User talk:Generalrelative
Italo-Ethiopian War
Hi. In my opinion, in the lead section of Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Ethiopian crimes should be mentioned first since they started in the first weeks of war (1935) and before the Italian ones and the killing of civilians (1937). Written in this way the page does not seem neutral. In any case, I am willing to discuss it, I don't want to start any edit war. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Libya
Hi. The section about Italian atrocities in Libya is about 1923-1932 events. The page Italian Libya is about the 1934-43 period, so I moved the section in the pages Italian Cyrenaica and Italian colonization of Libya, as they are the correct pages of that period.
Also, why did you revert my old edits in the page Italian colonization of Libya? You seem to have removed many images of the Italian colonization to make room for those of wars, Italian atrocities and pacification campaigns. That page is about the history of the colony, not only war crimes. DavideVeloria88 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
- See my reply on the relevant Talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jennifer Szalai (June 13)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jennifer Szalai and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Jennifer Szalai, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Generalrelative!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! MurielMary (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
|
Nice edits to R&I!
Your recent edits to Race and intelligence are good, solid improvements to an article that was once a disgrace to Wikipedia. Thanks! NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 16:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your excellent edits to Intelligence quotient, Genetic Literacy Project, Scientific racism, Race and intelligence, and several other related pages! NightHeron (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC) |
Thanks @NightHeron: That means a lot coming from you! Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Negroid
I have read your recent additions on the article Negroid. While well-sourced, should not they be included on the section "Criticism based on modern genetics"? The material there already refutes the existance of human races. Dimadick (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's a good question, Dimadick. The issue, though, is that the physical anthropology stuff takes into account more than just genetics, i.e. the spectrum of human anatomy and physiology. I'd be fully in favor of an expanded "modern genetics" subsection too by the way. There's certainly plenty more material that could be covered there. But consider also how this article might be improved by integrating all the current content of the "Criticism" section into the rest of the article, as is suggested in the essay WP:CRITICISM. In my view the most informative version of this article would contrast the outdated views with current scientific consensus on a point-by-point basis. But the bottom line is that this article on a historical (and still politically fraught) classification of human beings needs plenty of work, and I don't claim to have a fully developed plan in mind for how to bring it where it needs to be, so any further improvements you'd care to make would be most appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
HR&IC
There were no problems with these edits; I just forgot where the wl was added for "scientific racism."
Originally I created this article in April 2010 in one giant edit.[1] In that first edit the term scientific racism appeared with a wl, which I had forgotten. The extra paragraphs you have added very recently in the early history section confused me. I hope that explains what happened with the first sentence.
I have located a new edition of Benjamin's book on google. The page numbers do not match up but at least the book exists. I do not intend adding much content to the article. I cannot make any comment on the R&I article, except that it will probably always be an unmitigated mess. The HR&IC, however, has been fairly stable. Perhaps that's not true not the section for the segment 2000-recent. Originally I did not wrote very much about that then, just a sentence or so. Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Racialism
Such editors need warnings immediately. I've given them a 3RR warning. Having said that, I'm not sure what the problem is with their sources - or is it the interpretation? I haven't delved deep. Doug Weller talk 16:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doug Weller. The issue is with presenting a false balance in the lead. A robust discussion of the variation in views among scientists from different countries might belong in the main body of the article (indeed it might be an interesting discussion), so long as it is placed in the context of true scientific consensus. But reducing a robustly cited statement on scientific consensus to a "Western" opinion, and then placing it on equal footing with a supposed Eastern European and Chinese consensus favoring race realism, each cited by a single survey, smacks of tendentious editing to me. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 at Women in Red
|
--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
September Women in Red edithons
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
October editathons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
Italo-Senussi War
See [2]; it says that the Italian war crimes are "suggested", not specific, and "as with all atrocity tales, there is probably an element of exaggeration". And why you removed the Senussi war crimes in Italian colonization of Libya? At least three sources mention them; they should be included like the Italian ones, and not removed for your with anti-Italian agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.169.102.14 (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- 1) If you have a content issue to discuss, take it to the article's talk page so that others can weigh in.
- 2) There is quite a plague of pro-fascist apologia from Italian IPs here on Wikipedia. Working to keep articles clear of that is in no way anti-Italian.
- Generalrelative (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
SPI archives
Hi. I've reverted your change here. Please don't edit the SPI archives. Feel free to open a new case, but the archives themselves are a historical record and shouldn't be edited directly. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! Apologies for the process error. Generalrelative (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
- Generalrelative, Not a big deal. It happens. Life goes on. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
December with Women in Red
|
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging
SPLC
I wanted to discuss my edit of the SPLC page, as the citation about the FBI categorization of the proud Boys is called into question, if not rebutted two paragraphs down in the article cited stating that the FBI does not categorize groups as extremists.