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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Remove content that is unverified, disputed, or opinion stated as fact.
Add verifiable information.
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)[reply]

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,

ancient cultural achievement (Classical Antiquity)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Here's all my sock-puppet contributions which followed my November's IP contributions since the page was protected from being edited by IP users.

Special:Contributions/The basis of, first edit on December 10th, blocked on January 2nd
Special:Contributions/Icedbluemap, first edit on January 4th, blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/InterracialTan, first edit on January 6th, blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/Steven_Wallingford, first edit on January 8th, blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/AlexarcticleUserfriendly first edit on January 9th, blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/Lifesmoving, first edit on January 10th, blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/Iamtoinsistoncemore, first edit on January 11th and blocked on same day
Special:Contributions/PieceTheBeastICanEverImagine, first edit on January 13th and blocked on January 14th

Am mostly sure this is the complete list of sock accounts I used (other than this very one). Bambablock (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today new edits to the lede and the body as well: what I oppose the most is that the page is on culture just as if culture was equivalent with crusade, while even throughly depicting cultural roots as ancient (which it is factual information). The page is all based in this misunderstanding: seems like the West is, the Church of culture for white christians. So it reads overly absurd, if you know about the topic. This is, miseducation at the very least: it's wp:OR, unverified and unreliable, wp:POV. All too wrong, to be like that.

Am convinced it should read more like the West is, Product of Western religious wars, the crusades, and colonialism. And how could it not? The page is now addressed instead like the West is sacred in white culture. Bambablock (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I noticed other new edits, and again Rim sim added a work aimed at underage students meaning it is not part of institutional education (higher degree, over-18 students). But what is worth underlying is, even if it was aimed at higher degree students, it turns out in noway this source implies that the United States or the West "were envisioned as homelands for whites" so this is aggressive POV pushing on how the Western world emerged. Indeed, they were envisioned, in colonial (religious wars) imperialism, not in white supremacy: values that forged the Western world, were not of white supremacy but of Christian supremacy (colonial imperialism).

They believed God was worth for war, basically, not that their ethnicity was. They're two different notions: one is God, the other ethnicity. Western wars were in the name of God, not in that of white European ethnicity. Bambablock (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that sentence about a "homeland for whites" is problematic. After spending some more time reading the article, I do agree with you that the distinction between the articles Western world, Western civilization, Western culture, and History of Western civilization is more messy than it should be, and I made a proposal for major trimming at the talk page. If other editors agree, then we'd have a stronger case for cutting out a lot of the tangentially-related history. — Freoh 18:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find Rim sim's bias always had an unwarranted "spin" of admiration of ancient white ethnicity, as added on 19 November. Am very sure instead that the West is product of Western civilization's expansion on the basis of Christian European ethnicity, rather than of White European ethnicity. Incorrect too, that the same work noted above aimed at underage students reports a quote on 1400s intellectuals of the christian Renaissance who did not define the West as we define it today, within civilization born in the crusades. Instead they did as within civilization born in "christianity and ancient philosophy". Makes me think: does it mean we today define the West as who historically defined it first, and within ethnical rather than christian supremacy? Isn't that quote example of "primary source" anyway? Anyway.

Very good luck to the proposal. Bambablock (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]