial parts are practically squeezed to the bottom of the article and occupy a very marginal part of the text. I think it is impossible to say that the article is unbalanced (towards the negative, indeed! If anything it is towards the positive). Plus, I don't think it's our role to save or condemn Navalny. The facts remain facts, what he has accomplished for 7 years of pro-nationalist political views cannot be removed "because he has changed". If anything, it can be specified that over time his political vision has changed (but this is not already done by the article, where simply over the years the topics he deals are changed?) Specifically, would you advise me to open RFCs? is it correct to open several of them? Does each RFC last a long time or do they usually resolve quickly? Because really, I'm thinking of removing the RSS Feed plugin, every time I see a notification I get stressed. Thank you for your opinion.--Mhorg (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
All information is on the ArbCom page. Arbitrators analyze each case in details, and their decision is final. However, they accept a case only if sufficient evidences have been presented to demonstrate that the case does deserve their attention, and that all other means to resolve the conflict proved to be unsuccessful.
It is always good to open RFC if you have a disagreement that cannot be resolved at a talk page.
I am not sure I understand what do you mean under the "RSS Feed plugin", but, in general, it is normal to be stressed when you edit such a hot area as EE related topics. Welcome to English Wikipedia :) That is how we are working here :)--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind and thorough answers. As for the wikihounding cases I reported, I asked Swarm what he thought of them[3], but he hasn't answered yet. I am not sure if I am giving the "proper weight" to this stuff, but the user has also begun to meddle in discussions on my tp with other users.[4] It's normal? I am exaggerating?--Mhorg (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, if I were an uninvolved admin, I would have come to the same conclusion as Swarm, and that is not because there is no DE or wikihounding, but because your evidences are not too convincing. I could give you some advises, but I am pretty sure my talk page is being carefully watched by the same user.
Regarding meddling, you may let this user know their interference is not welcome (if that is your talk page), otherwise that is acceptable (unless you have some strong evidences you were not interested to know their opinion on that matter.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyway, if you have some additional information about questionable behaviour of that user, you may post it here. I'll take a look.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
About the Following, also an admin noticed the behaviour of the user.[5] Moreover, I find this other fact really unfair:
Gordimalo\LauraWilliamson collaborates on an article with My very best wishes,[6] both were opposing my contributions
Gordimalo\LauraWilliamson tries to get me banned by accusing me of sockpuppetry instead he is banned for sockpuppetry [7][8]
Gordimalo\Beanom comes out of nowhere and sides again with My very best wishes (Beanom was clearly a sockpuppet)[9]
My very best wishes does everything to save him,[11][12] even by contacting the admin personally.[13]
PailSimon intervenes in a discussion on the same article and goes against My very best wishes[14]
My very best wishes intervenes against PailSimon in an SPI[15]
Could it all be a coincidence? To me it all seems part of a plan to carry on their own personal POV-pushing battle on Wikipedia. If this is his way of acting and planning, I dare not imagine what kind of actions he has done on the whole encyclopedia. I have neither the knowledge nor the time to carry out an investigation of this type. I don't mean to have certainties, but strong doubts are legitimate at this point. (Could you please ping me when you answer me?)--Mhorg (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
This too can be interesting: speaking of what I call "whitewashing operations", a user came to write me on the talk page about what the user did on the article of a website linked with the Ukrainian secret services.[16]--Mhorg (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Mhorg (pinging per your request), I am not surprised that your AE report was declined. I expected that. The user we are talking about is polite and cautious, and all what he is doing looks like good faith mistakes. At least, that is what an average admin usually concludes from each separate case. Moreover, I myself thought the activity of that user was directed primarily against me, whereas other users have no problems with him. However, your case demonstrates that that the problem is more serious than I thought before. As I already explained, it would be naive to expect the admins at AE will take actions against that user: they are just amateurs who can barely devote more than 30 minutes to read all diffs and explanations. Remember, they know nothing about the subject of the dispute, but they see that user behaves politely and has a very long and clean history.
That is why arbitration is the only option. To understand how it works, try to analyse several recent cases, and read WP:EEML. That will give you a clue which reports are usually accepted by the arbitrators, and which are rejected. That work may require some time, but it is still less time consuming than long and fruitless disputes with that user. And, keep in mind that your opponent has a habit to declare he is retired/semi-retire/stopped editing, but he may change his mind at any moment.
Your information about sockpuppets is interesting. As you probably know, the same user accused me of socpuppetry and said I was "defending" some sock (although I just asked who was the master of that sock). Taking into account that the very same user who accused others of "defending" a sock, is himself a defender of a sock who was supporting his own POV, all of that looks especially bad. Keep in mind, however, that that user may edit his own old statements (similar top what he did in the above described case) to conceal his questionable statements, the evidences should be presented in a form of original diffs.
I am thinking about filing the Arbitration request, and if you want, you may add yourself as a party). Each party has 500 words to present their evidences. These evidences must contain the most striking examples of questionable misbehaviour, and they are needed just to convince ArbCom to accept the case. If you want to do that, try to think about the most convincing evidences that you will present (no need to discuss it with me). If you have no time or desire to participate in that process, that is ok. Frankly, I myself am not ready to do it right now, I am somewhat busy in RL, and I need more time to collect evidences. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Another case of blatant manipulation. In the AE request he defends himself in this way from my accusations of whitewashing the nationalist positions of that politician: "He say that I want to remove all "controversial issues", but I never proposed or tried it. [...] For example , his "nationalism" is now described in the 2nd paragraph of this section. I did not remove it, and I did not try."[18] Now that the AE request has ended, he returns to remove the part about nationalism, right in the 2nd paragraph, with the motivation: "this is all very old stuff (his views about that have significantly changed - see talk). This only disracts attention from things that are really important, especially in context of recent"[19]. So he lied to get out of the trouble he got into during the AE request. This user is systematically manipulative.--Mhorg (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mhorg, will keep that in mind. Interestingly, the removed text clearly links the past event with recent actions of the Russian government against Navalny, so the edit summary is obviously false. As you can see, I am not active now because I am busy in RL, but I am definitely going to return to that in future. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Paul, I haven't written to you in a long time. This morning I had the nice surprise: the user reported me in an SPI.[20]--Mhorg (talk) 08:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't understand much about what's going on. There is this new account,[21] probably a sockpuppet that knew MVBW in the past, which says that the user first called Biophys,[22] (Is it possible to change username in Wikipedia???) which was discovered to use a mailinglist to coordinate with other users[23] (if I understood well from English, if instead I did wrong, I ask you to better explain the issue). In this case, I wonder if there is something similar between MVBW and Nicoljaus,[24] which after 3 months of stop intervenes to help MVBW in the SPI against me, just to hit me: perhaps the SPI has been reported by someone with external methods to the Encyclopedia?--Mhorg (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mhorg. Currently, I am very busy in RL, so I am reading my talk page very rarely. Your last post contains all needed keywords that are sufficient for googling all details of the EEML incident, including the facts that cannot be found at WP:EEML. I am not sure I can disclose more details, because that may be considered as outing. However, I think that, being a party that has been attacked totally undeservedly (the SPI showed no linkage between you and other users), you have a moral right to search a publicly available facts about the story the user who attacked you was involved in. At least, I doubt that could be considered as a violation of the WP policy. However, keep in mind that if your search will lead to some information that connects some real names with some user accounts (I cannot rule out that possibility), that information should never appear on the WP pages, including your own talk page: that is considered WP:OUTING, and it may inflict severe sanctions on you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
No problem for late replies, life on Wikipedia goes slow. As was obvious, the SPI ended without action.[25] However, I find it really curious how, in a new SPI just opened, the same users always find themselves together, both in defense and in attack.[26] They almost seem to operate like a Wikipedia fighter squad. As for the research you told me to do, yes, I found something... even if I think the most interesting part still remain that of the wiki-off coordinations (mailinglist and so on) and the battleground mentality: characteristics that I seem to find all in the confrontations I am having with this user. Maybe my search-fu isn't strong enough?--Mhorg (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
If you are familiar with the EEML case, you probably know that EEML was that fighter squad. Since then, the former members of that squad made a significant progress, and my impression is that their current behaviour can be explained just because they are interested in the same topic (Poland). That is allowed until no off-wiki communication takes place.
With regard to the rest, cannot comment on that. Just keep on mind who is the user you are dealing with, and try to be cautious. And don't focus on him too much. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
I just wanted to thank you again for your great work and comments. I went back to the Archives just for them, and I found that those where you summarize scholarly literature and consensus, or lack thereof, would actually be good to use and an improvement for Communist-related articles. More recently, from your comments about revolutions to Communism and genocide, to the generic communism concept (I distinctly remember a related comment of yours where you said scholars do not really criticism communism as a philosophy or clearly distinguish it from Communist state; I really wish I could remember or find it) This peer-review is still relevant and current, and Karlsson and Schoenhals (2008) is the kind of source we need for such article, not Rummell or misinterpretations of Valentino, though I also agree with your criticism ("I generally support this proposal, although I am not sure that Karlsson and Schoenhals directly address the topic") and your analysis in general, especially "K & S characterised some sources, which are extremely popular among some fraction of Wikipedians (Rummel's non-peer-reviewed writings, the BB, some pro-Communist books) as fringe, and that is in a full accordance with the opinion of other serious scholars." If only most of your comments, which are backed by reliable sources and a simply a summary of them, would be more prominent in Communist-related article through, of course, paraphrasing, proper wording, and in respect of our policies and guidelines, or even just explained or put up as a note, much misinformation and misunderstanding, which is reflected in many Communist-related article and relative talk page, could be reduced. Indeed, I myself was guilty for such monolithic and generalized understanding of Communism.
This latest quote of your from there is particularly interesting and relevant because it explains why that article and many Communist-related articles reflect more those sources than academic literature. It is exactly because such sources are "extremely popular among some fraction of Wikipedians" that the controversial article is defended; it was, and in a way still is, a reflecting of how badly written and referenced are many Communist-related articles. Instead of relying on scholarly literature, they rely on many sources used for that article (Courtois, Gray, Rummel) and popularly-press sources (Applebaum, Montefiore), or sources are used selectively or misrepresented. Soviet-related articles rely too much on Applebaum, Conquest, Pipes, Service, and in general from anti-communist or orthodox historiography and totalitarian model rather than historians like Sarah Davies, Fitzpatrick, Getty, Wheatcroft, and the like, who are mainly used in reference to the archives estimates, when they could beused as more neutral sources for key and uncontroversial facts, or specialists and country experts (Ellmann, Snyder). Likewise, Chinese-related article rely too much on that same side (Dikötter, Jung, Yang) rather than country specialists, and so on and on, you get the point; Courtois et al. are treated as the majority and mainstream view, when it seems to be that the reverse is true, or that if equally reliable, the more neutral source is to be preferred, and in most cases it is not from the anti-communist side (pro-Communist side is fringe).
In general, such articles are treated like, or reflect, a monolith, and do not properly explain that "Communist regimes are poorly connected to each other"; instead, they are too generalized use, due to the use of acceptable but subpar sources, and in general reflect a popular press POV rather than the academic press and consensus, which in turn lead many Wikipedians to see them as a monolithic. Therefore, I think it would be a good thing to paraphrase your comments, which I assume are verified and backed not just by any reliable source but by academic ones, to provide more context and improvement for Communist-related articles. I am especially interested in the scholarly Communist literature (mainstream, revisionism, fringe, majority, minority, and the like), and I wish there was a scientific review that summarized this, and that such an article could be created on Wikipedia and used as a general reference, and an improvement tool, for all Communist-related articles (i.e. if a scholar is not deemed relevant to be there, it should not be cited in Communist-related article, or as a summary for the interpretations of the events, which would then be improved to reflect this, and so on).
This is all the more reason why I really hope Mass killings under communist regimes is rewritten according to your proposals and solutions; I am really curious about how it would look like and read. I understand that this would require much work but I think that it would be worth it, and I understand if you do not have the time to do that; you can still help by providing a general list of references from which came many of your insightful comment, or provide me a list of scholarly Communist literature, and I could try to paraphrase and add them. In a way, thanks to your comments, I already did that for Benjamin Valentino, Communism, Genocide studies, and Mass killing.
Insightful quotes of yours
Quotes
However, if you read any source from this list, and the sources presented there are pretty good quality secondary sources, you may see that most of them agree that violence is a necessary component of most revolutions. In addition, the most deadly "Communist mass killings" (as defined by Valentino) took place long after revolutions, and, therefore, it is not clear what relation between the Finlay's notion about revolutionary violence and Valentino's "mass killings" that happened many years after Russian or Chinese revolution. Conclusion: the source was misused to create a false impression the author draws a linkage between mass killings and Communist ideology, whereas it confirms that Marx was advocating revolutionary violence (the same thing that other, non-Marxist revolutionaries did). Remove.
Again, I see nothing unusual in Marxist attitude to revolutionary violence. In XIX-early XX century, most revolutionaries supported violence, and that was not a specific trait of Marxists. The problem is that majority of the events that article is discussing took place long after socialist revolutions, so it is hard to tell how Marx's or Lenin's views of revolutionary violence are related to post-revolutionary events.
Second, Red Terror or Kronshtadt rebellion are the Civil war events, they fall under a "revolutionary violence" category. Meanwhile, this article discuss much broader range of events, and the most deadly events are separated from the revolution by more than 10-20 years period. How these events are connected with Lenin's "State and Revolution"? It follows from S&R letter and spirit that Lenin believed no state would exist in such a "distant future", and no state violence would be possible at all
Thus, a famous Marx words about liquidation of bourgeois as a class were interpreted by some later leaders as "physical extermination of them", which is a total nonsense and directly contradicts to the spirit of Marxism: for Marx, membership in some class means involvement in a certain type of economic relationships, and not as some biological trait, so if, e.g. a bourgeois becomes deprived of their assets, they cannot act as a capitalists any more, which means they stopped to be capitalists. In that sense, "liquidation" meant "deprivation of all capitalist possessions"
You refer to Marxism as a quasireligious concept. Yes, to many people it was a kind of religion. However, the same can be said about many other things. Thus, science in general became a religion for many people in XIX-XX centuries. That is a legacy of Enlightenment, whose latest reincarnation Communism was. Many, many people expected too much from science, and many of them believed in it in a religious manner. Hence a disappointment, which we are witnessing now. That is normal
Nazism was killing people by their biological traits - Stalinism was intrinsically non-genocidal (I recall I saw one source that explicitly said Marxist ideology was a restraining factor that didn't allow Stalin to unleash a true genocide; you also may read "Affirmative action empire" a broadly cited book. Finally, genocidal activity of Nazism was quickly stopped (mostly thanks to Stalinism)', so we don't know the actual scale of potential Nazi mass murders, whereas the murderous potential of Stalinism had its natural limit
Those are just the most recent but there are so many even from years ago.
Quotes
The literature available to me tells that different Communist regimes are poorly connected to each other, so the authors who study them pay more attention to historical aspects and other factors to describe the events there. For example, many authors prefer to describe North Korean regime as neo-Confutian rather than Communist. The monographs about Cambodian Genocide outline at least two other factors (in addition to ultra-Maoist ideology) that caused killings: extreme Khmer nationalism (Khmers were desperately poor and rural, ethnic Vietnamese and Chinese were much more wealthy and urban, and Khmer's revenge tradition
Regarding African countries, the difference should be made between the regimes that conducted Communist transformations and the regimes that just nominally declared it to obtain Soviet help
I am also curious about your latest response. As much as I appreciate them, I think you are arguing against a wall, and nothing is going to change their mind about it; they do not even admit that "[your] arguments have much more solid ground ... [that they] made a mistake, and join a discussion about possible ways to fix it." They do not say anything new and insist of their interpretation of Valentino, which is based on their own reading as a primary source rather than secondary and tertiary sources as you did in line with our policies and guidelines, but I look forward to your response on their latest comment, especially in regard to their game of telephone argument. Davide King (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
Here, I just added this: The totalitarian perspective of equating Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union under Stalin is not conceivable and is a misunderstanding of the two distinct natures of the regimes, which is why they were enemies. Stalin's main goal was to create a socialist state, under the banner of socialism in one country, that was autarkic, industrialized, and multiethnic. Genocide was not in Stalin's plans, rather nationalism and nation-building were, and it was not inherent in the building of a non-capitalist, non-expansionary state. (The Oxford Handbook of European History, 1914–1945, p. 378) This just proves that you are right about your comments on Marxism, Stalinism, and genocide but unfortunately Wikipedian articles do not reflect this. Nowhere do we state that Stalinism "was intrinsically non-genocidal", even though it is reported in a good tertiary source like The Oxford Handbook; the mere fact we do not say or clarify that just leads most users to think that it was, so Marxism was also genocidical, and MKuCR is totally correct.
Speaking of that article, I think it would be better if it were moved to Comparative analysis of Nazism and Stalinism because the topic should not be a comparison, which gives more weight to similarities, but a true comparative analysis that gives weight to differences and similarities according to their weight in sources, how accepted the comparative analysis is, etc. I think the current article has several problems that I wish you could help solve:
It gives too much weight to similarities than differences, and it is written as if the main topic is only highlighting the similarities, with the differences either reduced as minorities or as criticism rather than just as weighty, if not more, and part of the comparative analysis process.
We need secondary and tertiary sources for what Arendt et al. said and thought. Arendt et al. are perfectly fine for key facts, like the Nazis did this, on Day 10 the Soviet did that, etc. but we need secondary and tertiary sources for their thoughts:
to make sure that we are not misrepresenting them, as is done for Valentino
to make sure that we do not too much weight to cherry picked part of their works, and not enough weight to others
or we should have at least a seondary/tertiary source for each other that can help us for summary and weight but currently they are only sourced to the authors thesmelves alone
It has a similar problem with MKuCR in that it is written from the POV of those who support the comparative analysis, which in turn lead us to highlight the similarities. Did really Arendt only discussed the similarities? So we have Arendt, Brzezinski, and Friedrich only discussing the similarities, while all the others discuss both. Brzezinski, and Friedrich in particular discuss totalitarianism more than anything, and especially "Totalitarian systems and autocracies" and "Five pillars of totalitarian systems" looks like they would better suit Totalitarianism than that article.
I also agree with your comment that "[w]hen historians use the word 'Stalinism' they always mean the regime. When historians write about Nazism, they may mean the Hitler's regime or the ideology he created. This should be properly explained in the article, probably, in a separate section.
I think this comment of yours is still relevant, and I wonder if you still think this, if the article is better or worse since then, etc.
I am not sure if the question I am going to rise has been asked before, but don't you think we need to define the subject of the article first? The title is ambiguous: it may mean (i) a discussion of different attempts to compare Stalinism and Nazism (i.e. why, with what purpose, and when were these attempts undertaken), or (ii) a discussion if differences and commonalities between these two regimes. Both topics are notable and deserve separate articles. They can [be] combined in a single article, but for that, the article should be properly structured.
In general, I am not sure whether your aforementioned comment is still accurate, or the article still has the right structure and properly reflects the literature; this is why I always prefer that we use secondary/tertiary sources independent of the authors when we discuss their views and interpretations, for the risk that we misinterpreted them, or engage in original research and synthesis, is much higher. I am also simply curious about what a version of yours would look like. Davide King (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism (and Communism in general) is a narrative, not a collection of facts. Therefore, it is necessary to put it into a proper context, concretely:
1. Who proposed to compare them?
2. When (in what historical context)
3. Why (what concrete idea conveyed by that)?
4. Who are stressing similarities and who points at differences?
By the way, Rosefielde's main point is that Communism in general (although he focuses mostly on Stalinism) is less genocidal, and that is a key distinction from Nazism.
I was just about to write you only a new section for your latest comments and the whole dispute, and I was very happy to find out you did reply me to this. The "is a narrative, not a collection of facts" wording is perfect (you always find the perfect way to express what I think) is the perfect summary of it). I really wish you have many more articles on your watchlist because your help, knowledge, neutrality, reading of our policies is desperatily needed but I agree the MKuCR should be your priority, and right after the comparison between Nazism and Stalinism. About Rosefielde, wow... so we have yet another scholar who is misunderstood and does not hold extreme views as some users appear him to hold. I believe that Rosefielde also wrote about excess mortality in 'democratic'-capitalist Russia; I wonder why only his views about Communism are highlighted... (sarcasm). Finally, I wish I could have conversation with you about Communism, Nazism, totalitarianism, and many other topics, either here or wherever, because I want to know more about them, in particular the views and consensus of scholars (mainstream, majority, minority, fringe, etc.), which is something that you are amazingly good to individuate. I would really like to read the source about Rosefielde's main point, so I can try to improve his article and provide an accurate and neutral picture like I did for Valentino, again especially thanks to you. Davide King (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
"Stalin, etc."
In regards to this, it makes more sense now. To be fair, I believe that I did use too some sarcasm to the false accusations, and more recently ("Can you at least understand [mine and Siebert's point] and realize that I am not some Soviet agent provocateur?"), because that was really too much. Trust me, in real life I am much calmer and more like you when discussing, which is why I really appreciate you, but this whole thing... it is something different. I truly appreciate your patience and good faith, so please do not stop your amazing work, even if just on a talk page; however, I have to agree with TFD in that users do not even understand the topic and have no academic knowledge (I know that because I was one too but thanks to TFD's and your comments, I did my research and I feel much more knowledgeable enough to discuss it than ever before). Nonetheless, I feel like I belong to the political centre in this; pessimist like TFD but still hoping that eventually rationality and policies will win, like you do, over POV-pushing and lack of knowledge.
In regards to this, it was again a perfect summary of the dispute, I just would like to clarify one thing. I was not actually aware of the totalitarian state part in the resolution because I did not actually read it, and find out about it, until you kindly provided the translated quote. I simply thought that it had nothing to do with the topic, and The New York Times only emphasized Stalin's part, so my main fault was not having been as meticulous as you; again, thanks to you, I have improved my reading of our policies and become more strict.
I still think that it does not have anything to do with MKuCR (it belongs to the massace's main article), even if sourced to The New York Times or your scholarly sources because they do not discuss the topic, but the previous wording was at least better. Again, may I remind you look at this? In particular the final two comments I made there, and whether I got the country-specialist dispute correct because if you support their additions, AmateurEditor have no excuse, since we do already discuss many resolutions from EU, Latvia, Russia, etc. which have nothing to do with MKuCR and everything to do with single events, so why not use country specialists? Perhaps, and I may make a bold, sarcastic prediction, because that would completely show that you are 100% correct on this and the article violates NPOV, among many others? Wink wink
Paul, is there anything in particular you would like me to respond to, other than your comment here? I am thinking of starting a new talk page section with excerpts from sources so we can all have the same basis for our discussions going forward. AmateurEditor (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
If you agree with the option 1, then the whole article should be rewritten. The reason is very simple: if we are writing about the events, we should reflect what majority sources say about the events. Rummel doesn't say much about events, Valentino doesn't say about events, Courtois doesn't say about events - all of that just interpretations. Majority of good sources say about individual events and about individual countries, and we must follow what they say.
I propose to start with "Causes", as soon as we started discussing it. The new scheme should be as follows:
USSR
Red Terror
Great Purge
Great famine
China
Civil war
Great Leap forward famine
Cultural revolution
Cambodia
(...)
Attempts to propose general causes
Role of ideology
Leader's personality
(...)
Of course, the scheme is tentative, and the details are a subject of discussion.
But the article is primarily about the events collectively, not the events individually. Individual events are subtopics which have subsections. Per policy, ALL sources about the (aggregation) topic should be neutrally included, but this proposal of yours just looks like a scheme to delete most of the article and all of the aggregator sources. That causes an insurmountable synthesis problem. AmateurEditor (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
That is ok if the collective description of the events is consistent with their description in individual sources. However, as we can see, that is not the case in this topic. If the description of some event is different in different sources, we must represent a majority view first. It is easy to see that, for example, majority sources about the Great Chinese famine describe its causes quite differently than Valentino or Rummel (and even do not call it "mass killing"). We must follow what majority sources say about that, because we all achieved a consensus that the events, and not the way the events are being described is the article's subject.
You know very well that the famines are disputed cases of mass killing. The other events are not. Terms vary; you are attacking a straw man if you are saying a majority of individual event sources use terms other than "mass killing" to refer to the non-famine events. And I suggested moving the famine details to the "Debate over famines" section and you ignored it. Instead, you just keep repeating your google search proposal. It is original research to determine majority views by counting sources. That is not what WP:WEIGHT says at all: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" In other words, a tertiary source. Tertiary sources are not required for articles, and in the absence of them we present all significant minority views/non-fringe views from reliable secondary sources neutrally, per WP:RS/AC. Your proposal to use search results is specifically warned against at Wikipedia:Search engine test, specifically at WP:HITS: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability."AmateurEditor (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Famine are responsible for lion's share of deaths under Communists, and even if only this category is not considered as mass killings by majority sources (which is an absolute truth), that immediately makes the statement that MKuCR scale was 85+ million a minority if not fringe view. But it is not represented as such in this article. I am giving you just one example, and that is by no means straw man. I can give a lot more examples when some individual statements are interpreted in such a way that the look much broader than what the authors say in reality. However, all of that are minor details. If the article is about the events, let's describe events using ALL sources, not only those that group them in a some specific way. This is a direct violation of NPOV and NOR--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
However, if you believe that the focus is the collective description, that means the topic is a narrative. I personally do not mind that approach, but the talk page consensus is against that. Therefore, stop pushing that idea, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean an old and long standing consensus, as I remembered it.
If you think there is no difference between a narrative and a description of the events, that is a separate story. You are definitely wrong, and I suggest you to stop editing the article and read more to understand that difference.
These two things are the same if, and only if, there is no disagreement (open or implicit) between different sources. In reality, even the quotes provided by you (part of which are poor quality sources, btw) tell different stories. In reality, we have multiple, conflicting narratives, which define the subject differently, use different (sometimes mutually contradicting) facts and figures and come to different (sometimes, quite opposite) conclusions. But a situation is even worse: most sources that discuss the very same events tell a totally different story about them. It is impossible to create a logically connected and non-controversial text from all of that using your approach. In reality, the article arbitrarily took some concrete POV (actually, rightist anti-Communist POV) and is pushing it by means of selective citations, manipulations with article's structure and synthesis. The article is a piece of garbage (by the way, extended quotes may be a violation of our WP:NFCC policy, and that is another and very serious problem), and instead of recognizing that, you continue to repeat your old arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Clarification about main topic supported by Davide King
TFD and I supported the narrative mainly because we opposed the current events version which treated the narrative as fact. I am not opposed to an events-based article that is neutral, as proposed by Siebert, and I believe neither TFD. As evidence, TFD clearly mentioned Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as a topic supported by the literature (Some writers have connected mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The thinking is that Stalin influenced Mao, who influenced Pol Pot. In all cases, mass killings were carried out as part of a policy of rapid industrialization.), and they only spoke against MKuCR as a topic, like I did, as SYNTH like mass killings under Christian and English-language regimes.
I wrote that now I support this to be about the events since, at least in theory, this article is, or should be, already events-focused, so we can just rewrite it, while for the theory and narrative we can create a separate article, and both could be helpful in improving each other and providing further context, and complement each other, and I believe we are the ones who are accommodating by allowing both types of sources to be used, while AmateurEditor only support one type, and not the right one. On the other hand, AmeteurEditor, despite their words, support the narrative but unlike TFD and I, they actually believe in it or have a view which misread sources and clearly violates NPOV, as demonstrated by Siebert.
Finally, I am now sure that AmateurEditor does not understand what we mean when write about narrative; rightist anti-Communist POV sounds about right and is a good summary of the narrative and the POV the article currently takes and represents. But yeah, Siebert actually got it right (again) on where consensus stands on the main topic.
@Paul Siebert - could you please take a look at this conversation -->[27] when you get a chance? Please tell me what you think. I’m a little shocked but I just want to make sure that I’m correct it my judgment. - GizzyCatBella🍁19:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Holodomor genocide question (Simon Payaslian article on Oxford Bibliographies)
I know you have cited that 2018 academic review, where no consensus have been found, but have you looked at this? How much weight does that have? Is the genocide question over? Thank you. Davide King (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated addendum
I do not know if you have read this but your comment here perfectly explains what I meant, and is why the topic should be your summary of "Communism as the greatest mass murder", because it shows that we simply cannot have any under Communist regimes article, even if it was about the more accurate excess mortality terminology, because scholars do not do such generalizations and/or categorizations. It still borders on OR/SYNTH because, correct me if wrong, majority sources are not writing in the context of Communism grouping but within each country's context, and the only grouping is Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (e.g. Jones, Karlsson, and Valentino, though Jones discusses Mao and Stalin together and Pol Pot separated, which prove the generic Communist grouping is not good or even followed by majority scholars). Davide King (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.
A very long time ago (in Wikipedia terms), I noted your patience and civility; it was something which I found both necessary and useful to emulate. That said, I'm practically apologetic for my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) given how much effort, in utter good faith, you've made in relation to that article. However, I can't but see it as one of the most egregious examples of an article driven by ideological purposes congenitally laced with POV and SYNTHESIS. Kind regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
While I truly appreciate your comment here (you were right to respond), I think it is a waste to discuss with them (unless you can summarize their falsehoods and misleading comments in just a few sentences), and I would hope that you can address and debunk 'Keep' votes that say there are no issues. Also what are your thoughts on this? Editing the article, and making such edits (see diffs), while an AfD is ongoing ... is disrupting to say the least ... Goldsztajn is also free to comment on this. Davide King (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. @Cloud200: presented rational arguments that are based on reliable sources. Until I got ironclad evidences of the opposite, I assume she sincerely misunderstand some important concepts, probably, because she has no access to high quality sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
My only wish is that whoever close this (I agree it would be better to have a panel) find the time and way to read such rebuttals of yours. This is a rational argument for 'Keep' that may be worth discuss. Davide King (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
As so much is going on, you may have missed this. It is relevant because "adding it to my long collection of quotes from Siebert and Kinge [sic] who run around teaching others about WP:NPOV while at the same time justifying ones between them" may be considered one more of the many personal attacks and false accuses they have made. "And yes, what I'm doing here is accusing you of WP:DE and I'm determine to take this further as I can clearly see you have now replicated the same tactics in the DRN and AfD."Davide King (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
"Hegemonic representations of the past and digital agency: Giving meaning to 'The Soviet Story' on social networking sites"
Do you have access to "Hegemonic representations of the past and digital agency: Giving meaning to 'The Soviet Story' on social networking sites"? I am curious because I found a passage saying: "By using Editor Interaction Analyzer (nd), 7 we can see that more than two users have also co-edited other Wikipedia articles, such as 'Russophobia,' 'Occupation of the Baltic States,'
and 'Mass killings under Communist regimes.' Furthermore, different perspectives on the ... ." I am curious about the context and what is saying exactly.
"Regardless of the fact that some users are anonymous or avoid revealing detailed information about their offline identities, we can still outline basic features of this active core. As Table 1 shows, the location of Wikipedia editors extends from Australia to North America to Latvia.6 Some of the users in their profile information emphasize their ability to speak Latvian (YYYYYY, ZZZZZ) or Russian (AAAAAA, BBBBBBBB). The most active editors have also edited other Wikipedia articles related to Soviet, East European, Russian, and Baltic issues and some of them evidently know each other as they have co-edited and interacted within other thematically related articles. By using Editor Interaction Analyzer (n.d.), we can see that more than two users have also co-edited other Wikipedia articles, such as “Russophobia,” “Occupation of the Baltic States,” and “Mass killings under Communist regimes.” Furthermore, different perspectives on the Soviet Union that become salient within the article The Soviet Story can be observed more or less explicitly in other articles as well. For example, while YYYYYY and XXX highlight the dark side of the Soviet Union, AAAAAA and BBBBBBB are inclined to neutralize its negative aspects. This interaction at times resembles edit wars, where parts of articles are intentionally deleted or renewed. On the whole, it can be fairly argued that a relatively small group of (inter)active Wikipedia editors who have constructed the discourse on The Soviet Story can be associated with knowledgeable memory agents who at best are able to maneuver through different social representations of 1940s history."
Thanks! Could you also summarizes what is arguing and is the point of the article? Also, I found very interesting what you write here. Thank you for all your work. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
It observers the rather obvious; POV pushers dominate: "These distinctive online memory agents seem to be geopolitically and nationally inclined individuals rather than disinterested enthusiasts of SNS [social networking sites]." --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: users of social networks who actively participate online in historical discussions. FWIW, I leave it for others to judge whether to draw any conclusions about the author given this in their bio: "Kaprāns has published on a wide range of topics, including post-communist biographical discourse and reception of Borat." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not have enough time these days to even keep up with all the postings about Mkucr, let alone actively participate. I do check in from time to time to see if anything major has changed. I deliberately stayed out of the Afd. I still have the same opinions and still have the same reading of policy/guideline requirements, but I can't be active at least the rest of the year. AmateurEditor (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
I know that you decided to stay neutral, but I would still like to see your comments about each option, and I think that they could be useful and helpful to the closer. If you want to stay neutral, you may give a short comment to summarize some good arguments for and against each option (e.g. no to C if it is tantamount to a 'Keep' vote, yes to C if it means a rewrite ("its current structure may create some apparent hierarchy") to "present all significant point of view fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias", and so on.
Since the closer will have to "determine what approach is most strongly supported by strength of arguments", I think it would be a shame that you do not participate in the 'survey', since your arguments are the best and you are the more indicated to do it in a neutral way that I am not able to do, certainly not in a concise and clear way as you.
I really don't think that is important. All four options are in agreement with policy, and, therefore, the choice is more a matter of taste. As soon as the community will voice their opinion, we can perfectly deal with any outcome.
The only problem is that I have a feeling that, since some choices (especially "C") are written ambiguously, different people think that vote for different things, by voting for "C". Thus, many people believe "C" is a status quo.
I anticipate a serious problem with correct interpretation of the RfC outcome. However, that is a different story. I suggest you to relax and take a position of a side observer: we have done our part of work, and additional comments will not add anything: they just irritate people; they will not read them.
I think you are right, but I still would love to read your comments about each option, if not there, then here or on my talk page; and if not now, then when the RfC is closed and you are going to write a summary of conclusion from the RfC as you did for the AfD. As for source analysis, I think you are better than me, and in light of Nug's comment here, I would love to see your reply and start such an analysis at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/MKUCR Source Analysis. Davide King (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I understand and agree with what you wrote here. In regards to this, you may respond here, or if you think it is worth it or I raised some important points, understand my rationale better, etc., you may link it at WP:MKUCRSA and reply me there. Davide King (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
In regards to this, I think the only realistic concrete topic is this one, which does fit well with TFD's proposal, apart from disagreement about the name. There is a clear academic and popular press distinction, as the former fits more "discuss these mass killings in a broader context" (most scholars — if I understand what you mean by this), while the latter "link[s] mass killings with Communism as a key factor" (Courtois, Rummel, and the popular press replicating those two scholars and like-minded authors). By the way, why are you surprised (is it a positive or negative surprise for you?) that B is winning? Davide King (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course, which is why I used the present tense, as you did too. By the way, Nug is again totally ignoring working with us at WP:MKUCRSA and instead went on to open yet another thread here strawmanning. It is the "generic Communism" grouping taken as fact the problem. Davide King (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
You may find this passage from Karlsson 2008 (p. 69) interesting: "It is unusual among those who write on this period to claim that communism is the only explanatory factor behind the violence and repression that Mao describes here, in the imagery that is typical of him. Not even political scientist R.J. Rummel, author of China's Bloody Century, goes quite so far, though we may be led to believe it by the link to his website at the University of Hawaii, which is called 'Murder by Communism'. It is more common that a comparative approach seeks and finds thought-provoking similarities with other political systems."Davide King (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Karlsson is a good source, but it seems to be hardly notable cited 8 times, and mostly by very questionable sources. That hardly makes it a good tertiary source for such claims (although it makes it a good sources for being a core of Crimes against humanity under Communist regimes, but that doublethink seems quite acceptable for those who criticize Communism.
I think TFD is right that since it is a review, and since it does not propose original research, it is normal that it has been cited few times; however, as you correctly noted, the fact it is cited by very questionable sources, it is more an indictment on the topic, and how you were totally right that, as currently written and structured, it is indeed pushing a rightist POV. The problem is that while you and I seem aware of the various side of the historigraphy of Communism, they only seem to know anti-communist or outdated sources (e.g. Conquest and Davies). In "Victims of Stalinism and the Soviet Secret Police: The Comparability and Reliability of the Archival DataÐ Not the Last Word", Wheatcroft had a very reasonable strong criticism of Davies, whose speciality are "publications on the history of Europe, Poland and the United Kingdom."
Further on p. 964 Davies writes
"For many decades, opinion in the outside world was unable to comprehend the facts. Prior to the documentary writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the 1960s, and the publication of painstaking research by a few courageous scholars, most people in the West thought that stories of the Terror were much exaggerated. Most Sovietologists sought to minimise it. The Soviet authorities did not admit it until the late 1980s. Stalin, unlike Hitler, did not pay the price of public exposure. The total tally of his victims can never be exactly calculated; but it is unlikely to be much below 50 millions."
Comment
"This is a strange and highly inaccurate paragraph. It implies a surprisingly positivistic attitude to 'the facts'. It gives a totally wrong account of the history of Western study of Soviet forced labour. The following would be more accurate: 'Before Conquest and Solzhenitsyn the disci- pline, especially in America, was dominated by the work of Dallin and Nicolaevsky, which even Conquest considers to have given an excessively high evaluation of the scale of the camps and repression. The publication of the painstaking work by a few courageous scholars (Jasny and Timoshenko) who tried to establish a more realistic scale was largely ignored. And attempts by Wheatcroft to revive and extend their arguments did not earn him great popularity, although his arguments were eventually vindicated. Most Sovietologists sought to maximise the scale of Terror. The Soviet authorities did not admit it until the late 1980s.64 Stalin, like Hitler, avoided being held responsible for his actions. The total tally of his victims can never be exactly calculated, but is normally considered to have been about 20 million."
In a footnote 35 Davis states
"For decades, many historians counted Stalin's victims in 'hundreds’ or 'thousands', whilstothers, such as Solzhenitsyn, talked of 'tens of millions'. Since the collapse of the USSR, the highest estimates have been vindicated. See R. Conquest, The Great Terror. A Re-assessment (London, 1992); also Conquest's review of the semi-repentant 'revisionists' (J. Arch Getty & R. Manning (eds), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993)), in TLS, February 1994. Yet no precise statistical breakdown has been produced. Studies based on the 'demographic gap' of c.27 million for 1941–45, for example, make no distinction between Soviet citizens killed by the Nazis and those killed by the Soviet regime itself. No proper analysis of losses in the USSR by nationality has been forthcoming. See Norman Davies, 'Neither Twenty Million, nor Russians, nor War Deaths', Independent, 29 December 1987; also M. Ellman. 'On Sources: A Note', Soviet Studies, 44, 5, 1992, pp. 913–915."
Comment
"The following is a more accurate version of events:
For decades, many historians counted Stalin's victims in 'tens of millions' , which was a figure supported by Solzhenitsyn. Since the collapse of the USSR, the lower estimates of the scale of the camps have been vindicated. The arguments about excess mortality are far more complex than normally believed. R. Conquest, The Great Terror: A Re-assessment (London, 1992) does not really get to grips with the new data and continues to present an exaggerated picture of the repression. The view of the 'revisionists' has been largely substantiated (J. Arch Getty & R. T. Manning (eds), Stalinist Terror: New Perspectives (Cambridge, 1993)).65 The popular press, even TLS and The Independent, have contained erroneous journalistic articles that should not be cited in respectable academic articles."
This was very disruptive. This motivation is effectively a veto to not edit the article until the RfC is closed, who knows when. They even removed the 'Proposed enabling cause' wording that was actually agreed on and supported on the talk page for the time being. Davide King (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Do you think that taking the most prominent core sources used in support of the topic to the noticeboards may be helpful? E.g. as you wrote:
This source cannot be Rummel (because the article will be a POV-fork of Democide)
This source cannot be Valentino: Valentino does not include Afghanistan, Angola, WWII killings in the USSR and some other cases.
This source cannot be Bellamy, because it discusses atrocities perpetrated by two opposing camps during the Cold war, and the volume about Communist states does not cover the topic fully.
This source cannot be Harff, Semelin, Mann or other genocide scholars: they do not discuss "Communist politicide" as a separate topic, and Mann does not link Communism with mass killings, his "classicide" refers to Cambodian genocide and some smaller events in China and Soviet Russia (such as Great Purge).
If the noticeboards (RS, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT) agree with this argument, which in my view is the correct one and is indeed a good analysis of each source, we may move forward and they will not be able to disrupt the process. As things stand, Nug will not engage in your proposed source analysis, and they will continue to say those sources support their claims and the article. Indeed, as noted in the AfD, this is the matter of the dispute — if Nug is right, the article will be kept as it is; if you are right, it will have to be deleted or totally rewritten and refocused. The only way to end this would be to take those sources to the noticeboard and get consensus on what they actually support and entail about the topic.
P.S. Of course, this should be seen as a last-resort possibility in case either the RfC gets no consensus, or we have no consensus on how to structure the article according to the RfC's results. But you and TFD are absolutely right about sources, and you are also right about their behavior on the talk. Davide King (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, i made a comment on the talk page that implied you though the B option in the RfC would solve or reduce SYNTH issues. Looking back, i was going by a comment you made concerning the "truly notable" topic which DK often quotes, and that you were not discussing SYNTH. My mistake, misrepresenting arguments is a problem there, i will plead the large volume of comments on the talk page as an excuse.
I don't think you were very happy with my quoting Kuper on the source analysis page, and hope that is not why you discontinued efforts there. My comments on Kuper would probably be along the lines of: an old but respected source, cited now for Genocide Convention. Possibly useful in an explanation of differing scopes of genocide, or maybe Fein's thinking. "Warrant for Genocide" sounds appropriate, but it's a psychology of leader argument, and there should be plenty of useful reviews on the psychology of mass killing which could be used to test if Kuper is appropriate. If the article were to go down that path.
I really like the idea of source analysis, a much more focused, informative, and productive process than RSN. Would like to help as much as possible, but don't think I want to participate if the B option is chosen. You have described Courtois as a "claim". I see him as an exhortation and moral argument, which could be and should have been already placed within his proper 'encyclopedic context. fiveby(zero) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your post. I am busy now, and I had no time to read the quote on the source analysis page. I cannot imagine a situation when a quote from a good source may make me unhappy, unless that source is irrelevant or it have been taken out of context. I will ping you when I am back. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Paul, how are you? I asked François Robere a question but I'd like to ask you too. I know you are an expert in academic matters.[29] Thank you!--Mhorg (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
François Robere is absolutely right. The sources that were removed under a pretext that they were SPS are in reality conference paper (the author was invited to give the talk, so, whereas the text could be published by himself, the talk was by no means an SPS) or good quality peer-reviewed publications, and they have absolutely nothing in common with SPS.
I am not active in Wikipedia due to the war, but I noted this incident, for removal of peer-reviewed publications under a false pretext is a serious violation of our policy.. Thank you. Please keep me informed. I recommend you to add that diff to the list of violations. That may be useful in future (when the war will end).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
.jpg)