User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging

Stop

...poking the bear, please. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD: So you're saying other users are not allowed to comment on an unblock request? A previously uninvolved admin must decide whether or not to unblock merely by evaluating the petitioners's own claim that the socking/evasion was all a big misunderstanding?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that, given the shared animosity, you should leave them be. Reviewing admins will evaluate all the evidence, including the SPI. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Vietnam war casualties

Currently the casualty section does not make sense because the max deaths under South and North Vietnamese civilian casualties is lower than the minimum Vietnamese civilian casualties section. I don't have access to Lewy's book, but how does he have these estimates that do not add up separately for south and north civilian casualties and separately for total Vietnamese civilians. Is his 627,000 figure even his minimum estimate? Also why would the minimum figure be 627,000 when the sources used in the info box by Hirschman and Thayer are also lower than it. Stumink (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

See Lewy's Table A-8. I suppose one could argue that 405,000 is Lewy's "minimum" number of civilian deaths, but his estimate of 444,000 NVA/VC killed in action is based on the assumption that one-third of the 666,000 claimed by the Defense Department were actually civilians. If the numbers given at different places on Wikipedia seem inconsistent, the problem is more likely to be Wikipedia itself, rather than the sources.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Of course, I claim no expertise when it comes to war casualties. If one takes only the smallest figure—from Hirschman et al.—and assumes that all of the males age 15 and up were combatants and all of the women and children (younger than age 15) were civilians, then the absolute rock-bottom minimum estimate for civilian mortality is 227,000. I can understand why you wouldn't want to use 627,000 as the "minimum" when the Vietnamese government's 2 million is the "maximum," but Guccisamsclub has written far more eloquently than I about the danger of combining multiple implausible "low" estimates to create a synthesized "minimum" that is actually an order of magnitude more implausible than any of the cited "low" estimates are individually. Clearly, we should tread carefully when broaching this sensitive topic; if you wish to pursue WP:BOLD changes, I would recommend explaining your concerns on the talk page first.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Ed Moise has commented on the Hirschman et al study: "Charles Hirschman, Samuel Preston, and Vu Manh Loi, "Vietnamese Casualties during the American War: A New Estimate," Population and Development Review, 21:4 (December 1995), pp. 783-812. The estimate of 966,000 deaths (plus or minus 175,000) looked low to me, so I took a brief look at the article. The study was based on questioning 804 adults, half urban and half rural, in a few areas of Vietnam in 1991. People were asked whether their parents and siblings were still alive, and if not, when and how had they died. When extrapolating from these results, the authors do not appear to have made any effort to deal with problems such as (a) that asking people about their parents will give no data about members of the previous generation who were killed before they were able to have children, and (b) that the asking people about the fate of their siblings and parents will give no data about families that were wiped out in the war. Given this, the statement of the authors (p. 797) that "our estimates of mortality are likely to be biased downward" seems an understatement." 1. The BMJ , which was drawing on a considerably bigger sample sizes, said basically the same thing. Hirshman, together with Lewy represent the low extreme in the range of estimates. The range of 2-4 million is accepted by virtually everyone who has written on the topic recently, from Robert McNamara on down. This is a range that's backed by the WHO, Uppsala/PRIO and official Vietnamese figures. Given the length and intensity of the Vietnam War, this should not come as much of a shock. Well maybe not to the average person on the street in the US who thinks that the number of Vietnamese deaths was not far from the numbers of American deaths. So one million—with the range of civilian casualties it implies—is low. Stumnik's civilians ~200K appears to based on some kind of synthesis or selective reading: it is miles away from any estimates modern historians would defend in print. It also defies all common sense, IMO. Guccisamsclub (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The BMJ's study has garnered fierce criticism and I wouldn't call its very high estimate of 3.8 million particularly credible—especially since adding its figures (Table 2) for 1955-1964, 1965-1974, and 1975 yields only roughly 3 million. The BMJ's assumption that there were roughly as many deaths from 1955-1964 (1.3 million) as from 1965-1974 (1.7 million) flies in the face of all other evidence attesting to an enormous increase in the scale of the destruction following the beginning of overt U.S. involvement in 1965, and seems particularly odd when other sources estimate little more than 100,000 killed during the former period. Lewy's 1.3 million refers solely to the latter period, and is probably one of the more accurate figures available, despite the high uncertainty surrounding any estimate. Uppsala University's 2 million (Table 3) is also a reasonable approximation for all three periods combined, but I think the BMJ is the outlier for suggesting a toll twice as large as that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I also find the BMJ/Uppsala estimates for the Guatemalan Civil War—20,000-33,000 killed—very interesting. As I've said before, no-one actually believes in the fabled 200,000.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. You're probably right that we should use the 20-62K. Guccisamsclub (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Be careful about your editing at articles under Discretionary Sanctions

You have been warned in the past about the Discretionary Sanctions that put special editing restrictions on articles about current U.S. politics. The article Political positions of Donald Trump is one such article. One of the DS restrictions is "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." The material you added to the "Disabled Americans" section was reverted, and you added it a second time. That was a violation of these special restrictions. Don't add it again or you could be subjected to sanctions (i.e., blocked or banned). If you think this material should be included, discuss it at the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

MelanieN, thanks for keeping an eye on this type of behavior. It hasn't stopped. TTAC has once again violated DS with this restoration before consensus was reached. The talk page discussion is progressing very nicely and there is no reason to restore disputed content. We're working it out. The improper restoration has been undone, with a warning. I hope you also follow up here. Since TTAC has been warned before, we need to see something more than another warning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. 4-2 in favor of inclusion is a consensus. It's certainly not the strongest consensus and it could always change, but I've seen disputes "settled" on a weaker basis than that.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The decision about whether a consensus exists isn't determined by one person, but by those engaged in the discussion. (We haven't begun the discussion about whether we have a consensus because we aren't ready for it.) It's not determined by a simple majority count either. As long as a discussion is in progress, we don't get to short circuit the decision making process. We wait until a decision has been made. If a clear consensus, like 15 to 1, doesn't arise, and there is a locked situation, then dispute resolution is the next step, not edit warring over the content. It stays out until a very clear consensus version has been developed. In this case we are working towards a better way to include the material, and we'll likely get there within the next couple days. Be patient. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	I woke up and began to LOL @ HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON really, really hard. BowlAndSpoon (talk) 09:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hussein vs. Saddam

A little surprised by your edit there - it's convention in history and politics to refer to people by their last, not first names. Why switch to first name? -Darouet (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hussein is the name of Saddam's father, not his surname. Saddam's full name—Saddam Hussein al-Majid al-Tikriti—was suppressed because the Ba'th Party wanted to obscure the extent to which it was dominated by members of Saddam's tribe. As you can see on the main Saddam Hussein article, there is a broad consensus in favor of referring to him simply as "Saddam" (I was reverting a recent change), which is followed by most media organizations (with the notable exception of The New York Times) and is how he was known to virtually all Iraqis. For a full discussion, see, e.g., here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the heads up: I was unaware of this issue. -Darouet (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Hersh

So you still insist on keeping the Hersh crap in its entirety? If Flynn had really been pushed out over disagreements on Syria, he would have said so at least once in his interview on Al Jazeera, after the interviewer repeatedly asked him point blank whether he challenged the administration on issue, to which Flynn muttered something about it not being his job, "different groups", unclear policies and getting the aid in too late (2013, whereas the memo about the Syrian opposition being supposedly dominated by Islamists—the memo that was supposed to lead to some disagreements over policy—was written in 2012). The only one who clearly says what Hersh wants his readers to hear is Lamb, and its fits in so well that I gotta wonder where Lamb gets his facts. You've already said that Lamb might be undue, since his comment only has weight in the context of Hersh's overall narrative. I'm no expert, but Hersh's narrative appears substantially nuts; it is certainly marginal. If you want a rational critique of US policy toward Syria, you could try Patrick Cockburn or something. Guccisamsclub (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

(Lamb? I think you mean Lang?) Anyway, it sounds like you're engaging in textbook OR to dispute a renowned American journalist. (Can't you just be happy at the prospect of improved relations between our two countries?)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah Lang, whatever, nobody knows who he is anyway. Hersh is not renowned for his work on Syria at all—he is infamous for it. His theories on Ghouta are the equivalent of 9-11 trutherism. Last question's loaded and irrelevant, but you can put me down for "no". Guccisamsclub (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TheTimesAreAChanging. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Friendly Reminder

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Ronald Reagan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I understand that placing a self-published blog in the lead is pretty egregious, but there's no reason to call anybody an idiot. It's always best to first assume good faith. Thank you. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

AE report

This is to let you know that I am filing an Arbitration Enforcement request against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, for violation of the Discretionary Sanctions. --MelanieN (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw your last AE comment and think you should really explain this better and fix your comment. You complain about Oneshotofwhiskey and probably rightly so, but it is completely unclear why you should " hit back twice as hard" (your expression) another user (SPECIFICO)... Why? I do not think you should "hit back" anyone at all. My very best wishes (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. I'll try to work on that. My issues with SPECIFICO go back to a feud from 2012 (not coincidentally another election year).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the People's Mujahedin of Iran page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)