User talk:Generalrelative

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Pinned comment

George Floyd and Dostoevsky

Just an afterthought: I can't help asking myself, why do people hate George Floyd so much that they get themselves blocked in order to besmirch his reputation ? Maybe the answer has been given by Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov, when he has the old Karamazov say: "I played such a foul trick on a certain man that I started to hate him." If the roots of old racism were economic interests, maybe today's racism is rooted in bad conscience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Consensus vs. Truth

Honest question for you - what is to be done on a Wikipedia article when there exists evidence of verifiable truth that is relevant to the context of an article, but a majority of users partaking in discussion on said article are for whatever reason opposed to its inclusion? In a case like this, it seems that a majority of users with a vested interest in concealing some truth could band together to reach "consensus" on an article to keep the truth off of it; thereby allowing the article to tread the line of "lying by omission", and stray farther from WP:NPOV.

In my opinion, truth (when it is relevant to the article it could be added to) should be prioritized over "achieving consensus," because of cases like this. Is this not how Wikipedia works? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it, this may seem like a fundamental challenge for a project like Wikipedia, which is indeed based on consensus. And of course most people believe –– often strongly –– that the things they believe are true. But the more time you spend here the more you will see that the person yelling "truth!" will very rarely have the stronger argument. This is especially evident when there is a large community of editors involved in a given discussion (or watching and only intervening if things seem to be getting out of hand). As it happens, the page you're currently worried about, Anti-fascism, currently has 292 watchers. A verifiable and neutral telling of the truth will out in the end. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading the essay WP:TRUTH. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022

Women in Red September 2022, Vol 8, Issue 9, Nos 214, 217, 240, 241 Online events: New: Alphabet run: E and F | Women writers and their works Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Request for help: Participate in preparations for our trend-setting contest in November Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks, but the editor is not stopping. See Anton Drexler as well as the economy article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that editor's history makes it pretty clear what they're after. On their talk page just now I've recommended they read WP:NOTDUMB, mostly just to see if we can save ourselves the trouble of writing up a 3RR complaint. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Aaaand... indefinitely blocked. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red October 2022

Women in Red October 2022, Vol 8, Issue 10, Nos 214, 217, 242, 243, 244 Online events: New: Alphabet run: G and H | Women in STEM / Ada Lovelace Day | Geofocus West Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Green's "Wildcard Edition" Good Article editathon Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Richard Lynn

Hi, the point is not whether there is a consensus that Richard Lynn is controversial. His controversiality is amply shown throughout the article, including the lede. Compare the article Donald Trump, where it doesn't say "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician, media personality, and businessman who served as the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021." It's not encyclopaedic practice to flag someone's controversiality in the first line, which simply ought to state what they do/did for a living or for notoriety. 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

This is consensus language. See the article's talk page archive. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 04:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Richard_Lynn/Archive_5#Use_of_"controversial"_for_description_in_lead is undecided, not a community consensus in favour of your position. I know I won't change your mind, but I'd be interested to know whether you think encyclopaedias such as Wikipedia and Britannica *should* open their article on Donald Trump by writing "Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is a controversial American politician". Ni'jluuseger (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Not interested in debating this with you. The existing wording has a clear consensus behind it, whether you agree or not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is entirely beside the point. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Cyril Burt

Hello, a question, if you don't mind. Surely keeping such a reference is because this is another facet of Burt's life?. Therefor its existance (and in this this case who created it as well), is a story that needs to be told. And no I do not have an answer! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(→‎Fraud accusations: Unclear that a primary source by Gavan Tredoux, who is not an academic, is DUE for inclusion here, especially given that his finding purports to contradict academic consensus.)

I'm afraid that I don't understand the question. Would you mind rephrasing? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, badly put. My point was that as an article in a enclyopedia this link alongside the dubiousness of said link needs to stay to be part of the picture of Burt for any researcher. I appriciate some of the inherent difficulties in this and do not have an answer for them, but all the same I think the link should stay. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 07:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for clarifying. My response is pretty simple though: Wikipedia is not just a collection of facts but rather a curated tertiary source which presents verifiable information (usually based on secondary sources) according to its due weight. That particular primary source was, in my view, undue for inclusion for the reasons given in my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Did not realise it was a primary source for some reason (my bad)! Thanks Edmund Patrick – confer 10:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red November 2022

Women in Red November 2022, Vol 8, Issue 11, Nos 214, 217, 245, 246, 247 Online events: New: Alphabet run: I and J | Women in Education | Geofocus Central & Southern Asia Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Wikipedia Asian Month November Contest Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Republican Party

Gene, just wanted to thank you for hearing out my RFC recommendations. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I adore that you thought to call me Gene. I hadn't even realized my user name could be read like that. Have a spooky Halloween (if that's your thing). Generalrelative (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'll leave the Abrams discussion. GoodDay (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Understandable. American Politics can be a food fight. Hope you're having a good day. Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not the topic that I'm finding frustrating. But anyways, all is well. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Abrams

Hi. You can copy your comments to a valid thread. That RfC is zombie disruption, with bad choices that don't reflect prior discussion. please self-revert. we can't be tied up in the banned user's parting shot for the next month. Thanks for your good work. SPECIFICO talk 03:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Between you & me, I think it would be best to 'ping' the editors who've already participated in the RFC. They may want to know, whether or not their input has been disregarded. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

See my latest comment on the article talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. The reason I archived it is that GoodDay's note in the hat bar is equivocal, as if there were not consensus to end the RfC and as if anyone could come along and restart it. I don't think anyone has said there would be a problem starting a valid RfC when and as it seems fruitful. I'm just concerned that each time it's reopened, additional editors take the time to comment and are surprised to see their comments hatted. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I hear that. Looks like GoodDay has resolved the issue. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Gene, I've reworded the closing note. Clarifying a 'new' RFC can be opened, rather then a reopening of the closed one. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. That sounds like a good solution to me. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in December 2022

WiR Women who died in 2022 Women in Red December 2022, Vol 8, Issue 12, Nos 214, 217, 248, 249, 250 Online events: New: Alphabet run K & L | Geofocus Southeast Asia | Women who died in 2022 Continuing: Climate (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman See also: Women in Climate Change collaboration runs 1 December 2022 - 31 January 2023 Tip of the month: Remember to search slight spelling variations of your subject's name, like Katherine/Katharine or Elizabeth/Elisabeth, especially for historical subjects. Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Male expendability

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Generalrelative (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023

Happy New Year from Women in Red | January 2023, Volume 9, Issue 1, Nos 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 Online events: New: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | Alphabet run M & N | Geofocus East Asia Continuing: #1day1woman | Women who died in 2022 See also: Editing For Effie collaboration with the Smithsonian, January 8 & 9 (global event) Tip of the month: De-orphan and incorporate an article into Wikipedia using the Find Link tool Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Peer reviewed papers

At RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. Wishing you a happy and healthy new year. Generalrelative (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Big Lie edits

In regards to your reversion here, could you point to where the removed claim is mentioned in any of the seven sources? The claim is one made by the Wikipedian who originally wrote it, not by any of the actual sources it cites. Horizons 1 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm a bit puzzled by your question. The claim seems to feature quite prominently across a range of sources. Here, e.g., is The Guardian: The disclosure that extremist Republicans dedicated to election subversion have formed a network was first revealed by Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist in the White House who is spearheading a “precinct-by-precinct” movement to inject far-right activists into local elected office. Marchant disclosed the alliance on Bannon’s War Room podcast. The revelation can only heighten jitters about the fragile state of American democracy. An NPR analysis of 2022 secretary of state races across the country found that at least 15 candidates have adopted Trump’s big lie. [1]. Feel free to open a discussion thread on the article talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh

This was delightful. I got to "Do you have what it takes to wade into this exciting talk page thread??" and couldn't stop laughing. Schazjmd (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

:P Generalrelative (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259 Online events: New: Alphabet run O & P | Black women | Justice | Folklore Continuing: Peace and Diplomacy (year-long initiative) | #1day1woman Tip of the month: Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name, married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname) Other ways to participate: Become a member. You can always opt-out of notifications. Join the conversations on our talkpage. Help us plan future events. Follow us on social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Wikipedia is a mess

Both NKM And KU Are same height 5 ft 10 to 5 ft 10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.59.141 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson

As I'm sure you've also noticed, there have been about 100 edits to E. O. Wilson by the same good-faith editor in less than a week. I have some concerns. The lead now has a lot of promotional language in wikivoice that it didn't have before (pioneering, trailblazer). I've been thinking of removing that, and also maybe adding to the lead something about support for Rushton, which is an important part of the body of the article. But I'm waiting for this editor to finish their series of rapid-fire edits. I also don't want to over-react. After all, many BLP leads, in order to establish notability, use somewhat promotional language. Your thoughts? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks NightHeron, I haven't had a chance to look deeply. I considered reverting one or two of these edits but wasn't sure. Honestly I'm slammed right now IRL, so probably will limit myself to chiming in to support conclusions others may reach or offering my 2¢ in a limited capacity. In general, though, I do think some modest mention of the controversies Wilson provoked belongs in the lead of his bio. Generalrelative (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. I just noticed that a few hours ago Grayfell initiated what seems to be a productive discussion with that editor on the talk page. When the dust settles, I'll add a sentence or two about the Rushton business to the lead.NightHeron (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a productive discussion, and that the recently prolific editor is amenable to feedback. Nice to see. Generalrelative (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)