User talk:Bambablock

Western world changes

Hey, I noticed that you have some complaints about the Western world article. Do you have specific changes you'd like to see? I think you might have some fair points, but your methods aren't going to get you anywhere within the Wikipedia bureaucracy. What's your main account? I might be willing to help if you if I agree with your proposal.      — Freoh 18:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. My concern as explained throughly since last November is that edits by user Rim sim began on 19 November, were accepted with that bias of "what makes the West is white Christianity". Rim sim's even added about ancient Greco-Roman roots of race (european as opposed to asian) this month; but if so that white christian Europe makes the Western world, how is the Orthodox world supposed to be understood since not certainly Western but "intimately related" at least (per lede's map's description)?

I am sure lede should read more like "what makes the West is white medieval clerical heads who, in collusion with imperial did root the Western world" in religion wars since about the turn of the millennium (by East-West schism of 1054). As this is acknowledged and academic since ever. Bambablock (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, Wikipedia editors tend to be sticklers for the rules, so the most effective way to address systemic bias on Wikipedia is roughly three steps:

1. Remove content that is unverified, disputed, or opinion stated as fact.
2. Add verifiable information.
3. Reorganize the existing information so that it's as clear as possible and so that the lead summarizes the body.

Let's start with step 1. I'm not very well-versed in the literature, so you'll need to help me out. Could you point me to specific sentences in the current version that are problematic? Do you have specific sources you can point me to that explicitly contradict or disagree with the content currently in the article?      — Freoh 09:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Various central parts of the lede are wrong, and can be compared for changes: how it used to read before the changes since 19 November, and how it reads now on 20 January. Basically, editing made by User:Rim sim split the portion summarizing in the lede the historical perspective, into two different: but describing cultural ancient roots and then describing white colonial practices in national laws of the European Enlightenment and modern-day women's position. Does it add up?

As stated myself at talk pages and at noticeboards, I can agree that "Western world" refers to both Western policies and culture, simply Western civilization I'd say. I can't agree instead, it refers to the latter only (nonetheless there's Western culture to convey exactly that), as instead the lede does convey at present.

Unless I am mistaken then Western world is terminology to describe the geographic extent of Western civilization, which in turn is used to describe Western culture's evolution. Terminology is being misused in context, as Western can refer to multiple concepts. To describe this literacy controversy in simple terms then I think of Western cultural literacy, specifically: it comes from the Eastern Mediterranean which influenced the ancient Greeks and Romans which then spread the latin alphabet, this is Western cultural root of literacy. Ok? Then, am I to read cultural literacy of the Western world comes from,

1. ancient cultural achievement (Classical Antiquity)
2. medieval spread of Christianity (Middle Ages)

I believe the former approach is just wrong as ancient culture did evolve into modern, throughout the Middle Ages. Thus it's more correct to understand Western alphabets are rooted in classical ancient times, but Western world's are rooted in christian medieval times, as the Western world was born in christian policies of the medieval roman revival, not in roman policies.

About verifiable sources, I can't find reliable sources explicitly confuting Rim sim's additions. There's a bunch using terminology of "Western civilization", not "Western world", such as Quigley's work from 1979 and cited in the article itself. However, references used to substantiate lede's present version per user Rim sim's contributions are all disproportionately coming from works of historical fiction: and so I don't see the bookselling market more notable than the mere understanding of historical evolution from "Roman" empire to "Holy Roman" empire; from Western (Greek and Latin) Christianity to Western world's (Roman Catholic) Christianity. Bambablock (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you're arguing for, and I don't have time to scrutinize the entire article and all of its (too many) sources. I agree that some of this stuff does look like opinion stated as fact, and that content should at least be attributed and balanced with contrasting opinions. If an opinion is held by a lot of sources, then it's harder to argue for its removal unless you have facts to replace it. You would make my job a lot easier if you could give me specific sentence-level changes rather than a wall of text of general criticism of the article as a whole. In particular:

• What content is in the lead but not in the body?
• Which sentences represent opinions stated as fact?
• Which presented opinions are more controversial than the article makes them seem? (with evidence)
• Which statements in the article are not explicitly supported by their sources?
• Which cited sources are unreliable? (with evidence)

Let's work incrementally, starting small with your least controversial proposal.      — Freoh 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, first point is that the body did already convey Western world is on the extent of Western culture, rather than Western civilization (which does point, indeed, to Western culture).

Better is to read indeed through my sock contributions after 19 November beginning with User:The basis of, at talk page and noticeboards, to understand the controversial ins and outs of contributing to this topic. I neither have much time to challenge this systemic bias. Bambablock (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:The basis of per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The basis of. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)