User talk:C.J. Griffin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

C.J. Griffin[edit]

I am the person who added the criticism section to 'Income Inequality in the United States' (that you completely erased). May I ask how does one add a criticism section to an article without criticizing? Every comment in the section I added was heavily footnoted, from respected (Wikipedia listed) sources. As I read the article, it appears that it amounts to advocacy. There must be a balance to such 'cheerleading'. As it stands now, every 'minor' criticism within the article is immediately squashed by the author with a pro-income inequality position. This is not not permitting legitimate criticism.

Please contact me on this. (Tolinjr)

Using Wikipedia's voice to state as absolute fact extremely controversial opinions, as you did in that section, is prohibited. The first paragraph exemplifies this, contained no citations or attributions, and set the tone for the rest of the section. It also smacks of original research. Take the first sentence for example:
"While the explicit goal of income inequality advocates is to improve economic conditions in the United States, it is also very clear that an implicit motivation of many proponents is to consolidate power within the federal government through the implementation of a centrally-planned economy."
Pure supposition using Wikipedia's voice! This could never be allowed to stand. The sporadic citations you tossed in often did not match the rhetoric you added. You'll notice that elsewhere in the article there are extensive citations with proper attribution. Finally, your extensive attack on Piketty's book, which made up an entire sub-section, is completely off-topic and has no place in this article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


C.J. Fine. Pull the offending sentences from the post. Do you want to go through the entire article with me and we can clean the whole thing of supposition? I believe that Piketty's book was used extensively to make the original arguments in the article. There has been extensive criticism of it, by reasonable and legitimate institutions. I propose that we find a way to include the body of the "Criticism" section, on the basis that the article needs it. If you wish to edit it, have a go at it, or I could do it ... but it needs to be in there if the article is to be unbiased and accurate. Otherwise, we will assume it is just the way you like it ... and I can proceed along other channels. By the way ... In no way am I suggesting that income inequality does not exist ... I am bringing to light legitimate questions that have been raised, and using legitimate sources, relating to how the data was gathered, what data was omitted, and how it was interpreted. Tom

So instead of offering a serious rebuttal to my critique of your additions, you run and tattle on me for editing articles I have an interest in, like I've been doing for the past seven years? Quite telling! Apparently you failed to notice I've edited quite a few articles pertaining to Stalinist dictatorships and have added scholarly data painting them in a rather negative light. Just a glance at my talk page demonstrates this. But whatever. You were blatantly editorializing, which is why no one else has bothered to restore your edits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

C.J. ... I have never been slammed to the mat before, like you did to me, so it is quite understandable that I might get my dander up as a result. Once I pulled up your edit history, I saw a number of similar situations where you were in involved in conflicts with other contributors, and they all involved you taking a defensive leftist position regarding political subject matter. There was also a whiff of arrogance in the way you dispensed with other contributors who disagreed with you. So the picture it painted for me was that you might have been one the legendary "Wikipedia leftist political trolls" that we have all heard so much about. So, can you blame me? Regarding the article ... I reviewed it again. You and I both know that this is a politically-charged topic, and if the fact that is is not mentioned (and why) then the context of what all sides are presenting cannot be fully understood. Everything in that article is presented as fact, when virtually all of it is interpretation of data ... data that has been specifically selected in order to facilitate a political perspective. There is alternate (equally accurate) data out there and there are alternate perspectives on what that data says. Yes, there currently are 'straw man' criticisms sprinkled throughout the article that are quickly dispensed-with by the author in order to make the article appear objective. But hardly a reflection of the alternate perspectives and legitimate criticism that exists out there. I'm not going to pick a fight with you, but the five key points (made by respected academics and scholars) that I included need to be part of the conversation if the topic of income inequality is to be fully (and accurately) explored. If you want me to take another pass at it, I will. Or you can do it. Just tell me what to do.

You're going to have to find consensus in order to make such sweeping and controversial changes to a long standing article.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Please explain. Are you recommending mediation? Or are you suggesting that the article cannot be changed? What does your interpretation of 'consensus' mean ... ?? All I ask is that you consider some facts: Thomas Piketty is a Socialist, he was Economic Advisor to the Socialist Party of France.(Source: Wikipedia). A central keystone to Socialism is central government planning.(Source: Wikipedia) The primary recommendation of his book "Capital In The 21st Century" is that Capitalism must be reformed in the United States through the development of central planning.(Source: Wikipedia) Do you think that there should be any mention at all about potential motivations for producing such a report? Some perspective? Some context? In the article: The analysis focuses only on pre-tax incomes, rather than after-tax incomes to make its case.(Why?) The research does not include government subsidies and other in-kind benefits to the lower quartiles in its analyses.(Why?) The top "One Percenters" are mentioned in the article as the sole gainers in wealth, dozens if not a hundred times in the article, yet the Congressional Budget Office data actually shows that it is only the "top half" of one percenters who are making gains in that group. Those between the top 99 and 99.5 percent have actually lost wealth between 1960 and 2012.(Shouldn't this important misunderstanding of fact be acknowledged?) There are equally important and equally respected people out there who have different thoughts on this issue and have published their research on the subject of income inequality. Many of whom use the exact same data presented in the article. Do they not deserve to be included, at least somewhere, in the discussion about "Income Inequality in the United States"? Or does the article need to be a monolithic work, taking a singular position, without any counter-analysis or correction of fact? There is only one explanation as to why you would not want that article amended ... and I think we both might know what it is. I am in favor of working with you to make a more objective and accurate article, free of supposition. Please advise.

"All I ask is that you consider some facts: Thomas Piketty is a Socialist, he was Economic Advisor to the Socialist Party of France.(Source: Wikipedia). A central keystone to Socialism is central government planning.(Source: Wikipedia) The primary recommendation of his book "Capital In The 21st Century" is that Capitalism must be reformed in the United States through the development of central planning.(Source: Wikipedia) Do you think that there should be any mention at all about potential motivations for producing such a report?" - You see, here we go again. All of this constitutes synthesis and original research, not to mention being way off topic, and would be immediately removed from the article by myself or other contributors for those reasons. Piketty is just one economist cited in the article, and his new book is not even mentioned except for being used as a source twice, so adding an entire section or more attacking him and his book and then bringing in materials on his supposed "socialism" (I would argue he's more of a social democrat, not that it is relevant. He certainly is no advocate of Soviet-style central planning and you would have known this had you ever read his book) would be completely unwarranted for an article on income inequality in the US. Again, you seek to add some rather wide-ranging and very controversial materials that would change the scope of a long standing article, which is why this would have to be discussed on the talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You see, here we go again ... the arrogant Wikipedia editor slapping down a mere Wikipedia contributor. You seem to enjoy it. But there remain legitimate criticisms and input that needs to be added and I have asked you several times if you would assist me in presenting it in a fair and acceptable fashion. Perhaps, as long as the information that needs to be presented does not fit with your world view, you simply are interested in being of assistance? This in itself is selection bias, or worse. Bias by omission (and actively blocking others from presenting alternate information). Actually, I have extensively studied Emmanuel Saez' (Berkeley) analyses and some of the Piketty's work (admittedly not the entire book, cover to cover, but most of it). I am serious student (and teacher) of economics, as I have both undergraduate and masters degrees in the subject. I am not a political hack, but there are legitimate concerns (both mine and significant others) regarding how the data in the article is being interpreted, why key data was selected or omitted, and the political motives that are hoped to be achieved as a result of it. We both know this ... although that is probably supposition on my part. If, in fact, you have read the book cover to cover, then you know how Saez' work serves as a foundation for Piketty's analysis. It is Saez' research that proves that those between the 99-99.5 percentile have actually lost wealth between 1960 and 2012 ... although it is wrongly stipulated in the article that "all" of the top 1 per centers have been getting richer (this in fact is simply not true). Its only the top .5 percenters who are gaining. So, I assume I'm on my own on this one. I will resubmit new modifications to the article, footnoting every assertion, and let you take your best shot at it. Let me give you some friendly parting advice ... I suggest you take an hour or so and review your 'talk' page and how you have treated contributors. You could still do your job without being a jerk about it. Nothing is worse than a jerk with power.

By the way, I read your profile. You do realize that the utopian Socialism you support will never happen because it is merely a transitional state between Capitalism and Authoritarianism. It is in the human condition to seek power, and given that reality, pure Socialism can never exist for any serious length of time. It's either the good 'ol USA ... or Putin/Chavez. Sorry.

Well, okay then. Again, I'm not stopping anyone from making sensible contributions to any page. The talk pages exist for a reason. It might have been more constructive to discuss your proposed additions there than posting walls of text to my personal talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

C.J. I apologize for being so difficult. I didn't even know there was 'talk' page designed to discuss the topic. I have tried to make my case with you. Either you accept what I have shared with you or you don't. Perhaps the messenger (me) was not sufficiently skilled to make it acceptable according to your standards, but I think you know that several of the points are legitimate and worthy of inclusion in the article. You and I view the world 180 degrees apart, I can see that now on your profile page. We could not be more opposite. Still, I would have enjoyed chatting with you under different circumstances. However, I am exhausted from fighting this fight with you online, not on the basis of the facts, but on the nuances of posting. I'm leaving it to you to edit or whatever. Again, I apologize for not being more cooperative. Good luck.

Edits to Cheka, Great Purge, Mengistu[edit]

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox Thank you.-- Ploughman 07:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny coming from you - the biggest vandal of all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Jacob_Peters
Perhaps you should tell everyone how many times you've been banned as a troll at www.politicsforum.org and how many posts you have had deleted at Axis History forum, eh?
C.J. Griffin 06:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh my. I knew he was a Stalinist POV pusher, but I never suspected how demented his persona was off-site. Very illuminating. --C33 20:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, he's a nut. Just today he received another warning for posting agitprop at Axis History forum: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1012895&sid=e27b003227d200c8170670dd4ea961bd#1012895 --C.J. Griffin 23:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Cheka, Great Purge, Mengistu[edit]

You have violated Wikipedia's [3RR] policy. You will not be warned again. You have already been advised to refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Thank you.--[User:Ploughman|Ploughman] 11:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 2 hours for 3RR violations. You may make positive contributions on your return, but further edit warring will most likely result in further blocks. If you wish to contest the block, use the {{unblock|reason}} template, substituting reason with the reason for which you think the block is in error. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding banned user Jacob Peters[edit]

I will immediately revert any edits by this banned vandal/sockpuppeteer as soon as I see them. Thankfully others are doing the same thing.

BTW, this lying troll has finally been banned from Axis History Forum for posting agitprop:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=1015879#1015879 --C.J. Griffin 14:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and the Wichita Massacre[edit]

See: Talk:List_of_massacres#The_Wichita_Massacre. 70.23.199.239 23:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder[edit]

I do not want to get into a revert war with you on this, but I'm pretty sure that you can recognize that you realize you are giving far too much weight to one side of this controversy. If you really feel the need to stress the quotes by Mark Alexander, than I'm sure you realize you must give equal weight to the quotes of Kelly McBride. This article must adhere to NPOV. AniMate 09:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if you look at the history page you'll see I'm not the one who reverted your edits. All I did was combine some of the references to make that section look somewhat neater, which is why I noted they were MINOR edits. I see they've been undone anyway. Oh well....--C.J. Griffin 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, and apologize. You're the only registered editor on the page right now, and since you originally added the quotes and boxes I chose to communicate with you. Again, apologies. I'm just trying to keep the page NPOV, as evidenced by my removal of an editor inserting commentary on OJ Simpson to counter balance the claims of the media paying more attention to white suspects over black suspects. An interesting idea, but no way am I letting OJ Simpson anywhere near that article without a major and well respected source that ties his crimes to this tragedy. Things are far too sensitive, disturbing, and heartbreaking as it is. Reading my first post, I clearly didn't assume good faith and pretty much targeted you because of a perceived difference in ideals and philosophies. Peace, and again apologies. It won't happen again. AniMate 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. While I agree with what Mark Alexander says in that piece, the page is fine as is for right now, as both sides have had equal say. Although some images would be nice.--C.J. Griffin 02:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I added "alleged" to the more grisly details of the crime:
"It has been alleged that for two days she had been gang-raped multiple times, beaten and urinated upon."
I hope this pleases all sides until more information on this case becomes available and more sources can be cited.--C.J. Griffin 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you like my compromise. I, for one, just hate edit wars and usually try to find solutions to prevent them. As the case progresses I'm sure more reliable sources (such as the coroners report you mentioned) will become available and either confirm or refute these macabre details.--C.J. Griffin 19:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.Shoessss talk

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC).

Black Book of Communism, Courtois, Guzman quote[edit]

MIM has found profound errors in the Black Book of Communism,[1] and the editors have admitted mistakes. How can we trust this as a source.

Also, when (and if) Guzman said "the revolution will cost millions of lives" surely he is speaking of world revolution, and not just in Peru. the whole addition of Black Book citations is POV. --Mista-X 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your source? You've got to be kidding me. The MIM are fanatics and liars. No one believes anything they say about the BBoC. I've seen the quote in a Reuters Alertnet article as well, but the article has expired.--C.J. Griffin 21:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently you ignored the fact that Harvard Press ADMITTED these mistakes, pretty funy how you conveniently ignore this. You own source admits to being wrong, apparently you can't. --Mista-X 21:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Prove it by providing a link to a reliable source that Harvard University admitted these mistakes. How about a press release from the University perhaps? Sorry, MIM doesn't count.--C.J. Griffin 22:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Simply contact this rep. from Harvard Press to confirm:

Mark Kramer Director, Harvard Project on Cold War Studies Senior Associate, Davis Center for Russian Studies Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/agitation/blackbook/blackb3.html

--Mista-X 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you provide a reasonable source and not some link to a MIM propaganda article--C.J. Griffin 22:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
you have just violated the 3RR. It should be noted that the BBoC has been used as a source on many Wiki articles, and rightly so. Even if there are a few "mistakes" as you commies allege, its still an excellent work of history by professional historians.--C.J. Griffin 22:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mercader[edit]

Please show a source that he has a Soviet agent. Going to Soviet Union for an education doesn't make you a secret agent/assassin. Also, Getting a medal 20 years later doesn't make one an agent. Most logic and factual sources point to Mercader acting on his own as a disgruntled ex-Trotskyite. But if you have a real source, not some secondary source, lets see it please. --Mista-X 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was confirmed by NKVD special agent Pavel Sudoplatov, who was under personal orders from Stalin to form a task force to eliminate Trotsky; Mercader was part of this illegal task force (NKVD codename RAYMOND) who infiltrated Trotsky's inner circle under an assumed name. I provided the source, The Sword and the Shield, which contains nearly two pages on this. Another one that comes to mind is Simon Sebag Montefiore's book on Stalin; among numerous others that I could cite given the time. What are your sources, MIM perhaps? LOL! Perhaps you should open a history book instead of reading this utter rubbish, eh? You might actually learn something!--C.J. Griffin 21:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Sudoplatov book is highly criticized, even by anti-communists in the west. We don't know if he was telling the truth, but we do know Mercader was a Trotskyite.

BTW, you are the one who should do the reading. I never cited anything from MIM to do with Mercader. MIM actually believes Mercader was under orders coming from Stalin. I am simply asking for a 1st hand source (i.e. archives) which you can not provide. Instead you provide 3rd hand sources that cite a sensationalist ex-NKVD agent who wants to make money under capitalist by writing a book. LoL yourself! --Mista-X 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care what MIM believes, or how they view certain events in history. It's irrelevant as they are propagandists. And you haven't cited anything AT ALL. Either cite a source for your speculation about Mercader being a "disgruntled Trotskyite" or it will be removed.--C.J. Griffin 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be good at using weasel words. Anyways, it says right in the article on Ramon Mercader that he was part of the Trotskyite movement in Canada. --Mista-X 01:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Pot, meet kettle. And the article has been cited as inaccurate:
Information in this article or section has not been verified against sources and may not be reliable. Please check for inaccuracies and modify as needed, citing the sources against which it was checked.
And you have the nerve to add a blatant propaganda source (some idiot from "the Stalin society") after all the hoopla you've given me about the BBoC, a work by actual historians which was published by a major university. So your track record on citing sources has been the MIM and now the Stalin society. How can you expect people to take you seriously? I'll leave the Mercader article alone for the time being, but will fix it eventually if someone else fails to.--C.J. Griffin 14:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Gaik Ovakimian "was a leading Soviet NKVD spy in the United States...While in the United States, Ovakimian ran the Golos spy ring and is credited with facilitating the assassination of Leon Trotsky", you asked for archives, this comes from the Venona archives. Questioning81 00:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Let's see the source, please show it. Because Trotsky lived in the Soviet embassy in Turkey. Why would Mercader use an ice axe instead of a gun to kill Trotsky and close his eyes to deliver the blow. It doesn't sound like a professional NKVD killing. But, again please show the source. --Mista-X 06:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you cite some sources of your own? You insist on seeing sources but you consistently fail to provide any to back up such an absurd, and unheard of, position. Perhaps because the great majority of academics agree that Trotsky was murdered on Stalin's direct orders? Members of Trotsky's family were assassinated as well. I suppose they were also murdered by "disgruntled ex-Trotskyies"? Please... Looking through some books and articles I have on the subject, not one suggests such a thing - not one. Here's an example:
It was the USSR which was most active in sending murderers to other countries. In 1930-40 the killing of the ROVS leaders Kutepov and Miller, the liquidation of the POUM leadership in Catalonia, the assassination of the OUN leader Konovalets, the killing of Ignacy Reiss, the murder of the Fourth International secretary Klement, the assassination of Trotsky etc. were all carried out by Soviet murderers sent to other countries by the Soviet leadership.” - The Role of Leadership Perceptions and of Intent in the Soviet Famine of 1931-1934 by Michael Ellman, pg 826
Actually, I'm considering adding the above text to the Great Purge article.
And in several assassinations carried out by the Soviet secret police, guns were not used. One example is the assassination of Konovalets, which was also carried out by Sudoplatov. He was killed with a booby-trapped box of chocolates. And Rudolf Klement was stabbed to death.--C.J. Griffin 13:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your(MistaX) last edit on the Trotsky page, but i mistakenly called it a dead-link, sorry for that. The evidence you use from the article says: "When the Trotskyite WRP revealed that one of the leaders of Trotskyism, Joseph Hansen, was involved he was denounced by other Trotskyites. Who was Hansen working for? The Healyite answer was the GPU...I think it is reasonable to argue that Trotsky was killed by those who wanted to disrupt any united-front with Stalin. The manipulation and use of the agent Mercader to Murder Trotsky, certainly does not prove that Stalin ordered the assassination." This is your source, someone saying "I think"?? Do you deny that Mercader's mother was an agent, and that Stalin had ordered the previous assassination attempt on Trotsky? Your argument has changed from Mercader being "disgruntled" to him being manipulated. Turkey was filled with Russian exiles, so the Soviet embassy was actually the safest place for him to live while there. Mercader's own story of the assassination changed during trial, and the claim that he closed his eyes was his own. "Ramon Mercader, a Spanish Communist recruited into KGB service by his mother, the Spanish Communist and KGB agent-officer Caridad Mercader. She appears in these VENONA messages as covername KLAVA."[2] there are plenty of sources on the VENONA project, please read into it. Questioning81 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

50 million[edit]

If you accept that 50 million is a ridiculous death toll to lay on Stalin, then by your own logic the BBoC is a fallacy, considering they attribute something like 60 million to the USSR alone. --Mista-X 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, you have no clue what you're talking about. The BBoC puts the death toll for the entire period of Soviet power (1917-1991) at 20 million. See for yourself: http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/Blackbook.html

--C.J. Griffin 00:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Gelately[edit]

It's not clear from your edit whether Gelately's estimate of "10 to 20 million" includes victims of the '31-'32 famine or not. Are you able to clarify that? Thanks, Gatoclass 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The exact quote is this:
"More recent estimations of the Soviet-on-Soviet killing have been more 'modest' and range between ten and twenty million."
He goes on in the same paragraph about evidence of nearly 3 million deaths in the gulags, uncounted deaths in the labor colonies, deaths in transit to labor camps/colonies, hundreds of thousands executed by quota during the Great Terror, and wartime ethnic cleansings. No mention of the famine. (See pg 584 of his book).--C.J. Griffin 14:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case I don't see what purpose is served by adding Gelately to the mix, since his estimate doesn't add anything new and only serves to muddy the existing narrative. Gatoclass 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongolia[edit]

Hi, you recently made a number of edits in regard to the stalinist purges in Mongolia. I think the 1991 newspaper article may not be a very good reference, as it places moron at the border to Russia when it is actually more than 200 km away and the roads to the border are in a very very bad state. Also 1991they were just beginning to do serious research on this topic within Mongolia, so the numbers may be on the very high side. Most researchers, including the museum for the victims of political persecutions in ulaanbaatar, place the number of victims of the purge between 22000 and (roughly?) 30,000. The 100,000 number seems to be repeated in S. Sandag's Poisoned Arrows, though, so maybe this would be a good reference for this very high number. However, I recommend to check it against C.R.Bawdens short discussion of census data in his Modern History of Mongolia (Bawden wrote at a time when he was happy to have at least the census). Bawden's work is one that I would recommend to anyone with some interest to Mongolian history, so... Also, it would be interesting to know what newer works by Mr. Rinchin say about the number of victims.

Re. the mass grave in Moron, My sources say that in the whole aimag, about 1450 lamas were killed at that time. However, the source seems to be a bit low on the victims of the 1932 uprising as well, so I won't rule out it is wrong on the number of victims.

Regards, and thanks for pointing me to M. Rinchin. Yaan (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you added Poisoned Arrows as reference to the 30,000-35,000 number to some articles in the last days. The number is actually given by Kaplonski (sorry for just giving a short excerpt, no time to type the whole thing): "During the period the book covers, 1921-1941, probably about 30,000-35,000 people were killed, most during an eighteen-month period in the late 1930s.", and a bit later, after stating that the book "suffers on several levels" "The authors also mention several times (p.173) the numbers killed in the repressions as 100,000. ... [The official number of 20,000 killed] is, in all likelyhood, too low, ... , but not by a factor of five". The full review is available at jstor, so if you have access to a good library, you can check it yourself. Yaan (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

France and Rummel[edit]

Please see Talk:Genocides_in_history#France_and_Rummel --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Mao Intro[edit]

Hello friend. I saw the revert back to the original, which is fine. However, as long as people through numbers and such into the intro, the debatable facts will always be added. Been looking at this article for far to long to let a casual reader with A Jung Chang book write the entire article based on sup par information. Either way though, this was not the article I reverted, as yours has no number etc. I see no issue with that. Leaving talk here, as you did not add anything to the discussion. Regards. (Majin Takeru (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC))

Laogai[edit]

Thanks for adding info to the Laogai article! That article is on my to-do list (I just finished a major overhaul of Re-education through labor recently) and if you have any more sources you are very welcome to add to it. Just fyi...anything Jung Chang is likely to get challenged vehemently by certain editors, so if you have any other sources that give different numbers, it would be good to give them a brief mention as well (ie, in something like "Jung Chang and John Halliday estimated that X people died in camps.... _______ placed the estimate at [some other number].")

Thanks! —Politizer talk/contribs 22:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin might be re-opened[edit]

Looks like the admin is about to restore the version before Valeofruin's mass wipeout and open the article again. You may want to comment on the Talk page.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lenin Edits[edit]

I took a look over your edits, and you seem to have made the article a tad bit POVed. By purposely with-holding information from those who read Wiki articles, we are in fact being POVed. Besides, I don't see how it is POVed to say "According to Lenin critic Robert Conquest, "Lenin's terror was the product of years of war and violence (which it was), of the collapse of society and administration (which it was)... According to Professor Hillel Ticktin of the University of Glasgow, "the Bolsheviks could not have organised themselves any differently against the Whites, and the Red Terror was not on the same scale as the White Terror."

The middle part of that paragraph, "...of the desperate acts of rulers precariously riding the flood, and fighting for control and survival. Stalin, on the contrary, attained complete control at a time when general conditions were calm." was most indeed POVed, but I see the first and last parts of that paragraph as only being "informative" See WP:POV and WP:NPOV. NPOV is Neutral Point of View, meaning that while certain points of views are shown, they are correctly counter balanced by opposing views. And in this paragraph, it is such.

Also, you seemed to have cut out sources of certain opinions, for example: "according to MI5's official historian Christopher Andrew and Richard Pipes" and "According to Pipes, Lenin's Hanging Order, which was translated and published by the British anti-communist Professor Robert Service" as well as "The anti-communist historian/polemicist and former CIA Team B head"

I appreciate your efforts at cutting down this article, being a "fan" of Stalin and Communism, but Wikipedia is about quality, not length. Thanks for your time. Luna RainHowLCry 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Labelling a historian who is critical of the extreme violence that has occurred under Communist systems as an "anti-communist" is clearly POV. Is there evidence that someone like Robert Service, a prestegious scholar at Oxford, is some rabid anti-communist, the implication being that as such any contributions from him should be immedialtely dismissed as reactionary propaganda? Does it not make it appear as though the author(s) of the article have an axe to grind when they attempt to discredit a historian like Richard Pipes by branding him "The anti-communist historian/polemicist and former CIA Team B head..." It's odd how this individual (clearly Jacob Peters socks, which is why I reverted all of his edits) didn't add such blatant descriptions regarding those historians in the section giving the opposing view. Nothing like: "The pro-Lenin Marxist historian Christopher Read says..." Not that something like this should be added. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Zhen Fan[edit]

Thanks for all the inline citations you add to Zhen Fan. Please have a look at User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/Cannibolism in modern China and Pi Dou mass rally, I created the article without knowing that Struggle session was already there. Please give your opinion on how to fix this problem. Arilang talk 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have been considering creating such an article about the campaign against counterrevolutionaries but just never got around to it. About the Pi Dou mass rally article, what I would suggest is taking the relevant information from that article and adding it to the Struggle session article, then delete the former, since the latter already existed.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My opinion on Struggle and session both words just do not convey the full force of (批判鬥爭), as explain on the lead section. To me, Struggle session is just too tame, too polite. I prefer to keep the Pi Dou, but then it is open for discussion. Arilang talk 06:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Bolshevik League incidence[edit]

Anti-Bolshevik League incidence is finished, please have a look when you have time. Arilang talk 06:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

Please take care not to create forking material in this article. It's actually about the comparative study of certain events (compared because some scholars argue they are similar) under communist regimes, not a miscellany of crimes. I note this edit shows you are concerned at communist conspiracies on wikipedia; I am merely concerned to dispel the magic POV come hither look this article has had since its inception. Data on killings should not involve debate over what is or isn't killings (with the possible exception of the holodomor (there are parallels between that and the Great Leap Forward). The Great Purge, the killing fields and the cultural revolution are the context for the meat of the article, which is scholarly analyses of the links. (If it were supposed to be a miscellany, then enough votes would have changed in the last AfD for the article simply to be deleted.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


That was quick attention to the tagged material. Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mass killings under Communist regimes. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Mao: The Unknown Story[edit]

Do you think that we could discuss rewriting the review part of the article together per the talk page discussion? Otherwise it will turn into a free-for-all again. John Smith's (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New dispute at Mao: The Unknown Story[edit]

Hi C.J. If you've got the time your views would be welcome on the talk page for this article. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

As you are aware, this article is under a 1RR restriction. Could you please therefore reverse your current revert and discuss on the talk page. TFD (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Current revert? I simply fixed the tagged materials by BigK HeX, which he thanked me for (see above). As far as I'm aware, that's my only revert (if that even qualifies as one), so I haven't violated the 1RR restriction.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Socialism / Communism POV & Criticism Removal[edit]

Hello I'm a student with practical and academic economics interest. I have been expanding and adding to articles such as Criticisms of socialism and aside from the summaries of the articles (and even references to them) being deleted for no or little good reason in the primary articles on the topic I would like to continue to expand these articles. If you would be interested in contributing let me know. Financestudent (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

User compare report[edit]

Hello!

In this page you added the User compare report from the very first revision, which implies there is a way to ask for such compare reports to be generated even before the actual sock investigation is created. I'd be grateful if you could explain the procedure or guide me where to find this.

Please respond on my talk page. Thanks, hujiTALK 18:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The reason I thought you added that yourself was that it was in your revision (first revision of the page I linked above). hujiTALK 20:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl#Chinese New Left POV pushing , and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang talk 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on some of the articles he contributes to. It seems there are a few advocates of the Chinese New Left hitting such articles recently, both socks and legitimate editors. I've already tagged some of his contributions to the Cultural Revolution article, such as those which give undue weight to the radical polemics of Mobo Gao.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking private prisons in GEO Group Stadium[edit]

I wanted to let you know that I have started a discussion on the talk page for linking private prisons on the talk page for GEO Group Stadium. I will be leaving a similar note on Niteshift36's talk page. – Runfellow (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Mao's wiki page[edit]

Hi, I am a college student writing a research paper on China's takeover of Tibet, so I came to Mao's page for some information but I don't see anything about Tibet on his page. I looked through the history of his page and noticed that you are one of the top contributors of his page. Why do you think that no one has written or mentioned anything about Tibet? Would you consider adding something about Tibet on his page? I know that there are people who reject Tibet as its own country but don't you think there should be at least something about Tibet? Thank you for your time.--Madeintibet59 (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious discuss[edit]

That seems an interesting way to question a claim in the text, it is unlikely that the cribb article itself is a dubious source it is more likely a conlcusion that has been prapphrased from the article, perhaps you might consider taking it to the talk page yourself rather than leaving a tag like that? (Indonesian Killings has been a contested article over some considerable time due to the POV regarding US involvement, which also ignores the UK involvement etc etc) I am not sure whether you have ever had a practical or productive response to leaving tags like that in articles? It seems that any idea of NPOV gets very easily lost for articles like that one. sats 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I am somewhat cynical when I see articles littered with such tags, and your change is appreciated.. at least that is an interpretation of what he might have said, as I havent read the book for over 15 years I honestly cannot remember whether that is a reasonable call as to his argument at that time, the subsequent rash of books emanating from career seeking academics in the us about what the us did or didnt do from yet another cache of records/etc has more or less eclipsed the ground breaking work that Cribb did on the subject - I thing it would be more intellectually honest to identify the significant separation of time and the restrictions of access to the range of documents and sources avilable to cribb at the time he was writing and the subsequent more recent us industry of proving involvement in places like Indonesia from uncovered sources sats 16:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC).

United States -> poor, etc[edit]

To be perfectly honest, I suspect there may well be evidence that some percentage of US poor (possibly "many") are better off than the poor in other countries. However, that is no justification for quoting a right-wing political activist organization like Heritage about the poor, which is rather like quoting the Nazi party about Jews, or quoting the KKK about African-Americans. And the fact that your opponent in the "edit conflict" keeps referring to "government figures" without ever quoting them or providing links to government web sites clearly suggests that either the figures do not exist or do not substantiate what he claims they substantiate. Which is why I stuck my nose in. Arcanicus (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated and point taken. There might indeed be such evidence, although I suspect that the Heritage Foundation took these "government figures" and put their own spin on them in order to provide justification for further retrenchment of our already weak (by international standards) social safety net. Those articles I linked which were highly critical of The Heritage Foundation's characterization of poverty in the US also suggest this, and it makes sense. I also noticed that my opponent could not provide any other sources on such data, which is quite telling. While I would agree that the poor in the US are much better off than those facing absolute poverty in developing nations, I highly doubt our poor have it better than poor folks in Northern Europe or Canada or perhaps even Australia. From the evidence I've seen, the Nordics have been the most successful at poverty reduction precisely because they do have an elaborate and extensive social safety net.[3] The way we pack our prisons full of poor folks for minor crimes (the "surplus population" that is of no other use to the capitalist establishment) is reprehensible. And even though it is a polemic, Chris Hedges' Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt paints a picture of poverty in America that looks absolutely abysmal. But I digress...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
And "on top of everything else" until Jan 1, 2014 the "poor" in the US have no health insurance, except for emergency ER care, which means zero (0) preventative care. And the instant I see anyone claiming that some impoverished group has "video games" and "gold-plated peanut crackers" I want to know where they're getting their information, because the last time I saw a Census form it had about 10 questions and none of them concerned Xbox, "peanut crackers," or any consumer goods whatsoever.  :) Arcanicus (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit to The Heritage Foundation[edit]

Hi C.J. I noticed your edit from a little while ago to The Heritage Foundation article and wanted to mention something about it. First though, I am an employee of The Heritage Foundation so my participation with this article is strictly limited to the talk page. I won't make any changes to what you added, but I wanted to point out a slight inaccuracy that I hope you can correct.

The source you used to support the information you added notes that it was Heritage Action that warned legislators not to vote for the Senate budget compromise, but the edit you made just says "Heritage". Though related, Heritage Action and The Heritage Foundation are not the same organization.

I had left a message about this on the talk page so that the conversation was open to everyone, but there hasn't been a reply there yet. Here is that message. Do you have time to revisit this and let me know what you think about clarifying which organization issued the warning? Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I see you moved the information about Orrin Hatch's criticism over to the Heritage Action article. Thanks for your quick action! Thurmant (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

DU rounds in the Iraq War[edit]

One of the main reasons that I reverted your comment on the[4] Iraq War was about DU rounds causing birth defects is there are other causes [5]both dealing with radiation and non-radiation that could have caused it. Here is a article that takes about how looters were inadvertently exposing people back in 2003[6].

Articseahorse (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Those articles are a decade old and were actually written before serious fighting in Fallujah even took place. I cited three different sources from the last two years blaming cancer/birth defects in Fallujah on DU and white phosphorus.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that it does not take into account of the chemical attacks and how it affected the population.This is from the article.

When Adham says “forever,” it’s not really an exaggeration. The aftereffects of the attack will last a long time and has already gone through the generations, affecting those who weren’t even born in 1988.

“So far there is no comprehensive study showing a cause-effect relation between the chemical attack and the high number of congenital defects or blood cancer we have been registering among kids here,” said Jihad Hama, a doctor in Halabja’s German Center for the Psychologically and Physically Disabled, which is financed by German aid. [7] But most of the victims in Halabja are certain that direct exposure of parents to the gas, and then to contaminated soil and water, has caused a high number of miscarriages and children suffering from severe diseases.

Also the link from democracy now is hardly neutral considering that there are other reports that are more detailed that is presented without a forgone conclusion.

I would strongly suggest using this article to replace the one from Democracy now to help with issues POV pushing.


Articseahorse (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Halabja is not Fallujah. And Democracy Now!, while certainly progressive, is more reliable, in my opinion, than most corporate run media in the US - they receive no corporate funding, no government funding and of course no corporate ads. I see no need to remove it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Read that article by Democracy Now and honestly tell me how their article is not pushing POV. The first sentence states: "U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus." So before the article goes into anything that is remotely seen as object data it is already claiming that the cause was the DU round and the White Phosphorous. Also it goes off topic about the birth defects and cancer to talk about the legality of the war. How does the legality of the war play into the question of does DU round causes birth defects? That is why it is a biased report.

MY point is that there are many factors involved to honestly identity one single cause for these birth defects. The report that I posted[8] is as neutral as you can get. I would like you to show this is a biased report.

Articseahorse (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Economic inequality[edit]

Hi, I reverted your recent edit to Economic Inequality because I had already added the Oxfam statistic yesterday (appears earlier in same section). Apologies if I did something wrong, I'm new at this and this is my first revert. Also, is it just me or does that whole section need some cleanup work? Lots of statistics but not sure they are organized very well. GuineaPigC77 (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. I completely missed it. This is why I shouldn't be contributing at 1:30 in the morning... But shouldn't the 2014 Oxfam report follow the previous one?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Haha okay good. I'm not sure. I left a message on the talk page but I'm not an expert on this stuff. So I dunno the how it would be best organized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuineaPigC77 (talkcontribs) 06:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Claims on Fast food worker strikes page, criticism section[edit]

I respectfully assert that this section is accurate unbiased and necessary and further that the combination of citations justifies the statement made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa (talkcontribs) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Only the first citation even mentions the ReasonTV reporter, therefore the other sources, which are all polemical/blog pieces anyway, are improperly cited. Not only that, but these fast food strikes were a global phenomenon, so undue weight is given to this one story about the supposed banning of one reporter during the protests. In addition, there is no mention of BerlinRosen in the primary source cited (ReasonTV), which means that this one sentence in the "criticism" section is WP:synthesis.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a source from a Las Vegas Newspaper, and I assert that this alongside the, "polemics" and Reason TV source combined affirm the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwiikkeeppeeddiiaa (talkcontribs) 04:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism Allegations[edit]

Thank you for the correction. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Don't let yourself be goaded into an edit war[edit]

Escalating to dispute resolution or WP:NPOVN might seem less satisfying, but it's better than risking a block or worse. Thank you for your careful eye. EllenCT (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep that in mind.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I tried to rescue your addition of Wage theft to "See also" in the article on Income inequality in the United States after it was reverted by User:Arthur Rubin. My reversion was itself reverted by User:Capitalismojo, who asked me to move the discussion to Talk:Income inequality in the United States. There, I initiated an exchange with User:Arthur Rubin under 'delete Wage theft as "Relationship? I see none"'. I'm planning NOT to spend any more time on this. If you have time and interest for this, you might read that exchange, comment yourself, and ask the User:Capitalismojo to contribute.
Yes, I've been goaded into an edit war. I shall now retire from it, as the benefits are not worth the struggle to me. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate it and agree that this is not worth an edit war. I've made my views known on the talk page.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spumuq (talkcontribs) 13:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you didn't report 5.55.53.225 for violating the 3RR rule. Just saying...--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Income Inequality in the United States". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 September 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)