Jump to content

User talk:Davide King/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Social Democracy edit

Hi @User:Davide King,

I'm just curious about a large edit you made about a year ago on Social Democracy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_democracy&type=revision&diff=954153423&oldid=953952852

Specifically just the lead paragraph, with one of the most striking changes being:

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy."

being changed to

"Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism"

I've read through much of your archived discussions, and I can't see anywhere where you would have agreed that Social Democracy is an economic ideology within socialism. Most of what I'm seeing seems to suggest you were arguing against that idea. The edit comments only say "(ce; add)" and I'm not sure what that means.

I also can't find any talk page discussions on where this large edit even came from. Is there any chance you can clear up some of my confusion?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twozerooz (talk • contribs) 21:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Twozerooz, thanks for your comment and apologies for the late reply. I think the main issue is that you confuse social democracy for a mixed economy and the welfare state. Bismarck put in practice several social-democratic proposals pushed forward by the SPD but he was no social-democrat; he was a conservative. Ever since the demise of laissez-faire capitalism, every country has either adopted social-democratic measures or is a social-democratic country. What matters is why they adopted such measures.

Bismarck did so to stop the labour movement while the actual Social Democrats pushed them forward to strengthen the labour movement. Fascists and Nazis may have adopted a few policies that some may see or consider a left-leaning but what matters is why; the Fascists did so out of sheer pragmatism when the whole world was going towards more state intervention anyway and Nazi's were all with caveats, meaning in practice they were actually right-leaning because they actually preserved hierarchies, the worst kinds too, as they were based on race, something that we can not change. This is also meaningless when one consider privatisation come the privatisation programme put forwards by the Nazis in the 1930s, at a time when even the most capitalist countries were striving for more state intervention. In a way, we are mostly social democrats, if by that you mean support for a mixed economy or welfare state.

But that is not what social democracy is really about. For the social democracy you are referring too, we already have the articles about the mixed economy and the welfare state, so the article about social democracy should be about the tradition within the labour, trade union and socialist movements. It is the difference between centre-left parties which are socialist/social-democrat and centre-right parties which accepted the mixed economy and welfare state. The difference is again in the ends. The centre-right mainly support them for the same reason Bismarck did while the centre-left see it as the beginning, evolution, or path to develop a possible democratic socialist society, where the workers, not the state, owns the means of production and where the conflict between capital and labour is ended, as everyone will be a worker and be able to access capital in the form of the means of production and credit. Of course, this has not yet happened and whether it will happen or not, it has been part of the social-democratic movement. However, two things happened which I believe confuses many people like you, namely the neoliberal counter-revolution and the fall of the Soviet Union et al.

The first one accelerated a rightward trend in the West which ended the post-war consensus and caused the nominally centre-left parties to become centrist (Third Way) parties in the neoliberal spectrum but centre-right in a normal spectrum. This caused confusion as social-democracy became to be seen by whatever they did and since they moved rightward, so did social democracy. Except social democracy is also an ideology with core concept and if you drastically change some of this, it stops being that ideology. In short, it was not social democracy that became neoliberal, it was social-democratic politicians and governments that did so. Some returned to the left after the Great Recession and its aftermath, others took a centrist position in stating that at the time they were justified to stop an even harsher neoliberal rule but otherwise they returned to the left, and others went even more rightward and ended up in the actual right-wing party. In turn, this caused parties to their left calling themselves democratic socialists but being indistinguishable from pre-neoliberal social democrats while also having more radical factions and wings, which are actually democratic socialist and communist in nature.

On the other hand, the fall of the Soviet Union caused many in these same parties to reject socialism, whether it means just the Soviet version of it or any version of it but renamed or redefined to simply mean a generic, utopian egalitarian society with no discrimination and poverty. The rightward turn in the 1970s already caused these same parties to drop social democracy in practice but not yet socialism as an ideal; in short, socialist/social-democratic at words and neoliberals in deeds. To be fair, with the failure of 1968 and that of a socialist path of development in Sweden in the 1970s, they really had no other choice, lest the risk to be out of government and major politics for decades. They also still tried to justified themselves in left-leaning terms; as an example, I am pretty sure I remember reading about social democrats in Australia how the welfare state's cost was rising and to keep up with it, without having to cut things like the right would do, they had to create more growth to keep up with the costs and thought the reforms would end the period of stagnation and allow more growth to further improve the welfare state. Communist states also did the same, including Communist China. It is not really surprising to justifying the oppose side's policies in their own side's term; the right did that too by justifying bigger help from the state towards the lower classed in the name of national unity or to avoid the Communist threat. I also would not be surprised if some of those politicians truly remained socialist at heart and believe in a post-capitalist society even as if they stopped using the s-word and moved rightward in practice, or others that have been indeed disillusioned by socialism but still remain open to both a capitalist mixed economy and a democratic socialist one, and I am sure also of others who really stopped being socialist at all, if not at words, in deeds and thoughts as well.

With the fall of the Soviet Union et al., this just the s-word even worse as it was now, even more than before, associated with official failure and is why some social-democratic politician stopped using the s-word and were more concerned with the return of laissez-faire capitalism. This also further moved the spectrum rightward by moving the right even more rightward as it no longer needed to appese the lower classes and the non-Communist left. All of this caused parties such as The Left, Podemos, Syriza, La France Insoumise and the like to effectively take the social-democratic space. While they also have much more radical factions and wings, their mainstream wings are mainly pre-neoliberal social democrats/socialists with a populist bent. Some of the mainstream centre-left parties have also moved back to the left but the neoliberal counter-revolution does not seem to be over with, so the realignament may not be reverted back yet and perhaps it will be COVID-19, of all things, to relegate neoliberalism to the dustbin of history.

To answer your question, social democracy is still an economic ideology within socialism. Just because the economy remains capitalism, it does not mean it can not be a socialist path of development as many social democrats have believed or as Sweden actually tried to do in the 1970s and failed due to capitalist and conservative opposition, which even went so far as to call of the compromise class agreement. In addition, just because social-democrats became more concerned to the present and improve the mixed economy rather than go straight to socialist path of development, in light of Sweden's failed attempt, it does not mean social democracy has abandoned socialism or that socialism is no longer social democracy. Like before, some social-democrats may abandon socialism but by doing so they are abandoning social democracy, as there is no difference between a social democrat who abandoned socialism and a social liberal who never wanted to go past capitalism to begin with. It is the difference between a social democrat like Sanders (who is open to socialism as post-capitalism and a worker-owned economy) and a social liberal Warren (who see no future past capitalism). This lead me to discuss why social democracy is also associated with and confused for social liberalism, namely that social democrats, who became much more popular than liberals and essentially took their place in Europe, put in practice social liberalism (e.g. post-war Labour and the Liberal's Beveridge Report) and the post-war consensus is also known as the social-liberal paradigm, followed by the neoliberal model starting at the 1970s in the earliest and the 1990s at the later.

Liberal socialists are social liberals who believe in socialism but are more willing than old-style social democrats to use the market as a means. Social democrats, or reformist socialists, are the further right one can go without stopping being a socialist, although that does not stop the left to fight among themselves about who really are socialists (e.g. some Marxists exclude anarchists, some communists exclude social democrats, etc.). Believing that capitalism can not ever been overthrown or that there is no need to do so is no different to the orthodox Marxist line that capitalism must be overthrown by revolution. Both are dogmatic positions not in line with social democracy's pragmatism. So just because socialism gets a smaller role, whether because it is preferred to have a more utopian socialist approach and concentrate on the future or because socialism is still a dirty word and is used as a code word for the Soviet Union, buraucracy, statism and the like, even though just as many socialists oppose them, it does not mean that social democracy as a whole is not part of the socialist movement.

There is also a political bias and double standard in that socialism is equated only with the Soviet Union (political bias) and no mixed economy is allowed to be considered socialist, even though the same person would consider many of its policies (power of trade union, higher taxes to pay for a universal welfare state, more regulations in favour of labour, etc.) to be in some way socialist and cry socialism. You can also see this in how Venezuela is still capitalist during its booming phase (cue Fox News' "What Socialism? Private Sector Still Dominates Venezuelan Economy Despite Chavez Crusade") and biggest economic growth in the country's history, which is attributed to high petroleum prices, and then suddenly becomes socialist during its recession phase, which is attributed to socialism, rather than a mix of factors like lower petroleum prices, mismanagement, authoritarianism, foreign intervention, etc. The same would be true if one claimed it was socialist when booming and then it crashed when capitalism was restored, but the latter view is not really pushed down people's ears and throat by right-wing media as the first one, and is not popular even by the left, who never saw it as socialist but still supported it from an anti-imperialist position and simply attribute the failure to foreign intervention, lower petroleum's prices and some mismanagement.

Just to put this in perspective on how much the spectrum move rightward, Venezeula never even became a centrally-planned economy like Cuba, which is the gold standard by the media when something is considered socialist, even though I could just as easily argue that it is not but rather is a path of development. Anyways, Venezuela essentially wanted to get rid of the IMF and the Washington Consensus, and move towards the post-war consensus as in Europe. In practice, they remained a capitalist market-based mixed economy with some nationalisation and a larger co-operative sector. If that is socialism, then so is the post-war consensus, but since this would mean socialism is to be associated with some success, it can not be. The truth is neither are socialist but only the one considered as a failure is passed off as socialism, hence the political double standard I talked about. So you also have to consider the many different definitions of socialism as an economic system, many of which are political biased against socialism.

So either I did not explain myself clear enough or you misunderstood because that is not what I meant to say. What I meant to say is that just because an economy does not suddenly become socialism, which usually mean going from a market-based economy to a centrally-planned one, which is really misleading and biased in favour of neoliberalism, it does not mean social democracy as a movement is no longer socialist. Again, Bismarck was not a social democrat, social democracy is not just any mixed economy and a welfare state. In addition, social democrats have responded to criticism from the left by claiming that it has been progressive in providing institutional legitimacy to the labour movement that recognises the existence of ongoing class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but they seek to provide peaceful resolutions to disputes arising from the conflict based on moderation rather than revolution. In short, they consider it a class compromise within the context of existing class conflict; this is not much different seeing capitalism evolving into socialism through reforms, acts by government, and push by the working class, whether directed by a party or as a grass roots. To be honest, I am to the left of social democracy, so even though I have disagreed with many of their actions, such as the betrayal in the German Revolution and in general their softness against the ruling class after World War II, they have their legitimate arguments and are part of the socialist movement as pragmatic socialists.

In conclusion, "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist-oriented mixed economy" is too generic, states it as fact that it has abandoned socialism or that it is not part of the socialist movement, giving too much weight to the Third Way, conflating left-leaning and right-leaning parties and movement into one, and is no different from a mixed economy or welfare state. "Social democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy within socialism" is supported by given academic books and the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, which explain the difference between socialist philosophy and economy. While a worker-owned economy as defined in the first paragraph is the prototype of the socialist economic system, a mixed economy as proposed by socialist/social democrats is a path of development towards a socialist economic system and/or society, which may have a more Marxist or utopian socialist definition but socialist nonetheless, just like a centrally-planned economy or state capitalism/socialism is another path of development towards a socialist economic system and/or society as proposed by Marxist-Leninists and put in practice by Communist states, although neither ever reached either. Similarly, a social democrat may see the Nordic model as the best path of development towards socialism while acknowledging the economy is still capitalist, but it is in a more advanceed state and is a better feat to develop socialism rather than Anglo-Saxon countries. On the other hand, a Marxist-Leninist may see a former colony country as a better feat because it would allow to bypass the capitalist mode of production or make it less painful than it would have been otherwise while at the same time, with the party already in power, it claims to avoid the need of a second revolution that would been needed if bourgeois democracy was either kept intact or developed in the first revolution. Davide King (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Carrer stats citations

Thanks for adding a reference for Kobe Bryant's stats tables. Another format alternative is what's at Elgin Baylor#NBA career statistics. Technically, the citation covers the whole table, not just a row or two. 99% of the bios don't have a citation for their tables, so there's not a standard, per se. This is FYI only. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2001–02 Washington Wizards season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doug Collins.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Chamberlain infobox

I restored some of the ibx highlights that you removed. I know the infobox is long for accomplished players. However, can you take this up at WT:NBA, so interested editors can discuss how to standardize the paring, when needed. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

LeBron 25-5-5

The source you cited for 25-5-5 only mentioned that he scored 25+ for a record 17 straight seasons.[1]. I kept that fact and removed the rest. There's a lot of combination of first's that he's undoubtedly achieved, but we should limit mention at least to ones other sources deemed worthy of mention in prose. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
Saluti da un tuo connazionale :D Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Calciopoli

Good morning. I read your sandbox about it, there are some observations:

1) The lead's last paragraph is not necesary being not directly related with it. Al least, it must written that Inter was the most benefit club with this case being its 2005-06 title altrough finished 3rd in that championship and the punishments to its direct competitors (Juventus and Milan) the base of its winning cycle in later 2000 and that Juventus since Calciopoli-bis in 2011 has appealed, without success for politic reasons, for the revisionism based in the art. 39 of Codice di Giustizia Sportiva (CGS) and the revocation of that title.

2) The name of Il Tirreno jornalist was Enzo Biagi, not "Biagio".

3) The 2006 SISMI-Telecom scandal is related with this case due the group that made the illegal industrial spying in both cases is the same: the Tiger Team leaded by Marco Tronchetti Provera, Inter shareholder (Biagi claims about it in his quote cited in the article).

4) Travaglio's claims are not reliave not being a sporting jornalist or a sports law expert and often are opposites with the trials' verdict (f.e. Oliviero Beha has written books about Italian football scandals since 1970s, including this, and he was not innocentista or colpevolista in his point of views about Calciopoli).

5) Ju29ro was composed by minority shareholders and was cited as source by some journals like Tuttosport and La Gazzetta dello Sport.

6) Despite the polarisation that this case generates in Italy and among those who believe in what they perceive from the mass media, the controversies about this case are essentially these:

  • That the sporting trial was held in just 2 weeks to the disadvantage of the defence although several sports law experts claimed that would have taken months to resolve the case including appeals and a potential appeal to TAS. In addition, the FIGC eliminated a degree of trial to favour the start of the 2006-07 championship which would otherwise have been postponed sine die.
  • That the ordinary/criminal trial would be held in Naples and not in Turin, although the latter having territorial jurisdiction.
  • That the audios which generated the Calciopoli-bis in 2011 were bought by Moggi after being abandoned in FIGC headquarters since 2006 and not used in the sporting trial.
  • That the Moggi and Giraudo's lifetime suspension was applied 6 months before the end of the initial 5-year suspension (politic reasons?).
  • That the 2005-06 title was assigned ad personam by Guido Rossi and not by the Lega Calcio and/or FIGC on the basis of a joint decision of the tre saggi (one of them abstained and the other against the re-assignation to other team).
  • That Milan was admitted to the 2006-07 Champions League despite UEFA's initial opposition because it had been sanctioned for this case.
  • That La Gazzetta dello Sport always known and published the verdicts prior being ufficially published the verdict in sporting and ordinary phase. (Imitation of Paul Octopus?).
  • The entire case and its verdicts have much loopholes.

7) Claims about Serie C as punishment for Juventus has not sense. The relegation is always for the inmediatly lower division according the Italian sports law for illecito sportivo. At juridic level only matters the verdict.

8) Only the 2004-05 Serie A was object of investigation in the sporting and ordinary trial, not the 2005-06 championship. For the sporting and ordinary trials there are not irregularities in that championship, for that claims about a presunt influence "above other championships" are dubbious at law level (for that it must be added the page of the Cassazione verdict and not an jornalistic article).

9) Juventus was relegated literally by illecito associativo according the sporting verdict (was regarded a frequent violation to art. 1 CGS that not existed until then was created ad hoc and regarded as a violation of art. 6). That terminology was introducted in the new CdS in 2006-07 season.

10) The prescrizione is more similar to hung jury that a true verdict (guilty-not guilty).

11) In an encyclopaedia it cannot be written something like "2005-06 scudetto" because that is not the title of the championship. Better if its written "2005-06 Serie A title/championship".--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian, first of all, thank you so much for your comments, corrections, and suggestions! I actually personally agree with pretty much all those points but I did not want to appear biased one way or another; I used many Juventus websites, but also La Gazzetta dello Sport, because the former include many uncontroversial facts about the trials, the rulings, documents, quotes, etc., and that for both I would properly attribute any opinion. As for Ju29ro, that is exactly my same reason for using it; it is a notable source of both uncontroversial facts and of criticism, and was cited by mainstreams newspapers (I only knew about Tuttosport; could you please add a link about La Gazzetta dello Sport using it as a source, so I could add it, too?), so I think it is due. As for the lead, I think it is important, as a summary of the body and of the events, to mention its aftermath both on the field, such as Inter Milan's dominance, Milan's controversy with UEFA, and Juventus' resurgence, and outside it, such as Caliopoli bis, "the peace table", and Juventus' appeals and damage claims, with the European Super League being a good conclusion, as the three rivals joined it in the project.
As for Travaglio, again, I actually agree, and while I personally disagree with his opinion that Moggi's wiretaps were much worse than Facchetti's and others, I think he is a notable supporter of the trials, so I mentioned him; however, if there is a source discussing "Travaglio's claims [being] not rel[...]a[ti]ve [...] [to] a sporting jo[u]rnalist or a sports law expert and often are opposites with the trials' verdict", I would be really curious to read it because I would definitely want to add it; I did know about Oliviero Beha (I personally agree with much of what he wrote), and I was planning to add him at Reaction. There is just so much more to add (an In popular culture section discussing terms like Farsopoli, scudetto degli onesti, prescritti, Rubentus, etc. and clarify in notes, the former of which in my view it is necessary and very important in explaining and clarifying the context (investigated games such as that between Juventus and Sampdoria being mentioned as won by Juventus, when it was actually won by Sampdoria, and I think with an offside goal, or that between Udinese and another team other than Juventus, in which it was alleged the referee gave yellow cards to some players, so they could miss the next game against Juventus, even though some, if not all, of the mentioned players did not actually miss the game or were not yellow carded, etc.), while letting the reader reach their own conclusion, how only two referees were found guilty regarding Moggi, and in general how the prosecutor's accuse got weaker and weaker (many allegations, such as matches alteration, referee-grid fixing, championship being altered, Paparesta being closed in the locker room, etc., were proven false, first Juventus and Moggi were on of the same, then Moggi actually acted independently of Juventus and for personal reasons, Moggi and Giraudo were one of the same, then they were separated during the criminal trials, etc.)
To still discuss and add, there is also the so-called sentimento popolare, which was actually mentioned in the CAF's ruling, and in my view it is very controversial, because the prosecutor, judge, or whoever wrote about it in the ruling or/and court motivations, interpreted certain statements, such as Carraro and others explicitly stating to not favour Juventus, as somehow proof that everyone knew Juventus was favoured (sic), even though I believe Carraro himself explaining the context was before game between Juventus and Inter Milan, which itself was before an important assembly, I think to elect the FIGC or Lega Serie A president; essentially, Carraro wanted to have no controversy in the match, and was adamant that any Juventus' favour would be widely discussed in the media (so much for Moggi controlling it), not that Juventus was actually favoured as the prosecutors claimed (in one note, I am planning to clarify and explain how Juventus is both the most beloved and hated club, how from the late 1970s to the early 2000s they were at the peak of European competition, had like three straight Champions League Finals in the late 1990s, were never investigated by UEFA or accused of cheating, and actually lost the Finals against Real Madrid due to an offside goal, and that in the past was always accused, without any actually evidence, "to cheat", just like any of the dominant domestic club, such as Real Madrid, Barcelona, etc. are accused of the same, and mainly by football fans, not by actual judges or courts, which never investigated the alleged claims because they are made without evidence, such as Turone's alleged goal and the contact between Ronaldo and Iuliano, which I already mentioned in one note). Essentially, Carraro was saying that, when in doubt, do not favour Juventus, i.e. to actually refereeing to Juventus' disadvantage, which in my view would be a borderline-straight Article 6 violation against Juventus; and that if not an Article 6 violation, it could be motivated the same way the courts motivated and justified the fact that no match was actually altered, i.e. sudditanza psicologica, yet another thing I plan to add. Carraro, the same person who stated that he could not relegate Moratti in the Passaportopoli scandal because Moratti had spend so much on Inter Milan to buy it, among other FIGC executives, were the ones saying that Lazio and Fiorentina "had to be saved" and not "go to Serie B".
Finally, I also plan to add a note about Lanese's wiretaps, because I have read that he was an admitted Milanista, so much so that he was jokingly referred to as Milanese. Is it true? If so, could you please link me a source mentioning or discussing this? Another thing is that I am pretty sure, as I mention in the text, that the Naples court did not consider at all the later developments because (1) they were there to judge the gravity of Moggi's actions as sentence by the previous ruling, and I suppose the defence's claim could not be used because , while Palazzi's deferimenti and charges were mostly confirmed by the courts, the allegations in his 2011 report could not be used because (1) they were not proven, as they were not taken to court, and (2) the statute of limitation. In short, I would like to know whether the 2015 ruling also ignored the 2011 developments for those same reasons, because if it is true, I would clarify in a note stating that the verdicts were essentially still based on the first phase, and did not take in consideration the other developments. Also, is there a reason why the trial was at Naples and not at Turin? Davide King (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
In principle, the article should not be included in the template, category and generic article about match-fixing because it confuses the reader, as there was no match-fixing in Calciopoli according to the verdicts in sporting and ordinary courts. Moreover, Italian sporting justice specifies what is it and its modalities, and this case does not apply to these, unlike, for example, the Totonero 1980 case. In reality Calciopoli was lobbying in favour of various rival teams influencing on referee designators. It is another type of corruption like the recent FIFA or UEFA scandals and should be linked through a new generic category containing at the same time the match-fixing category.
The Super League, proposed in the currently terms 15 years latter Calciopoli, is a totally separate case and is not sporting, but economic, which for Juventus and the Milanese clubs was substantially favourable to them, so it's not minimally related with the 2006 scandal.
The part referring to the statute of limitations should be clarified with a note explaining the time in a sports trial (~4 yrs from the beginning of it) and the ordinary trial (~7.5 yrs) and whether it can be waived or not.
In the verdicts of the sporting trials literally written illecito associativo, not i. strutturato. The latter was pointed out by the media.
The 2006-07 Serie A had the lowest share and stadium attendance in history, while the Serie B of that season had its zenith in both. There are articles about this on the scholar goo.gl.
You could add the point of view of Roberto Renga, Sconcerti, Oliviero Beha or even Roberto Beccantini about the scandal, who are not exactly innocentisti.[1][2]
From the section "in popular culture", the terms antijuventinismo/antijuventinità/antijuventino are not neologisms and all these were in use many years before the 2006 scandal (they have been in common use since 1975 if not before),[3] and on the Treccani website the sentence where antijuventino is written is from 2005, i.e. it's prior Calciopoli. Rubentus is not a recent term in these years: the only article in which that term was quoted in La Stampa is from 1985.[4] Finally, Farsopoli is not only used by Juventus fans, but by milanisti and/or antiinteristi in general.
  1. ^ Beccantini's interview (including some controversies of this scandal)
  2. ^ Beha's article and video
    Beha's it.WQ article (with sources)
  3. ^ Source for antijuventino, 19 dicembre 1975
  4. ^ Source for Rubentus, 10 novembre 1985

    5. --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

    P.D. gazzetta.it cites more than 20 times ju29ro website as source for its articles after a simply goo.gl research.


    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Godfather.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

    Notification on the revert of closed RfC

    Davide King, because consensus have been obviously achieved in this RfC and because you reverted my closure, unnecessarily delaying the inclusion of "authoritarianism" as a cause of the protests (as Alsee correctly pointed out), I notify to you that I am reporting this to Administrator's Incident Noticeboard for arbitrarion. Ajñavidya (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

    Cuba

    Hi. My edit summary wasn't directed at you, per se. Maybe I could have been a little less snarky. My apologies. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

    Davide King, just a word of advice, I know you're passionate about the Cuban protests, but it would be best if you could condense your thoughts in a few sentences or a short paragraph. It's quite difficult to respond to a WP:WALLOFTEXT. Also, I wasn't trying to accuse you of POV pushing or anything, it's just that I've never seen someone refer to a mainstream publication like the Economist as "fringe." It just seemed a bit odd to me. However, out of good faith, I will strike my comment. Best, Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, thanks for the understanding. I am sorry about that, I am just not good enough at summarize, although I will strive to improve. As for The Economist, I was not even referring to the actual newspaper (I thought it was obvious), I was only referring to the quoted claim ("the embargo has made life harder for the Cuban government. But its restrictions mainly hurt Americans ...", with no mention of Cuban people), and I also used fringe not as an insult but as Wikipedia:Fringe theories ("an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field"), or at best a minority view. Davide King (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

    A kitten for you!

    Just wanted to say your userpage is immensely satisfying. I have ADHD and Wikipedia user pages can be really difficult for me to read sometimes because of the visuals, but yours is stellar! Very accessible.

    ––FORMALDUDE(talk) 19:00, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–2021 Haitian protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blackwater.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

    Quotation marks and other punctuation

    Hi Davide King,

    This is just a brief note to thank you for your edits to Bloodlands and to bring to your attention MOS:LQ, which states that, in most cases, terminal punctuation should be placed outside quotation marks.

    Wallnot (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    You’ve continued to ignore MOS:LQ, as in this edit. The MOS is not optional, please stop intentionally violating its guidelines or I’ll refer this to WP:ANI. Wallnot (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wallnot, I was not able to follow the link until now because I misread you and actually thought you were thanking for them too and that I was doing the right thing. I always put punctuation outside quotation marks before but then I read that sentence-like phrasings should have it inside. The "logical punctuation" used "is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the original quoted material and in which the punctuation mark fits with the sense of the quotation, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks." I thought my edits fit this exception, or being more sentence-like. So can you please clarify this? Thank you and apologize for the inconvenience and misreading. Davide King (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Understood, sorry if that was harsh, I should’ve assumed good faith. The edit I linked above is quotation of a sentence fragment. MOS:LQ states: “If the quotation is a single word or a sentence fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside the closing quotation mark.”
    On the other hand, “when quoting a full sentence, the end of which coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark”. A good example is your edit here, which correctly applied MOS:LQ.
    Thanks, Wallnot (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wallnot, thanks and apologies again! As for this, the full stop is inside the sentence, as you can see here. Same thing for this; there is a full stop at end, but in this case we are both wrong because the actual quote in full is that "China's embassy in Afghanistan said on Saturday that Chinese citizens and organisations needed to take extra precautions and strengthen their emergency preparedness as the situation deteriorated." The country is not in the quote, so should not be in quotation marks and this removes any doubt about whether it should be inside or outside. So can you please clarify this? In cases like those, should it be inside or outside the quote marks? Thank you again for your clarification. Davide King (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    In both the examples you link, the quotation is not a full sentence, so the punctuation belongs outside the quotation marks. It does not matter that the period is there in the original quoted material; in order to place it inside the quotation marks, both of the following must be true: the punctuation must occur in that spot in the original, and the quoted excerpt must be a full sentence. The latter condition is not met in either of the examples you linked. Let me know if you need more clarification. Wallnot (talk) 01:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wallnot, thanks again, this was helpful. A full sentence would be something like this, by using colons. Historian Ellen Schrecker wrote: "McCarthyism did more damage to the constitution than the American Communist Party ever did." Or to be sure when the quotes itself contain at least one full stop, as it is a clear full sentence, like this: "In the Philippines, it is known as red-tagging. The word red in the phrase refers to the color that traditionally symbolized left-wing politics worldwide since the 19th century. The word baiting refers to persecution, torment, or harassment as in baiting." In those two examples, it is appropriate to have the full stop inside quote marks? Davide King (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    Exactly. And thank you for all the high value edits you make! I just wanted to point out one small thing you were missing. Wallnot (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

    Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism
    added a link pointing to Party line
    Double genocide theory
    added a link pointing to David Katz
    Moisei Uritsky
    added a link pointing to Statesman

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed them all. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

    Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/03/why-the-internet-in-cuba-has-become-a-us-political-hot-potato, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    Diannaa, my question is why you could not paraphrase it rather than just remove it? Davide King (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sometimes I do that, but usually not. It's not the responsibility of the patrolling admin to re-write the content. I check many potential violations each day and there's no time to re-write them all. Note I'm not done cleaning the article yet.— Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    I am stopping now. I don't think I will find anything further of consequence. The task is made a lot more difficult by the enormous number of quotations used in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

    Communism
    added a link pointing to Michael Henry
    Marxism–Leninism
    added a link pointing to Robert Service

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed them both. Davide King (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

    Nomination of Socialist (insult) for deletion

    A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socialist (insult) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

    The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socialist (insult) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

    Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

    Soman (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mao Zedong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese nationalist.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rudolph Rummel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Communist China.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nordic Model - Using inappropriate links, problem with WP:UNDUE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL

    Hi Davide, will you please stop linking to Welfare in Sweden, Welfare in Norway, etc., in the History section. Welfare is only one aspect of the Nordic Model; you also need to take into account democracy, neo-corporatism, and economics regarding tax structure. We need to discuss this and more. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    See my response here. Davide King (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    2nd revert

    I suggest you to quickly self-revert, because the MKuCR article is under 1RR. You may be blocked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Paul Siebert, thanks and okay, but can you please then revert back to the original version? As I understand it, when there is a discussion, the article should be reverted back to the last consensus version, so it should be reverted back to the original wording. Davide King (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    I am not going to play a tag-team edit war. Let the talk page discussion come to its logical end. Just self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

    Davide King

    why are you cheating? are you violating the neutrality of wikipedia?? i got to report you for lying!! if you not understand? perché tradisci? tu sta violando la sua neutralita nel wikipedia? perche stai metendo falsa informazione nel numero? tu credi che nessuno capicci il ruso? o vuoi che ti denunci per frode? Pokok134 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    What are you even talking about or referring to? Davide King (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1991 Russian presidential election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sverdlovsk.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

    A barnstar for you!

    The Teamwork Barnstar
    Great cooperation on the Icelandic election with you, myself, and Aryan Persaud - FellowMellow (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    @FellowMellow: @Davide King: Team work makes the dream work, haha. But I am a bit disappointed I didn't edit more, although I do suppose there's always tomorrow.. as I've seen there's still a lot of outstanding vote Aryan Persaud (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass killings under communist regimes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Comparative analysis.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 13:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

    Nomination of Victims of communism for deletion

    A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victims of communism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

    The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victims of communism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

    Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

    — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    Ce

    "But" is preceded by comma. A, B, C, D and E rather than A, B, C, D, and E. This is the correct ce to follow. Island92 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

    Island92, there is nothing wrong in using a comma. See Serial comma. Davide King (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    Ok, but on that occasion is a contrast. For example, I like Wikipedia, - but - I don't like YouTube. Island92 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    Then the issue is not A, B, C, D, and E or A, B, C, D and E; rather, the issue is A, B, C, D, and E, but or A, B, C, D and E, but. If the issue is the but, I have no problem with that. Davide King (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm totally used to reading as A, B, C, D and E. Many Formula One articles use this standard. According to my experience on this encyclopedia, since the day I created the account I've been reading more cases as A, B, C, D and E than A, B, C, D, and E. Island92 (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    You've included both cases again into the article. Ok.--Island92 (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    Libertarian Party of Canada

    Can you please respond on the linked talk page to what I have asked you here? Helper201 (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

    2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election
    added a link pointing to Them
    Angela Merkel
    added a link pointing to Christian Democratic Union

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed them both. Davide King (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Canadian federal election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ranked-choice voting.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 06:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

    Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro
    added a link pointing to Catch-all
    Social Democratic Party (Romania)
    added a link pointing to Catch-all

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed them both. Davide King (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    Important notice

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BastianMAT (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

    Más Madrid
    added a link pointing to Progressive
    The Left (North Macedonia)
    added a link pointing to Autocrat

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed them. Davide King (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

    Removing ideologies from infoboxs

    Hi, Davide King. I think you should take the topic of removing most political ideologies from party infoboxs to a general Wikipedia discussion before mass implementation across multiple Wikipedia pages. It has long been the general consensus to have more than one cited ideology in the infobox and I don't think this generally makes the infobox go beyond a summary unless the list is very large. Removing cited ideologies throws up a range of issues. Which should be removed and which shouldn't? How will you prevent mass edit wars of people arguing over what should and should not be included if more than one ideology can be cited? Who gets to decide which ideology is more justifiable to include in the infobox over another? etc. Helper201 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    Helper201, thanks for your comment and I understand that. But you also need to understand that most parties have a single ideology (of course, there are left-wing and right-wing factions that understand it a bit differently but we should not imply a party has a bunch of ideologies) and political scientists categorize them simply as socialist/social-democratic, liberal, conservative, left-wing/right-wing populist, so we should be doing the same. In the case of The Left, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, and antimilitarism are not only proper ideologies (they are opposition to something) but they are redundant and undue because academic sources do to not say The Left is an anti-fascist and antimilitarist party, they say The Left is a democratic socialist party, and we should be doing the same.
    This is a summary of the key facts. Its hardly a big or unwhedley edit. It doesn't overload the infobox or make it difficult to read so I don't see how it breaks any guidelines (note thise are guidelines, not hard rules). Also, I don't see how anti-cpaitalism is reducnt and I'd say antimilitarism is more an ieology than a policy This looks like your personal views, and while I agree on flexibility about policies and guidelines, ultimately we must follow and respect them. It is redundant because socialism is anti-capitalism (from the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, all socialists, including social democrats, are anti-capitalists insofar as criticism about "poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality, and a lack of economic security" is linked to the private ownership of the means of production). The onus is on you to show they are due for the infobox as key facts.
    As for your fear, we already have WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS to help us in categorizing the parties so that we can put its categorization as main ideology, and at least no more than three and proper ideologies, not any -isms. To answer your question, Who gets to decide which ideology is more justifiable to include in the infobox over another? — RS and weight do that for us. Clearly, you are not being helpful either in just reverting me. Finally, I reiterate that while I am pointing to policies and guidelines, your arguments simply boil down to this is what we currently do, even though it is a malpractice; therefore, the onus is on you to justify why their addition is an improvement or in line with our policies and guidelines; there has been no clear discussion about it to establish consensus either but they clearly violates weight. Davide King (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of social democracy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Hi Davide, thanks for all your great work on Czech politics articles recently, it has been appreciated. I was wondering one thing though.. you seem to have a dislike of piped links. What is your rationale for this? I'm thinking of examples like this:

    Which lead to rather unnatural repetitions of the phrase "Czech Republic". I've noticed this on quite a few articles, and I haven't changed them back because ultimately it's a very small issue, but I think it does slighly reduce the quality of the text, so I was wondering what your reason for doing it was? Jdcooper (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Jdcooper, thanks to you for your kind words and raising this issue. I suggest you to read WP:PIPED and MOS:NOPIPE, if you did not know about it. In your example, perhaps the issue is WP:OVERLINK. An alternative wording could be
    In November 2008, the Senate asked the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the constitution.
    vis-à-vis
    In November 2008, the Senate asked the Supreme Administrative Court to dissolve KSČM because of its political program, which the Senate argued contradicted the Constitution.
    While it may not be misleading links, and the article and context may make it clear that you are being linked to the Czech article, i.e. Constitution of the Czech Republic and not Constitution, it is still a piped link and at this point we are better off not linking, especially if we can link it elsewhere in the body. That is why I prefer to use the direct link, and now that I thought about it — to not link it at all in that section and link it elsewhere; in that specific case, I did not think about the latter possibility but it could be a solution. Davide King (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi, yes, Overlink is one thing, but natural style is another. If the articles in question haven't been linked above, we do need to link them. Thus, in the above sentence, this would be my suggestion:

    In this case "Czech Senate" should be a redirect to Senate of the Czech Republic (which is formal, rather than natural, phrasing). And writing the full title of the "Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic" seems to me unnatural and vaguely ridiculous. Which SAC do we imagine the readers think that means, if not the Czech one? From WP:PIPE: "Piped links are useful for preserving the grammatical structure and flow of a sentence when the wording of the exact link title does not fit in context." I would say that applies here. Jdcooper (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

    Notice of noticeboard discussion

    Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

    Hungarian Soviet Republic

    The user used sources from communist era writers. He also made fantastic claims, which are not supported by the sources. He elevated/highlighted sentences from the original context of his source, where it is enough to read and see the full context/ pages of his source which prove that his sentences are not represent the reality.

    The most stupid and misleading sentences can be found in the lead of the article.

    For example, the war with Czechoslovakia and the establishment of Slovak Soviet Republic is a caesura in the chain of events. He stated that Czech Serbo-French and Romanian armies occupied territories because they fought aganst communism. False. Béla kun and his comrades were POWs in Russia, when Serbo-French Romanian and Czech forces started to occupy the territories of the liberal/capitalist First Hungarian Republic led by Count Mihály Károlyi. So the capitalist/Liberal Hungary already lost around 75 % of its territory before the communist coup and creation of Svoiet Republic. So the territorial occupation of neighbouring countries did not start as a war against communism, but simply for for territorial gain/occupation against the capitalist First Hungarian Republic.

    He also stated that military officers supported the war. However they left the Red army (with their leader Aurel Stromfeld ) after the establishment of Slovak Soviet Republic. He also stated that everybody supported the communists, which is false, because the Communists government had no authority in the countriside, where the communist waged war against the people of the countryside, the so-called Red Terror (Hungary).He also failed to mention of the original name of the Republic, which is lost in the mistranslation.--Kandallok (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

    ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

    Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

    Mass killings under communist regimes

    Per the DSN protocol I'm notifying you about an ongoing Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes process. Cloud200 (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

    And AfD, excuse the abruptness of my interjections … an infectious topic that I plan to avoid in the near future :) You read 'tertiary' when I quizzed 'third party' in another comment, and that is what I meant, cheers, but with regard to that: I'm currently skipping through Karlsson & Schoenhals for the toothsome bits, yet noting it says is a 'report' and some indication it is intended or commissioned for a governmental body (Sweden); am I misconstruing the nature of this source? ~ cygnis insignis 17:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    cygnis insignis, I am not sure I understand what you are saying, so feel free to correct me if I misunderstood what you are arguing or pointing out — I cited that source not because it is best source (I do not think it is, which is the point of how a NPOV article about cannot been written, without OR/SYNTH issues) but because has been used in support of MKuCR and is a core source of the other; so they cannot dismiss what it actually says, which is contrasted with the way MKuCR is structured (this source only discusses not even three Communist regimes out of dozens but three very specific periods and leaders of three different Communist regimes, and like Valentino it does not imply communism was the cause of mass killing, as MKuCR falsely implies as either a fact or scholarly discourse/consensus, and the fact it dismisses both Courtois and Rummel, who have been cited as sources for keeping the article. When even the core source dismiss them, it is telling. Davide King (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    I ought to be be clearer, sorry, what you have said was persuasive in prompting the nomination. I had in mind to quibble about whether the nature of that report was primary, secondary and tertiary, no doubt there is better things we could be doing. ~ cygnis insignis 18:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    cygnis insignis, TFD may explain this — and all issues with MKuCR — better and more concisely than I could, but I would say that is, in fact, the only tertiary source about the topic and demonstrate how MKuCR fails NPOV, e.g. many authors who are discussed at MKuCR are not mentioned in the review, hence they are undue, and Courtois and Rummel are controversial not just for the estimates but their conclusions too.
    Karlsson further says: This research review does not claim to list all research on the communist regimes' crimes against humanity. Bearing in mind the large number of books written on Soviet communism in particular, and on the terror of the last decade in the West and in post-Soviet Eastern Europe, this would be an impossible task.1 Bearing in mind the controversial nature of the area of research, issues relating to the sociology and politics of science cannot be omitted from the analyses. ... Bearing in mind the charged nature of the subject, ... [explains why Courtois is controversial].
    You can check my analysis of sources here. If you are not aware of the article's more specific sourcing problems,2 which not related to notability but to NPOV and OR/SYNTH, This, and this other, well put argument by Siebert in regards to sourcing, disagreement about source type that is ignore by the 'Keep' side, etc.
    Notes
    1. Ironically, I consider this to be an argument for the topic's notability but deletion because it simply cannot be written as the 'Keep' side understand it and want it to be, certainly not in line with NPOV and our policies. If we simply cannot write an article that is NPOV, and without COAT, OR/SYNTH, and other issues, if we cannot agree to a solution after over a decade by now, the article simply should not exist until such issues have actually been solved or an agreement and consensus has been made among us to have it in the first place. Finally, I would argue that keeping the article is not only unhelpful but even harmful in giving the false impression that it is part of a scholarly discourse (it is why many 'Keep' side users do not understand our arguments) and a form of citogenesis.
    2. I know what what I linked to you may take you some time to read it (e.g. you may read mainly the sections I specifically linked by Siebert rather than everything, as that would be time consuming, and you can take all the necessary time to read what you find useful) but I really wish you do because I would like to hear your thoughts and because all discussions and issues must be contextualized; as I wrote in one of my comment, it is misleading to vote for 'Keep' because the article has many inline references and sources, as if we are crazy to think there are issues in the first place. Davide King (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Hah! I was tickled by the quotes. I had better say that I considered most of the concerns you outline before opening the AfD, but thank you for restating them. ~ cygnis insignis 19:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    The report was written at the request of Sweden's conservative government with the objective of "elucidating and informing on communism’s crimes against humanity."
    The researchers wrote, "The research review will then focus on the crimes against humanity committed by three communist regimes – the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. Each country and each criminal history is discussed individually.
    "Is it possible to say that crimes against humanity are or have been committed in countries like North Korea and Cuba? The question is worth some discussion in the light of the research that is available, but in this context focus will be placed firmly...the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia."
    The only notability is that the mass killings in each of the three countries are notable. The authors say, "There is, therefore, a great need for Swedish research on communist regimes’ crimes against humanity, and a great need to create the right conditions for this research. This research would benefit from taking a comparative approach, either focusing on comparing these criminal histories with each other, or with crimes against humanity perpetrated by other regimes in modern history." IOW, the topic does not exist in reliable sources. Even if it did, it would limited to three Communist leaders: Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot."
    The fact the review was written shows that the Right believes that socialism inevitably leads to mass murder. Chris Matthews for example said that if Bernie Sanders became President of the U.S., millionaires would be shot in Central Park. It's also an argument used against social welfare programs and other progressive policies.
    TFD (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    It is a point I found difficulty in emphasizing, but an elephant in the room. The title happens to be a kind of trope in chatter at commercially driven sites, I became aware of the page several years ago when it was linked from a subreddit. ~ cygnis insignis 16:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

    Restoration of efns

    Hey. I restored some WP:DUE material on MKuCR deleted by Nug but failed to restore the efns that followed the citations which he removed in a separate edit. I am unable to restore them now given the 1rr, and figured this might be of interest to you given you added most of the now restored material in the first place I believe. Would you be able to restore the efns?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

    Soviet famine of 1932-1933

    I see that you have changed "industrialisation" to "industrialization", but also changed "labor" to "labour". These are British vs. US English things, and you are moving them in opposite directions! JSYK Bruce leverett (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, Bruce leverett. I did that because I saw quotes using 'labour', and I went for Oxford English but then several quotes use the classical British English -sation, so maybe we should use British English? Davide King (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    The topic itself doesn't have an affinity to British or US, so the choice would normally be, "whoever chooses a version of English first, wins." (MOS:RETAIN) I would have to look at what's already in the article and perhaps at the history, haven't done that yet. It may be that there aren't a lot of places where it matters, and you can make the choice yourself. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

    The Daily Signal

    You were recently mentioned on The Daily Signal, and it's not pretty [2]. X-Editor (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

    X-Editor, I saw and read that as soon as Gråbergs Gråa Sång added it, but thanks for telling me in case I missed it. It is funny, really, because I have proposed the topic to be exactly about "victims of communism" narrative as summarized by Neumayer, and Courtois, Malia, and others' thesis' of communism and Marx as the main causes of mass killings. Of course, they are not going to like its structure or what reliable sources like Neumayer say about it. Davide King (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Haas.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

    Citation error

    I tried to insert the Africa check citation into the Mass killings under communist regimes article, but it currently gives a cite error because I'm not sure how the citation style of the article works. Would you mind fixing the error? X-Editor (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    Sure, X-Editor. Fixed it here. That was because the article use sfn citation style, while the other article from which you took the source used r citation style. The error was because you put the r citation style but no actual ref to make it work at 'Bibliography.' I hope this helped you. Davide King (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Davide King: Thanks! X-Editor (talk)

    Merry Christmas!

    I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

    Happy New Year

    Davide King,
    Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours!     ~~~~

    Thank you so much! Wishing you a most happy 2022! And thank for all your hard work and contributions around here. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joel Kovel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Productivist.

    (Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

    Fixed it. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Davide_King/Archive_4&oldid=1075153024"