Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 28 February 2010

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Ref flag

You may think that I was stalking you at the Red flag article, but I just went there from Red Holocaust to read on etymology of "red". But I stand by my assessment of your last addition of a joke there. It just does not fit the spirit of the rest of the article and, honestly, it looks like vandalism. (Igny (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

This example was taken from an academic book about Soviet popular culture and literature. I even left another example at the article talk page in case that someone objects.Biophys (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion is needed

I want to confirm whether Current Psychology a peer-reviewed journal or not. Sources say Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed academic journal. Founded and originally published by the Transaction Publishers, the journal is now published by the Springer Science+Business Media. According to SpringerLink, "from volume 1 (1981) to Volume 2 (1982), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research; as of Volume 3 (1984), the journal merged with Current Psychological Reviews; and from Volume 3 (1984) to Volume 6 (1987), this journal was published as Current Psychological Research & Reviews." The journal is subscribed by university libraries like the library of the University of South Alabama. But a discussion at Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Antisemitism discredit it. If it is discredited as RS, there will be problem because it is used as a major source in the draft User:Defender of torch/Communist antisemitism which I will take to the mainspace after some days. The reference is:

Louis Horowitz, Irving (December 3, 2007), "Cuba, Castro and Anti-Semitism" (PDF), Current Psychology, 26 (3–4): 183–190, doi:10.1007/s12144-007-9016-4, ISSN 0737-8262, OCLC 9460062

A discussion is going on in Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Current_Psychology. Your valuable opinion at the RSN will be much appreciated. Thank you. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Started the article Communist antisemitism. Please try to improve it if you have sources. Thanks! --Defender of torch (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded. You are very welcome.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Terrorists

I have a question. Why do you try to whitewash and dilute articles about terrorists and criminals? I know you have problems with Putin and the Russian government, but that doesn't mean you have to be an apologist to the other extreme. Removing well sourced info like in this edit and this is just bewildering to me. Who are you serving? Certainly not the wikipedia community. LokiiT (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see an extreme need to make changes this way or another. Your questions contain unfounded assumptions. I have good faith in other editors as long as their edits are within policy boundaries. --ilgiz (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think my assumptions are unfounded, but that's besides the point. Removing info from an article for the simple reason that you don't like it is disruptive. He doesn't even attempt to explain himself anymore. LokiiT (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • By "unfounded" I meant "formally unfounded". For example, you suggest that the editor has conflict of interests but do not offer evidence that he is formally involved with the events or people described in the article. Your only arguments are loaded questions, but this is shallow. As for removing, I could not figure which references and their rephrasing were removed as there were too many changes in the first link. The second link has a potentially libelous claim from a single source without much explanation. But since the target of the claim is a public figure, such claims may have a chance slightly above zero to remain. --ilgiz (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you mistook what I originally said. I'm not suggesting some conspiracy here. I would never accuse anyone on wikipedia of being part of some internet brigade or whatever. Such accusations would only make me look paranoid. Regarding the edits, you bring up some valid points worth discussing. And if Biophys had brought up those points himself, per wikipedia policy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. LokiiT (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• You said: "Why do you try to whitewash and dilute articles about terrorists and criminals?" and provided two diffs that you think support your assertion. First of all, the both segments are now included in the articles, and I did not object them to be included, because I do not care about minor issues in your diffs. Second, the personal opinion of non-notable criminal Bukhari Barayev (second diff) does not belong to BLP of another person, and it does not add any new information (it was already noted in the article that Berezovsky transferred ransoms to kidnappers based on his own words). Finally, the series of edits by IP (first diff) included a number of points which we might debate at article talk page.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• You said: "Who are you serving? Certainly not the wikipedia community.". Well, I am serving to humanity and knowledge, and wikipedia is only a part of this.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it's a minor issue to remove the specific crimes someone is wanted for from the intro, especially when they amount to murdering civilians. Like I said in my edit summary, "crime" is a very vague word. He's not merely an alleged car thief.

Was he convicted of the crimes? If he was, the specific crimes should be mentioned in introduction. But if he was not, but was only accused of crime, listing a long list of unproven crimes in introduction would be against WP:BLP policy.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• My main gripe is only that you don't explain all this in the first place. As for the IP edits, I originally reverted him blindly, and that was a mistake, but I later re-added the parts that weren't original research or just format fixes. Generally when anonymous IPs add original research or change words around to better fit a POV, it's grounds for a revert, especially in BLPs. And I haven't checked, but you might have re-added some of that original research in your last edit. LokiiT (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will check this later.Biophys (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact that he's wanted by authorities for alleged acts of terrorism etc. How does this info being in the intro go against WP:BLP? The policy states: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."LokiiT (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that a counter-example should be taken as a guide, but Kim Philby's article does not even mention that he was tried for high treason in 1952. My point is that a person's intro is his or her own profile, and accusations against Berezovsky in Putin's Russia do not mean much to be included into the intro. On the other hand, it is not that these accusations denigrate Berezovsky's personatlity. On the contrary, the state's multiple accusations only underline his position against the governors of the state. --ilgiz (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be worrying about how certain pieces of information might effect people's perceptions of the subject. Our job is just to present whatever important information there is, and let readers interpret it as they will. LokiiT (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Guys, please debate these questions at the article talk pages. LokiiT, I do not want to discuss anything with someone who asks me: "Na kogo rabotaesh', gnida?" as you did in the beginning of this thread. I consider this discussion closed.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss your edits with other editors, then I suggest you don't edit in the same articles as them. Also, once again, I wasn't accusing you of "working" for anybody. I meant in a moral sense, who are your edits to the benefit of? You, however, once accused me of working for the GRU, and yet I'm still trying to cooperate here. LokiiT (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am ready talk with anyone who follows WP:CIV. When and where did I blame you of such a thing? This is outrageous. Please provide supporting diffs.Biophys (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You posted it at User:Biophys/sock and deleted that page after my IP was confirmed by checkuser not to even be in Russia. I'm sure an admin could get that page back if necessary, I know I wasn't making this up when the page still existed. LokiiT (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Do not post sources of terrorists

Or should we start to post the casualties of the Talibian, claimed by them in Astan? No we don't do this. Cause your terroristic web-space is claiming a lot of s***. Do not provide anymore terroristic propaganda on wikipedia! Or should we start to post the things like this: "Mujahideen released a summary of military operations..." This claims are just ridiculous! And why you delete my contribute to your talk page  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saiga12 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It was not me who initially included this reference to Kavkaz Center. But I checked it and found fully consistent with our policies. It is common practice to indicate the losses as claimed by the respective combatants in the war/battle boxes. For example, the losses by Russian side are indicated as claimed by Russian side. But the same applies to any other side of the conflict. Kavkaz Center was an official site of the Chechen side during the wars.

Now about your edit in this article. I am sorry, but this is forgery. You refer to a source (whatever it is) and give numbers that the source claim to be wrong. This is something indeed inconsistent with out policies.Biophys (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)