User talk:Yakooza2
Capitalism[edit]
Please discuss before inserting incredbily contentious material into the lede. Soxwon (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I suppose anything not anti-capitalist is the norm and thus can bypass such a process?
- You just came up with more deaths than Stalin's goulags, the Holocaust, and Mao's Cultural revolution combined and used an extremely questionable source. Yeah, this is totally about a pro-capitalist bias... Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- While I would love to argue about how awesome the gulags were...
- The source I used is The Black Book of Capitalism. There is a number of articles which have the Black Book of Communism listed as a source. What is it that makes one more valid than the other?
- You just came up with more deaths than Stalin's goulags, the Holocaust, and Mao's Cultural revolution combined and used an extremely questionable source. Yeah, this is totally about a pro-capitalist bias... Soxwon (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- And I suppose anything not anti-capitalist is the norm and thus can bypass such a process?
- Why is it for you to judge whether my source is credible?
- The majority of the sources in the article on the Great Purge come from Robert Conquest, who I believe made ridiculous estimates, lied, and got his information from fascists.
- Am I allowed to rip apart the whole page because of this?
- That wasn't the the thrust of my arguement, you're using a number that is ridiculously inflated and incredibly contentious. Discuss it. Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- All I did was list a source that believes that 100 million deaths are caused by capitalism. How bout if it stated it something like this "Some believe that capitalism caused more deaths than communism, attributing it with over 100 million deaths." Its unbiased, neutral and this way, its the readers job to question the validity of the statement.
- Bring it up on the discussion page. Soxwon (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Too late, they banned me for some reason. Yakooza2 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently you are one Jacob Peters... Soxwon (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- What? I actually look nothing like this guy http://www.facebook.com/people/Jacob-Peters/721283243
- Apparently you are one Jacob Peters... Soxwon (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Too late, they banned me for some reason. Yakooza2 (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bring it up on the discussion page. Soxwon (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- All I did was list a source that believes that 100 million deaths are caused by capitalism. How bout if it stated it something like this "Some believe that capitalism caused more deaths than communism, attributing it with over 100 million deaths." Its unbiased, neutral and this way, its the readers job to question the validity of the statement.
- That wasn't the the thrust of my arguement, you're using a number that is ridiculously inflated and incredibly contentious. Discuss it. Soxwon (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality[edit]
Hi! I noticed your edits, and you appear to have come to Wikipedia to promote a specific point of view. I wanted to give you a friendly warning that Wikipedia's rules require us all to edit as neutrally as we can, without being swayed by our own opinions or points of view. Of course, that's often difficult to do- Wikipedia editors do our best to avoid pushing our own points of view into articles, no matter how strongly we believe in them, but users are blocked from editing every day because they aren't able to stay neutral. I'd hate for that to happen to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, you did it again- maybe you had already written your recent edit before you saw my message? I hope you'll be able to follow the neutral point of view policy. One good way to do so is to discuss major changes on the article talk page, and wait to make them until you see that you have consensus from other users. That works really well, even in articles in which everyone has a very strong opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I find the articles themselves already very biased. I am trying to introduce the other point of view. I never make assertions and use words such as "believe that" to show neutral-ness.
- All I did was state the facts. I don't say that drought was a factor in the Ukrainian famine, but that leftists believe it is...and then list the reason they believe so.
- Please look over the article on the Holodomor, the Great Purge, Stalin, etc. It is very biased itself.
- It quickly states that Stalin was a tyrant, a mass murderer, etc and shows only one side of history.
- The title "Denial of the Holodomor" itself is biased since it has negative connotations.
Yakooza2 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- if you will, go here and read my last post at the bottom of the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holodomor#Title.2FIntroduction_to_the_topic_is_very_biased